SCOTUS divided over SSM

[RKMBrown]

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

 

[Skylar]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

Then create a separate contract for same sex people and don't call it marriage.

Why when marriage works well already and gays and lesbians have a right to it. Just like any other American.

'Separate but equal' doesn't have a very good historical record. As the reasons for the separation isn't to demonstrate equality. But the lack of it.

Oh wait, that was tried, and the SSM people want acceptance, not just equality.

Even many conservative states rejected your 'separate but equal' solution. Refusing to recognize civil unions from other states and refusing to allow them to be performed within their own.

And of course marriage itself would be equality.

The rational reason is that SSM was never considered when the original contract was written up, thus you have to change the contract the same way it was made, via legislative action.

What 'rational reason' are you referring to? And considered by whom? You're kinda doubling down on passive voice.

 

[Pop23]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Gay marriage would preclude straights from marriage to other straights of the same sex. That would be actual discrimination if SSM passes the ussc.

Gays have married for centuries.

When marriage was only between the opposites genders, the state could make an argument that a prohibition on sibling marriage was appropriate. Since the law now changes, the only argument that makes sense is opposite sex siblings should be prohibited.

Can you say discrimination?

I knew you could.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then create a separate contract for same sex people and don't call it marriage. Oh wait, that was tried, and the SSM people want acceptance, not just equality.

SSCM supporters are not the once that slammed the door on that one, it was social authoritarians working to pass bans. Such as the one below that banned not only Civil Marriage for same-sex couples but also banned equivalent "contracts", i.e. Civil Unions.

Personally I though Civil Unions as a fine adea as an intermediate step.

​

Section 15-A. Marriage.​

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Whats the old saying "You reap what you sow."


>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The 14th A was never meant to govern private business conduct. I dont think it was meant to govern state and local governments either.
Segregation would have died out on its own anyway, certainly in the private world. Discrimination is expensive. Few businesses can afford to write off whole segments of customers.

I disagree that the 14th was never intended to apply to State governments (which flows to local governments, as home rule is dictated by State constitutions). As for businesses, due to the pervasive nature of Jim Crow, I can understand the over-reaction, even if I don't condone it. Its continuance, however is no longer needed.

Its all a moot point. As the laws in question are state laws.

All States have this equivalent: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[Skylar]

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The 14th A was never meant to govern private business conduct. I dont think it was meant to govern state and local governments either.
Segregation would have died out on its own anyway, certainly in the private world. Discrimination is expensive. Few businesses can afford to write off whole segments of customers.

I disagree that the 14th was never intended to apply to State governments (which flows to local governments, as home rule is dictated by State constitutions). As for businesses, due to the pervasive nature of Jim Crow, I can understand the over-reaction, even if I don't condone it. Its continuance, however is no longer needed.

Its all a moot point. As the laws in question are state laws.

All States have this equivalent: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

True enough. But in a debate on the application of 14th amendment upon the states, the fact that these are State laws makes the entire debate pointless. The 14th amendment could cease to exist. And State laws regarding intra state commerce still apply.

 

[danielpalos]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The 14th A was never meant to govern private business conduct. I dont think it was meant to govern state and local governments either.
Segregation would have died out on its own anyway, certainly in the private world. Discrimination is expensive. Few businesses can afford to write off whole segments of customers.

I disagree that the 14th was never intended to apply to State governments (which flows to local governments, as home rule is dictated by State constitutions). As for businesses, due to the pervasive nature of Jim Crow, I can understand the over-reaction, even if I don't condone it. Its continuance, however is no longer needed.

Its all a moot point. As the laws in question are state laws.

All States have this equivalent: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

True enough. But in a debate on the application of 14th amendment upon the states, the fact that these are State laws makes the entire debate pointless. The 14th amendment could cease to exist. And State laws regarding intra state commerce still apply.

Yes, as does Article 4, Section 2 should there be any need to quibble in federal venues.

 

[Pop23]

Then create a separate contract for same sex people and don't call it marriage. Oh wait, that was tried, and the SSM people want acceptance, not just equality.

SSCM supporters are not the once that slammed the door on that one, it was social authoritarians working to pass bans. Such as the one below that banned not only Civil Marriage for same-sex couples but also banned equivalent "contracts", i.e. Civil Unions.

Personally I though Civil Unions as a fine adea as an intermediate step.

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Whats the old saying "You reap what you sow."


>>>>

My favorite is "Hope that doesn't come back to bite you in the butt"

Both sides should heed the above.

 

[RKMBrown]

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Gay marriage would preclude straights from marriage to other straights of the same sex. That would be actual discrimination if SSM passes the ussc.

Gays have married for centuries.

Incorrect. But good try.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

Again, in your subjective, errant opinion – not as a fact of law.

The notion that the Supreme Court “has been overstepping its bounds” is ignorant and devoid of merit.

Hysterical. Like your opinion is not subjective, ignorant and devoid of merit.

it's the progressive mindset, their opinions are "right" and thus have merit, and other people's opinions don't. Its a combination of arrogance and moral cowardice.

Or it's using actual precedent and case law upon which to base the opinion. The anti gay marriage crowd has ONLY their opinion.

Thats hysterical. The precedent for 2000years is that marriage is between one man and one woman. The USSC even mentioned this in oral arguments.
The precedent for 200 years is that states have the power to set terms for marriage.
Loving affirmed that states set the terms of marriage within certain confines.
Windsor affirmed that finding.
It is the gheys who want to overturn precedent and case law.

Homosexuals are arguing for their right to marriage- just as the Lovings did.

It is up to the Supreme Court- just as in the case of Loving- to decide whether this is a Constitutional matter.

You homophobes just want to deny gays the same right to appeal to the courts that the Lovings had.

 

[Syriusly]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

 

[Syriusly]

Not everywhere. Many states actively discriminate against plural marriage. But let's not deflect to plural marriages, that's another issue. Similar but different.

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

Nonsense. Banning plural marriage was the slippery slope to banning other liberties.. see how that works? Or is it that you don't mind slippery slopes that take liberties away, it's just going back up hill to regain liberty that you are against?

Sooner or later the people supporting this will decide it isn't enough to just get married, they need to get married in the church they want to,.

It hasn't happened in the last 50 years- no reason why it would suddenly happen now.

Churches have not ever been required to not discriminate- and never will- just a strawman paraded around by those who don't have a decent argument against gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. BANNING IT FOR SAME SEX PEOPLE IS THE NEW THING. Before it was illegal just to be gay there was no need to ban gay marriage cause being gay was illegal.

There are no bans on same sex marriage. Never have been.

Laws were passed to specifically prohibit same sex marriage- such as Georgia's

(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]

 

[RKMBrown]

All the logic SSM supporters apply to SSM apply to plural marriage, but they know that one is less of a gimmie, so they deflect.

Nonsense. I support plural marriage and SSM. Yes the same logic applies to both. However, you are the one deflecting to it as a slippery slope argument.

by supporting both you actually PROVE the slippery slope argument.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

Bullcrap. The left is only about the rights they think are acceptable, and forcing their morality on everyone else. You are the new Moral Majority, just as busy body, just as annoying, and now you added using courts to getting what you want.

Yeah- because it was the left who passed laws specifically to prohibit gay marriage....not Conservatives.

Actually both the left and right have passed laws to prohibit gay marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

 

[RKMBrown]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

 

[The Rabbi]

you may have missed the moral point.

There is no slippery slope argument; except for the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right.

The left knows it is about our evolving civil rights arising from natural rights and Individual Liberty.

You keep stating "the infidel, protestant, and renegade Right." As if that means something. It doesn't mean a thing. It just makes you sound ... really odd.

I know we disagree vehemently on this issue, but FYI danielpalos is a complete idiot, one of those guys who spouts stuff just to make himself seem smart."

He's either really really dumb, or a troll.

I don't disagree with you vehemently. Matter of fact just 8years back I held your opinion to the letter. My opinion changed.

For example, would you be ok with states being able to decide on the issue of Jim Crow laws? If no where would you have stood on that issue back in the 60s? Times change.

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

"Liberty"?? You're kidding, right? LAst I checked gays had exactly the same amount of liberty as anyone else here. Maybe more actually.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

 

[RKMBrown]

The good is establishing liberty for gays. Forcing gays to move to gay friendly states that is fine for something like say growing and smoking weed, but it's not fine IMO for basic fundamental liberties like marriage.

Gays can and have married in all 50 states.

This is about SSM, not gay marriage.

What's the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

Seriously?

Yes. Enlighten me, what is the difference between Same Sex Marriage (SSM) and Gay Marriage?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage."

If you say that 3 times and click your heals you'll be back home in the 50s.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, because that was the actual intent of the 14th amendment, and those laws were government enforcement on public services and private businesses. Plus, the whole Jim Crow mess was CAUSED by courts deciding to ignore the 14th amendment, which is just the other side of the same coin when courts USE the 14th amendment to justify something that is clearly not in the federal domain.

My issue is that as a strict constructional federalist, I cannot see the good in a court forcing SSM on a State that doesn't want to issue it.

Jim Crow was government using the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws use the force of law to withhold rights from a target group.

Our marriage laws provide certain legal protections in the form of an array of cash and prizes to married people. But those cash and prizes are withheld from one group of married people for no other reason than that group is hated.

"We've always oppressed these people" has been the excuse of every bigot for continuing the practice in the name of "tradition", whether that tradition be slavery or Jim Crow or anti-SSM.

Since no rational reason can be provided for withholding equal protection of the laws for this group, then that equal protection must be finally established. It is their right, and you cannot continue to vote away rights just because you have been allowed to do so until now. No more than you can vote in Jim Crow laws just because you were allowed to do so in the past.

blahblah Yea yeah, gays are really Negroes from the 1960s yeah yeah. Same ole argument. Same ole fail.

Yeah those negroes should be put back in their place along with the fags huh? ROLLS EYES

You understgand that the equation of "gays=Negroes c.1960" is simply wrong for any number of reasons, right?