Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.
.

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox.

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.

Is your mailbox a person?

The only difference between Jack and Jill being married and Jack and Bill being married is the gender of Jill and Bill.

What gender is your mailbox?

 

[Boss]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

As I correctly stated, there are two ways the laws can be changed. Congressional Acts and Constitutional Amendments. Those opposed to gay marriage have already passed the first Act. They are considerably closer in numbers to being able to pass an Amendment. The gay marriage lobby can't even get a majority vote in either house of Congress.

The Supreme Court has already said that Congress cannot tell States how to regulate marriage.

They are further and further away from ever being able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban same gender marriage.

Same gender marriage proponents don't need a majority vote in Congress- any more than the proponents of marriage of mixed race couples need a majority vote in Congress- 31 states its legal. Likely to be 10 more within a year.

I'm sorry you were educated in such a poor manner that you believe SCOTUS has final say. I can assure you this is not the case. Alcohol was legal in every state and controlled by the State... ever hear of Prohibition? We The People have the ultimate say, not SCOTUS.

 

[Boss]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.

Hmmm I think your math is slightly off.

There are about 146 million registered voters in the United States- do you think evangelicals are 2/3 of the registered voters?

Best numbers I can come up with is that Evangelicals represent 28% of the vote......certainly not enough to pass an amendment.

Meanwhile- latest polls show that the majority of Americans support gay marriage- 52%- up from 35% in 2001.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

 

[Boss]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.
.

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox.

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.

Is your mailbox a person?

The only difference between Jack and Jill being married and Jack and Bill being married is the gender of Jill and Bill.

What gender is your mailbox?

Is your same-sex partner of the opposite gender?

 

[Syriusly]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.

Hmmm I think your math is slightly off.

There are about 146 million registered voters in the United States- do you think evangelicals are 2/3 of the registered voters?

Best numbers I can come up with is that Evangelicals represent 28% of the vote......certainly not enough to pass an amendment.

Meanwhile- latest polls show that the majority of Americans support gay marriage- 52%- up from 35% in 2001.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

Okay- show me 100 million Evangelicals of voting age in the United States.....

We have 316 million Americans of all ages- you think that there are 100 million Evangelicals out of that?

Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.

Anyway- enjoy your fantasies.

 

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.
.

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox.

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.

Is your mailbox a person?

The only difference between Jack and Jill being married and Jack and Bill being married is the gender of Jill and Bill.

What gender is your mailbox?

Is your same-sex partner of the opposite gender?

I have a spouse.

Not a mailbox.

 

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

As I correctly stated, there are two ways the laws can be changed. Congressional Acts and Constitutional Amendments. Those opposed to gay marriage have already passed the first Act. They are considerably closer in numbers to being able to pass an Amendment. The gay marriage lobby can't even get a majority vote in either house of Congress.

The Supreme Court has already said that Congress cannot tell States how to regulate marriage.

They are further and further away from ever being able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban same gender marriage.

Same gender marriage proponents don't need a majority vote in Congress- any more than the proponents of marriage of mixed race couples need a majority vote in Congress- 31 states its legal. Likely to be 10 more within a year.

I'm sorry you were educated in such a poor manner that you believe SCOTUS has final say. I can assure you this is not the case. Alcohol was legal in every state and controlled by the State... ever hear of Prohibition? We The People have the ultimate say, not SCOTUS.

As I said earlier today

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

Considering that 52% of all Americans support gay marriage.....a Constitutional Amendment will be a challenge for you- but go for it!

Fo

 

[Boss]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.

Hmmm I think your math is slightly off.

There are about 146 million registered voters in the United States- do you think evangelicals are 2/3 of the registered voters?

Best numbers I can come up with is that Evangelicals represent 28% of the vote......certainly not enough to pass an amendment.

Meanwhile- latest polls show that the majority of Americans support gay marriage- 52%- up from 35% in 2001.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

Okay- show me 100 million Evangelicals of voting age in the United States.....

We have 316 million Americans of all ages- you think that there are 100 million Evangelicals out of that?

Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.

Anyway- enjoy your fantasies.

show me 100 million Evangelicals
Well I can't show you 100 million evangelicals over the internet. They are out there though.

Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.
Once again-- No, you have a poll which indicates this. Your last poll said 35%.

 

[Boss]

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.
.

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox.

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.

Is your mailbox a person?

The only difference between Jack and Jill being married and Jack and Bill being married is the gender of Jill and Bill.

What gender is your mailbox?

Is your same-sex partner of the opposite gender?

I have a spouse.

Not a mailbox.

Doesn't matter what YOU have, we're talking about "marriage equality" now.

If same-sex partners can be spouses, so can mailboxes.

 

[Boss]

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going.

But you can't. A nation divided will not stand. At some point, we reach a "defining moment" where this issue becomes settled once and for all. Now, maybe we need to have another Civil War? Certainly, there are people who are religiously bound and ready to die for the cause, are you? Is that where you want to take it? It remains to be seen if this is that important to you, or whether you might rather consider working on a solution we can all agree on.

I suspect, when the political temperament swings the other way and we see a conservative majority in power, your tune will change. The smug and cocky arrogance will give way to the whiny sniveling pity party it usually is when you are in the minority. Perhaps then, you will begin to see things my way and be more willing to work toward a solution we can all live with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

Ahhh - if they don't register they can't vote. Therefore "evangelical voters" must be a subset of "registered voters".

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

1. It is up to either the legislature of a state constitutional convention to ratify an amendment that is approved by state constitutional convention and it is congress that sets the mode of ratification.. And I don't think any have been ratified by state constitutional convention (I'd have to check on that one.)

2. You set the wrong bar, it requires 38 states to ratify an amendment to the COTUS - not 34. Thirty-four represents 2/3's which is incorrect, it requires 3/4's.

3. Good luck with your amendment, it's been tried multiple times since the early 2000's and can't even make it out of Congress, being shot down each time. Even when support was for such an amendment was higher than it is now.


>>>>

 

[Boss]

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

Ahhh - if they don't register they can't vote. Therefore "evangelical voters" must be a subset of "registered voters".

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

1. It is up to either the legislature of a state constitutional convention to ratify an amendment that is approved by state constitutional convention and it is congress that sets the mode of ratification.. And I don't think any have been ratified by state constitutional convention (I'd have to check on that one.)

2. You set the wrong bar, it requires 38 states to ratify an amendment to the COTUS - not 34. Thirty-four represents 2/3's which is incorrect, it requires 3/4's.

3. Good luck with your amendment, it's been tried multiple times since the early 2000's and can't even make it out of Congress, being shot down each time. Even when support was for such an amendment was higher than it is now.


>>>>

You're way off the mark. States cannot hold constitutional conventions. They can have a convention to amend the constitution under Article V. The US Congress has absolutely NO input, other than to acknowledge the results. This is not a ratification. That still has to happen.

I didn't suggest states will hold amendment conventions under Article V to adopt an Amendment prohibiting gay marriage. It is much more likely a 2/3 conservative congress would pass an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.

You may be right about 3/4 as opposed to 2/3, but in any event, only a majority is required in each state to approve ratification.

And somehow, you mistakenly confuse the level of support with the recent activist judicial actions. You keep winning these court victories and presuming that settles the issue permanently, and that the people are just going to accept that and move on. They won't.

 

[Seawytch]

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

Ahhh - if they don't register they can't vote. Therefore "evangelical voters" must be a subset of "registered voters".

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

1. It is up to either the legislature of a state constitutional convention to ratify an amendment that is approved by state constitutional convention and it is congress that sets the mode of ratification.. And I don't think any have been ratified by state constitutional convention (I'd have to check on that one.)

2. You set the wrong bar, it requires 38 states to ratify an amendment to the COTUS - not 34. Thirty-four represents 2/3's which is incorrect, it requires 3/4's.

3. Good luck with your amendment, it's been tried multiple times since the early 2000's and can't even make it out of Congress, being shot down each time. Even when support was for such an amendment was higher than it is now.


>>>>

In other words..."Have fun storming the castle".

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're way off the mark. States cannot hold constitutional conventions. They can have a convention to amend the constitution under Article V. The US Congress has absolutely NO input, other than to acknowledge the results. This is not a ratification. That still has to happen.

I didn't suggest states will hold amendment conventions under Article V to adopt an Amendment prohibiting gay marriage. It is much more likely a 2/3 conservative congress would pass an Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.

You may be right about 3/4 as opposed to 2/3, but in any event, only a majority is required in each state to approve ratification.

And somehow, you mistakenly confuse the level of support with the recent activist judicial actions. You keep winning these court victories and presuming that settles the issue permanently, and that the people are just going to accept that and move on. They won't.

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.​

2/3's of the State can call a constitutional convention to propose amendments as well as via Congressional action. 3/4's of the States are then required to ratify such a proposed amendment.

Ratification can then occur either through passage of the legislature OR through a state level constitutional convention as the Congress decides ("as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress").

There are no "ballot initiatives" that the general population would vote on in regards to an amendment to the COTUS. The ONLY way to amend the Constitution is through a republican system (i.e. representatives) not through direct ballot. (Now a State could hold a non-binding ballot vote, nothing would prevent that, but it would still be up to the legislature or a state level constitutional convention to actually do the ratifying.)

A decade ago State level bans on SSCM passed with 23-76% margins of victory (IIRC). In 2008/2009 (California Prop 8 and Maine Question 1) they barely squeaked by where a change of only 2.5% was needed to change the outcome. In 2012 all four marriage equality issues on the General Election ballot (Maine, Washington, Maryland, and Minnesota) were one by those supporting marriage equality. The COTUS amendment train has left the station.



>>>>

 

[Czernobog]

Marriage is a certain thing,...

It is at this point that your entire argument falls apart. You are correct. Marriage is a certain thing - it is a contract between two people. Nothing more. Nothing less. I have repeatedly, across several discussions, shown definitions dating back hundreds of years proving this point. Who those two people are has changed repeatedly over the course of time. Thus to try to claim some traditional authority for dictating who those two people "must be" is not only fallacious, but also lacks historical credibility. It is not the gay rights activists who have attempted to turn marriage into a thing that it is not. It is moralists like yourself.

Now, you are going to insist, once again, that you don't want to do that, however, that is a lie. We know that is a lie, because you keep trying to shift the responsibility for attempting to turn marriage into something it isn't onto the gay rights activists. If you were sincere in your desire to find a resolution, you would simply say, "Yes. We tried to use the law to change the meaning of marriage into what we feel it 'should' be. Since we have failed to do that, we would like to propose a compromise,"

However, you've not said that. You have not said anything even remotely resembling that. The reason for that is two-fold. First, you don't really want to "get government out of marriage"; all you really want is to get the fags out of marriage. Second is the fact that no one - not One. Single. Person - who opposes gay marriage has joined you in your "crusade to get government out of marriage". That is because no one on your side of the issue wants government out of marriage, and you know it. You come here "offering" this "compromise", knowing full well that it is an offer that carries zero weight, because it has zero support among the opponents to gay marriage. And, when those of us who support marriage equality laugh in your face, recognising the charade for what it is, you get to feel better about yourself, by pointing the finger at us, screaming, "See?!?! You don't want compromise!!!" knowing full well that all you were offering is empty rhetoric.

I'll tell you what. You want support from the marriage equality folks for your idea? Okay. You get it from your side first. You come with an actual proposal, with actual Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and other political opponents to gay marriage, on board, then we'll talk. But, don't come feeding us some dog and pony show that you can't even get your own compatriots on board with, and act like we're the ones being unreasonable, and unwilling to compromise.

Let us know how you do selling your idea to your fellow opponents to gay marriage.

 

[Czernobog]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election l, ooming.

Funny. On the other issue like this - the personhood amendment - there was a draft in 2002, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2013. "A couple of years" didn't seem to make a real difference on that issue. There seems to be a real will among your side to keep trying to get personhood adopted.

Not so much with DOMA. Why do you think that is????

 

[Syriusly]

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going.

But you can't. A nation divided will not stand. At some point, we reach a "defining moment" where this issue becomes settled once and for all. Now, maybe we need to have another Civil War? Certainly, there are people who are religiously bound and ready to die for the cause, are you? Is that where you want to take it? It remains to be seen if this is that important to you, or whether you might rather consider working on a solution we can all agree on.

I suspect, when the political temperament swings the other way and we see a conservative majority in power, your tune will change. The smug and cocky arrogance will give way to the whiny sniveling pity party it usually is when you are in the minority. Perhaps then, you will begin to see things my way and be more willing to work toward a solution we can all live with.

The majority of Americans were against mixed race marriage when Loving v. Virginia declared that it was unconstitutional to ban mixed race marriage- by a very large margin.
In U.S. 87 Approve of Black-White Marriage vs. 4 in 1958

In 1959 only 4% of Americans approved of mixed race marriages- now its 87%. Didn't pass 50% until the 1990's- more people approve of same gender marriage now, than approved of mixed race marriage in 1992.

This even though the Loving's were not willing to go with your "end legal marriage" solution to their legal problem.

There were segregationists who claimed that they were willing to die to prevent mingling of whites and blacks. They are looked at, properly, with derision now.

The younger generation has almost no issue with same gender marriage- that is where this is trending- just like acceptance of mixed race marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.

Hmmm I think your math is slightly off.

There are about 146 million registered voters in the United States- do you think evangelicals are 2/3 of the registered voters?

Best numbers I can come up with is that Evangelicals represent 28% of the vote......certainly not enough to pass an amendment.

Meanwhile- latest polls show that the majority of Americans support gay marriage- 52%- up from 35% in 2001.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project

I didn't cite "registered voters" ..I said evangelical voters (evangelicals of voting age).

To pass an amendment in Congress requires 2/3 vote... to ratify only requires a majority vote of the people in a ballot initiative. If 34 states ratify, the Amendment is law.

Okay- show me 100 million Evangelicals of voting age in the United States.....

We have 316 million Americans of all ages- you think that there are 100 million Evangelicals out of that?

Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.

Anyway- enjoy your fantasies.

show me 100 million Evangelicals
Well I can't show you 100 million evangelicals over the internet. They are out there though.

Once again- the majority of Americans- 52% support gay marriage.
Once again-- No, you have a poll which indicates this. Your last poll said 35%.

You have an imaginary 100 million evangelicals of voting age- even though there have never been anywhere close to that many voting.

You don't believe the polls....because well those are actual numbers.....instead of your imaginary '100 million Evangelicals'

Whatever- no one is buying what you are selling.

 

[Syriusly]

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox.

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.

Is your mailbox a person?

The only difference between Jack and Jill being married and Jack and Bill being married is the gender of Jill and Bill.

What gender is your mailbox?

Is your same-sex partner of the opposite gender?

I have a spouse.

Not a mailbox.

Doesn't matter what YOU have, we're talking about "marriage equality" now.

If same-sex partners can be spouses, so can mailboxes.

I look forward to you suing for the right to marry your mailbox.

Let us know how that goes.

And I hope you two are in it for the long haul- for better and for worse, in sickness and in health- like this couple:

Their relationship began at a party in 1962, a time when gay people were largely regarded as criminals and even diagnosed as mentally ill. At one point in her life, Thea was expelled from Sarah Lawrence College when she was caught by a security guard kissing an older woman. Yet despite the oppression and homophobia of the era, the two forged an incredibly rich companionship, traveling the world, hosting parties in the Hamptons with a close circle of friends and cultivating their love for one another.

After dating for a short time, Spyer proposed to Windsor in 1967; they finally married, 40 years later, in Canada in 2007. Spyer’s health slowly deteriorated over the years, and she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at age 45, a disease that didn’t stop the couple from dancing — even when Spyer was stricken to a wheelchair.


Read more: Endless Love: Inside the Photo Albums of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - LightBox Endless Love Inside the Photo Albums of Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer - LightBox

 

[ShackledNation]

No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.

Oh, but they DO and I can cite numerous examples of it. The same exact law can't be passed again, that makes no sense and isn't what I said. Whatever the court found to be the problem for why the law wasn't constitutional will be changed by Act of Congress, and we go at it again. And again, if needed.

This was the case with civil rights, as we'd been passing civil rights acts since 1865 in America. It took numerous attempts before one stuck. Congress would pass them, courts would neuter them, people would petition for redress, congress would act. This happened over and over again. The SCOTUS simply doesn't have final say on Law-of-the-Land, nor does their interpretation of the Constitution.

Remember this... it's Boss' lesson of the day in U.S. Government... The People ultimately have final say. Period.

If the court declares a law that denies marriage licenses to gay couples is unconstitutional, then passing a law that denies gay couples marriage licenses after the fact is blatantly unconstitutional. Legislatures cannot nullify court decisions on constitutional questions that they disagree with.