Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Seawytch]

Come on conservatives, stop wasting time with repealing the ACA, get to repealing Public Accommodation laws. It seems to be a popular proposition...here.

So you're done with the affirmation of the states right to decide ?

What are you talking about?

 

[OODA_Loop]

And again, the constitutionality of state anti gay marriage laws has not been ruled upon. Yes, a state may define laws...if the don't violate the constitution. Whether they violate the Constitution has not been decided by the SCOTUS yet.

Again the majority affirmed the states right to decide.

They gonna come nack next year and undo what they ruled on ?

Don't think so.

You are mistaken. Whether anti gay marriage laws violate the US Constitution has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS. A state law cannot violate the Constitution. Seriously, look it up.

Have you read the decision ?

The words I posted from the Huffington Post ?

It is a state decision.

 

[Seawytch]

Sure they did.


On Wednesday, the court’s majority ruled that the power of the individual state in defining marriage "is of central relevance" and the decision to grant same-sex couples the right to marry is "of immense import." The state, the court ruled, "used its historic and essential authority to define the marital relation in this way, its role and its power in making the decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection of the class in their own community."

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

The court may have learned a lesson from Roe V Wade about making sweeping social decisions for the entire country at once.

Guidance for the federal government to simply butt-out of the social issues and let the states decide is a long time coming.

Why from Roe and not Loving v Virginia? I mean they REALLY went against popular opinion ruling on THAT social issue. 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage at the time. They made a sweeping decision opposed by 70% of the entire country, not just a few states...that turned out okay now didnt it?

 

[Seawytch]

Again the majority affirmed the states right to decide.

They gonna come nack next year and undo what they ruled on ?

Don't think so.

You are mistaken. Whether anti gay marriage laws violate the US Constitution has not yet been determined by the SCOTUS. A state law cannot violate the Constitution. Seriously, look it up.

Have you read the decision ?

The words I posted from the Huffington Post ?

It is a state decision.

Apparently you're simply not going to get it until the next SCOTUS case. I can't seem to make you understand.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

But not for long.

Provided the federal government recognizes a same-sex couple married in Boston when they file their taxes and apply for retirement in Miami, what difference does it make?

(For those not familiar, the blue-hairs in Florida managed to ban gay marriage a few years ago.)

 

[OODA_Loop]

Apparently you're simply not going to get it until the next SCOTUS case. I can't seem to make you understand.

So SCOTUS affirms the state right this year and comes back and unafffirms it next year ?

Why didn't they just do it now and create bullet proof standing for the future?

 

[Seawytch]

Gay marriage is against my State Constitution

But not for long.

Provided the federal government recognizes a same-sex couple married in Boston when they file their taxes and apply for retirement in Miami, what difference does it make?

(For those not familiar, the blue-hairs in Florida managed to ban gay marriage a few years ago.)

Because there are state marriage laws. Until the repeal of the unconstitutional DOMA section 2, the state of Florida does not have to recognize my legal marriage as it does yours, setting up an unmanageable legal patchwork.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm sure that delightful spin you put on it makes you feel better, but the constitutionality of gay marriage bans have NOT been ruled on by the SCOTUS. They could have, but they chose not to rule on Prop 8.

There could be a challenge by the next SCOTUS session.

The court may have learned a lesson from Roe V Wade about making sweeping social decisions for the entire country at once.

Guidance for the federal government to simply butt-out of the social issues and let the states decide is a long time coming.

Why from Roe and not Loving v Virginia? I mean they REALLY went against popular opinion ruling on THAT social issue. 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage at the time. They made a sweeping decision opposed by 70% of the entire country, not just a few states...that turned out okay now didnt it?

True. And at the time it was needed. I find it hard to believe that 70% of Americans were as vocally opposed to interracial marriage as the current 30% bitches about gay marriage.

It's a good question and it appears that there are no sweeping generalizations to be made.

I'm so looking forward to the end of the American Civil War.

 

[Seawytch]

Apparently you're simply not going to get it until the next SCOTUS case. I can't seem to make you understand.

So SCOTUS affirms the state right this year and comes back and unafffirms it next year ?

Why didn't they just do it now and create bullet proof standing for the future?

I'll try to make it as simple as I can. The SCOTUS affirmed that states can make laws, including those regarding marriage....unless those laws violate the Constitution.

No question has yet come before the Supreme Court (okay, that they chose to hear) that challenges whether or not anti gay marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

Understand now?

 

[AVG-JOE]

But not for long.

Provided the federal government recognizes a same-sex couple married in Boston when they file their taxes and apply for retirement in Miami, what difference does it make?

(For those not familiar, the blue-hairs in Florida managed to ban gay marriage a few years ago.)

Because there are state marriage laws. Until the repeal of the unconstitutional DOMA section 2, the state of Florida does not have to recognize my legal marriage as it does yours, setting up an unmanageable legal patchwork.

That's why the end of DOMA is so great! What's going to be funny here is when gay couples start taking advantage of a married status when collecting federal benefits and also take full advantage of state benefits as co-habiting singles.

Conservative concern for 'their' tax dollars going toward survivor benefits for a gay family or towards an abortion for a low-income woman is getting sillier and sillier with every passing year.

 

[Seawytch]

The court may have learned a lesson from Roe V Wade about making sweeping social decisions for the entire country at once.

Guidance for the federal government to simply butt-out of the social issues and let the states decide is a long time coming.

Why from Roe and not Loving v Virginia? I mean they REALLY went against popular opinion ruling on THAT social issue. 70% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage at the time. They made a sweeping decision opposed by 70% of the entire country, not just a few states...that turned out okay now didnt it?

True. And at the time it was needed. I find it hard to believe that 70% of Americans were as vocally opposed to interracial marriage as the current 30% bitches about gay marriage.

It's a good question and it appears that there are no sweeping generalizations to be made.

I'm so looking forward to the end of the American Civil War.

Roe is simply not analogous. Nobody likes abortion, but most people want Roe left alone.

Take a look at some polls.

See where it gained popular support?

Now look at same sex marriage support.

So, should we have left interracial marriage for the states to decide?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Apparently you're simply not going to get it until the next SCOTUS case. I can't seem to make you understand.

So SCOTUS affirms the state right this year and comes back and unafffirms it next year ?

Why didn't they just do it now and create bullet proof standing for the future?

I'll try to make it as simple as I can. The SCOTUS affirmed that states can make laws, including those regarding marriage....unless those laws violate the Constitution.

No question has yet come before the Supreme Court (okay, that they chose to hear) that challenges whether or not anti gay marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

Understand now?

Yes I do understand.

SCOTUS in its majority affirmed it is the State's right. They could have based their opinion that is wasn't a state right at all but a Constitutionally protected class.

Much like Heller was a suit about issuance of a gun permits. The affirmation was based on the individual right to bear arms.

 

[Seawytch]

Loving v Virginia was decided in 1965, BTW.

 

[Seawytch]

So SCOTUS affirms the state right this year and comes back and unafffirms it next year ?

Why didn't they just do it now and create bullet proof standing for the future?

I'll try to make it as simple as I can. The SCOTUS affirmed that states can make laws, including those regarding marriage....unless those laws violate the Constitution.

No question has yet come before the Supreme Court (okay, that they chose to hear) that challenges whether or not anti gay marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

Understand now?

Yes I do understand.

SCOTUS in its majority affirmed it is the State's right. They could have based their opinion that is wasn't a state right at all but a Constitutionally protected class.

Much like Heller was a suit about issuance of a gun permits. The affirmation was based on the individual right to bear arms.

That wasn't the case they chose to hear. That wasn't a question in the DOMA case so they can't rule on it. Clear NOW?

 

[OODA_Loop]

That wasn't the case they chose to hear. That wasn't a question in the DOMA case so they can't rule on it. Clear NOW?

They based it on the affirmation of other Constitutional rights in their decision.

Clear NOW ?

 

[Seawytch]

That wasn't the case they chose to hear. That wasn't a question in the DOMA case so they can't rule on it. Clear NOW?

They based it on the affirmation of other Constitutional rights in their decision.

Clear NOW ?

Just say no, you don't understand because you apparently won't until the next SCOTUS case. It won't be long, they're working their way through the system. I expect it to come from Utah or Pennsylvania.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Just say no, you don't understand because you apparently won't until the next SCOTUS case. It won't be long, they're working their way through the system. I expect it to come from Utah or Pennsylvania.

So SCOTUS comes back and says "Oops not a states right ?"

 

[Seawytch]

Just say no, you don't understand because you apparently won't until the next SCOTUS case. It won't be long, they're working their way through the system. I expect it to come from Utah or Pennsylvania.

So SCOTUS comes back and says "Oops not a states right ?"

Whether anti gay marriage laws violate the US Constitution was not a question in DOMA so they could not rule on whether those laws are Constitutional.

States rights don't trump the Constitution, as was found in the Heller case you so helpfully supplied. The DOMA case was completely unrelated to any state's anti gay marriage laws and whether they were Constitutional so the SCOTUS could not make such a determination in that case. You are mistaken in what you think the DOMA ruling means in your state.

 

[OODA_Loop]

States rights don't trump the Constitution, as was found in the Heller case you so helpfully supplied. The DOMA case was completely unrelated to any state's anti gay marriage laws and whether they were Constitutional so the SCOTUS could not make such a determination in that case. You are mistaken in what you think the DOMA ruling means in your state.

Heller was regarding a state / municipality could deny permits to lawful, eligible applicants.

SCOTUS ruled they couldn't

Based on the affirmation that the right was individual. Thus affirming the 2A individual right free militia connection in its decision.

SCOTUS did the same thing w/ DOMA.

Affirmation of states right. Shall I post the language from the majority again ?

 

[Seawytch]

States rights don't trump the Constitution, as was found in the Heller case you so helpfully supplied. The DOMA case was completely unrelated to any state's anti gay marriage laws and whether they were Constitutional so the SCOTUS could not make such a determination in that case. You are mistaken in what you think the DOMA ruling means in your state.

Heller was regarding a state / municipality could deny permits to lawful, eligible applicants.

SCOTUS ruled they couldn't

Based on the affirmation that the right was individual. Thus affirming the 2A individual right free militia connection in its decision.

SCOTUS did the same thing w/ DOMA.

Affirmation of states right. Shall I post the language from the majority again ?

I give up. You just don't get it and aren't going to get it until the SCOTUS hears the first challenge. Who knows, maybe it will even be a challenge to your state's law.