Check and mate, that's the issue. The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want. The courts are there to follow the letter of the law. What you want is a matter for the legislature.
Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?
- Thread starter RWHeathenGamer
- Start date
Check and mate, that's the issue. The law doesn't cover what you want, and the 14th doesn't cover what you want. The courts are there to follow the letter of the law. What you want is a matter for the legislature.
OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.
In this country it is.
Begging the question
BOTTOMLINE=GOD MAKES THE LAW!!!! God let go of them and let them do all these evil things, so that even their women turned against God’s natural plan for them and indulged in sex sin with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sex relationships with women, burned with lust for each other, men doing shameful things with other men and, as a result, getting paid within their own souls with the penalty they so richly deserved.They were fully aware of God’s death penalty for these crimes, yet they went right ahead and did them anyway and encouraged others to do them, too.Romans 1:26
So seriously, you think that government marriage = marriage?
I don't, not in any way at all.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
OMG, the supreme court said government marriage is a fundamental right? Why didn't you say so? Well, then it certainly must be one.
In this country it is.
Begging the question
I'm sorry, what question is the civilly man begging exactly?
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Changing a law based on what you want it the "letter of the law." LOL, that's ridiculous.
Give me another example of a law which changes based on what you "want."
You should google the logical fallacy called, "begging the question." Seriously, you're on a browser connected to the internet, did that not occur to you?
Show a single law that even mentioned "gay marriage."
Paul points out what happens when people reject the truths of the existence of the Creator, His creation and the roles that He has given men and women.
In Romans 1:26-27, Paul wrote: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
- See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Homosexuality
In Romans 1:26-27, Paul wrote: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
- See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Homosexuality
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,941
- 265
Interesting. Because the letter of the law in the most recent, Highest Ruling on gay marriage says that a state's broadest consensus is the ultimate "unquestioned authority" on who may or may not marry within its boundaries behavior vs behavior.
So, actually, those lower courts are in full contempt of the highest and most recent case law concerning gay marriage. No constitutional finding has been made at the highest level to determine if Windsor may or may not be overruled by lower courts.
Last edited:
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
I asked you this before. What does government have to do with morality? Do you really want government making the choice of what's moral and only allowing people to decide to do what government decides is moral?
I feel a lot safer with government out of morality. I don't have a problem with your having those views, though I don't agree with them. Gays aren't harming anyone. I don't grasp why God would make them gay then tell them to be miserable for the rest of their lives. But it's your view. It's your view that it's a job for government that I'm questioning.
When liberals agree with the Constitution, it's a sledge hammer. When they don't, it's toilet paper. When they agree with the majority, it's majority rule, when they don't, they run to the courts to overturn it. When they agree with the Supreme Court, it's game set and match, when they don't, it's a rogue, Conservative manipulated force.
Liberalism, it is a deceit, wrapped in a double standard, inside a hypocrisy.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,941
- 265
Actually, there WAS a constitutional finding in Windsor about gay marriage. Windsor said that a state's broad consensus was the appropriate way to determine if gay marriage was legal or not and that that determination was the "unquestioned authority" of that respective state. And they didn't stop there. They said in Windsor that that essential root power of the voters of each state stretched back to the founding of the country ...ready for this?.... "..in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".
That is a constitutional finding about gay marriage: states lowest and most common electors determine it by default, retroactive to the founding of the country. All lower court rulings are in defiance of that constitutional finding. And they soon will find out how pleased the US Supreme Court is with willfull misinterpretation of its Ruling. Those activist judges know precisely what Windsor said about states' voters' rights on the question of gay marriage. It's their job to sit bolt upright in their chair when they read the phrase "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" linked to any given subject they are currently reviewing.
They are practicing contempt. And if we allow them to do this, we have handed democracy over to a fascist rule and nothing short of it.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,941
- 265
The SCOTUS needs to act decisively here too: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-to-scotus-for-stay-that-includes-clerks.html
...because of snowballing sedition like this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html
...because of snowballing sedition like this: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...future-attempt-another-coup-on-democracy.html
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
>
For some that are unfamiliar with SIL's not taking the Windsor decision in totality and his/her attempt to take snippets of stare decisis out of context and try to convince him/her-self that it is dicta, let's review what the Windsor decision actually said...
Windsor was ONLY a decision regarding whether the Federal government could discriminate against legal Same-sex Civil Marriages (SSCM) entered into under state law. Windsor recognized as legal all State sanctioned SSCM's entered into whether the State recognized them do to judicial action, legislative action, or electoral action.
From the Majority Opinion:
And as the Chief Justice wrote:
Now lets provide the context of the quote "unquestioned authority". Since that quote only appears in one place here it is:
Now anyone with common sense can read that out of context quote of "unquestioned authority" and understand that the SCOTUS is saying that States have the unquestioned authority to recognize SSCM and that if they do, that the Federal government does not have the authority to not equally recognize those SSCMs.
Ready for this? Here is the quote in context:
Read in context the court says that State don't have "unquestioned authority", that State actions are limited by "constitutional guarantees". And contrary to what some may claim that homosexuals don't have constitutional guarantees because of their actions, the above two quotes show that to be incorrect as they cite two SCOTUS decisions where the decision was based on the 14th Amendment in favor of protecting homosexuals.
No it wasn't, it was a decision about if the States say "Yes" to SSCM can the Federal government say "No". Windsor said they couldn't. It didn't address whether States could discriminate against same-sex in the area of SSCM, that will take another case.
One that will arrive at the SCOTUS door step next term.
>>>>
For some that are unfamiliar with SIL's not taking the Windsor decision in totality and his/her attempt to take snippets of stare decisis out of context and try to convince him/her-self that it is dicta, let's review what the Windsor decision actually said...
Windsor was ONLY a decision regarding whether the Federal government could discriminate against legal Same-sex Civil Marriages (SSCM) entered into under state law. Windsor recognized as legal all State sanctioned SSCM's entered into whether the State recognized them do to judicial action, legislative action, or electoral action.
From the Majority Opinion:
"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered."
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered."
And as the Chief Justice wrote:
"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, andvthe logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, andvthe logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"
Now lets provide the context of the quote "unquestioned authority". Since that quote only appears in one place here it is:
"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal
Government. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe
, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of
equality “must at the very least mean that a bare con-
gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528,
534–535 (1973). In determining whether a law is
motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ ‘[d]iscriminations
of an unusual character’” especially require careful
consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra,
at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles.
The responsibility of the States for the regulation of
domestic relations is an important indicator of the
substantial societal impact the State’s classifications
have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s
unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing
and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates
to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and
responsibilities that come with the federal recognition
of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having
the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here
in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate
status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex
marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority
of the States.
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal
Government. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe
, 347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of
equality “must at the very least mean that a bare con-
gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Depart*ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528,
534–535 (1973). In determining whether a law is
motived by an improper animus or purpose, “ ‘[d]iscriminations
of an unusual character’” especially require careful
consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra,
at 633). DOMA cannot survive under these principles.
The responsibility of the States for the regulation of
domestic relations is an important indicator of the
substantial societal impact the State’s classifications
have in the daily lives and customs of its people. DOMA’s
unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing
and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates
to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and
responsibilities that come with the federal recognition
of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having
the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.
The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here
in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate
status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex
marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority
of the States.
Now anyone with common sense can read that out of context quote of "unquestioned authority" and understand that the SCOTUS is saying that States have the unquestioned authority to recognize SSCM and that if they do, that the Federal government does not have the authority to not equally recognize those SSCMs.
Ready for this? Here is the quote in context:
In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex
marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of
those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their
own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011)
(slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper
exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system,
all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.
The dynamics of state government in the federal system are
to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the
members of a discrete community treat each other in their
daily contact and constant interaction with each other.
The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees,
stems from the understanding that marriage is more than
a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory
benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two
adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the
State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond
that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558,
567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex
marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by
authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages,
New York sought to give further protection and dignity to
that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married,
the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful
status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment
of the intimate relationship between two people, a
relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the
community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both
the community’s considered perspective on the historical
roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving
understanding of the meaning of equality.
marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of
those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their
own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011)
(slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper
exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system,
all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.
The dynamics of state government in the federal system are
to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the
members of a discrete community treat each other in their
daily contact and constant interaction with each other.
The States’ interest in defining and regulating the
marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees,
stems from the understanding that marriage is more than
a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory
benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two
adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the
State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond
that is more enduring.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558,
567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex
marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by
authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages,
New York sought to give further protection and dignity to
that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married,
the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful
status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment
of the intimate relationship between two people, a
relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the
community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both
the community’s considered perspective on the historical
roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving
understanding of the meaning of equality.
Read in context the court says that State don't have "unquestioned authority", that State actions are limited by "constitutional guarantees". And contrary to what some may claim that homosexuals don't have constitutional guarantees because of their actions, the above two quotes show that to be incorrect as they cite two SCOTUS decisions where the decision was based on the 14th Amendment in favor of protecting homosexuals.
No it wasn't, it was a decision about if the States say "Yes" to SSCM can the Federal government say "No". Windsor said they couldn't. It didn't address whether States could discriminate against same-sex in the area of SSCM, that will take another case.
One that will arrive at the SCOTUS door step next term.
>>>>
Last edited:
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,941
- 265
There are a couple of problems with your conclusions.
1. Why did SCOTUS in Windsor go to great lengths to discuss gay marriage as a new and weird concept and one that a broad swath should be able to deliberate and weigh in on "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended"?
A: If they were just interested in narrowing the discussion to just whether or not a state had approved of it "by whichever means", they would have left those rather lengthy and reiterated points out of the discussion.
2. The question of whether or not judicial activism is "legal" or dominant to a broad-swath public weigh-in [vote in many states] is still up for grabs. You may have heard that that is being appealed by several states as we sit here debating this?
A: Again, in Windsor SCOTUS went into great detail how it felt about having all the citizens of a given "discreet community" [a state's voters in other words] weigh in on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in each state's "unquestioned authority" on the matter.
So then the dissolution of law will come down to how laws are made in the different states that are appealing the seditious judicial activists' proclamations in violation of Windsor's intent. If they are made, as in CA's case, by initiative referendum, then those initiatives are legal. And, Windsor added oddly also [in defiance of your "narrow decision" conclusions above] that those voter choices/laws are binding retroactive to the founding of the country.
Might want to go back and read more than just the cherry picked text you posted... Try pages 14-22 of the Opinion... United States v. Windsor
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
I have read the FULL decision in context and as anyone that has read it can see - the decision doesn't do what you claim.
It's pretty funny, you take a couple of snippet's out of context and when I provide the full text of what the court actually said - and it isn't what you claimed - you say that I've "cherry picked it".
Face it SIL, Windsor was not a ruling on whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples - it's only impact was to show that the government (in this case the federal government) had no reason to discriminate against homosexuals. Whether States can discriminate against them will be determined by a later case. One likely to arrive in the next term that begins in October.
Windsor didn't settle the SS Civil Marriage issue, that will be a future case.
>>>>
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Commies...where are you personally with your hopes of your communist utopia dreams?- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Americans Dying For Israel Is Not In Americas Best Interests- Started by skews13
- Replies: 16
