Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[nodoginnafight]

it isn't silent about an army or a Navy, and an Air Force is merely an extension of both of these types of military services.

It doesn't mention a marine force either, and yet we have that.

Exactly!

The difference is marriage contracts as a whole are never mentioned in the Constitution, Not once. Thus by the constitution the setup of the contract falls to the States, in particular the State legislatures, or the State's own constitution.

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.

 

[martybegan]

it isn't silent about an army or a Navy, and an Air Force is merely an extension of both of these types of military services.

It doesn't mention a marine force either, and yet we have that.

Exactly!

The difference is marriage contracts as a whole are never mentioned in the Constitution, Not once. Thus by the constitution the setup of the contract falls to the States, in particular the State legislatures, or the State's own constitution.

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?

And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.

Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.

 

[martybegan]

it isn't silent about an army or a Navy, and an Air Force is merely an extension of both of these types of military services.

It doesn't mention a marine force either, and yet we have that.

The Marine Corps falls under the Department of the Navy.


>>>>

Yes, I know that. It still isn't mentioned in the Constitution, and yet we have one.

Because the Marines have always been a function of the Navy. They have been a part of the Navy since the Revolution and are stationed in part on ships to this day as part of fire support, aviation, and landing forces.



>>>>

Not disagreeing with you. My retort was more in the context of who I was responding to in my original response.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly!

The difference is marriage contracts as a whole are never mentioned in the Constitution, Not once. Thus by the constitution the setup of the contract falls to the States, in particular the State legislatures, or the State's own constitution.

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.

Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?

 

[Ubiquitor]

Exactly!

The difference is marriage contracts as a whole are never mentioned in the Constitution, Not once. Thus by the constitution the setup of the contract falls to the States, in particular the State legislatures, or the State's own constitution.

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?

And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.

Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.

Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.

 

[Synthaholic]

So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.

So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....

Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.

It is until it isn't.

 

[bodecea]

I agree. Marriage Equality is constitutional.

what is constitutional is what is written in the constitution. Not one of you gays has yet shown us the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind. The constitution is silent on marriage. The intent of the drafters of the constitution is not known to us.

If you want gay marriage to be constitutional, then put forth a constitutional amendment and get it ratified by 38 states. Otherwise this foolish debate will go on for many years.

So...the FAA is not constitutional? The Interstate Highway system isn't constitutional? Institutes of Higher Education are not constitutional? The right to procreate is not constitutional?

you are correct, those things are not constitutional. They are legal since they were created by the legislature, but the constitution is silent on them.

The Legislature made procreation legal?

 

[Ubiquitor]

The difference is marriage contracts as a whole are never mentioned in the Constitution, Not once. Thus by the constitution the setup of the contract falls to the States, in particular the State legislatures, or the State's own constitution.

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.

Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?

Why can't you get maternity leave? Veteran's benefits are part of contract they signed. Sign the same contract and you'll get them, too. Medicare is for elderly people, but just wait a bit and we'll all be getting the same health benefits. Society has decided that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drive a vehicle. A driver's license isn't the same thing as hospital visitation rights either.

 

[Synthaholic]

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.

I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.

And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.

Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".

Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.

Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?

You don't know the difference between a product and a service?

 

[martybegan]

The difference is marriage contracts as a whole are never mentioned in the Constitution, Not once. Thus by the constitution the setup of the contract falls to the States, in particular the State legislatures, or the State's own constitution.

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?

And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.

Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.

Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.

Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.

 

[thanatos144]

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

Only if you are going to ignore the fact that gay marriage is following the same trend and both are civil rights issues.

What Bullshit. Homosexual marrige is no where near on par with civil rights fights. No one is banning homosexuals from marrige the nuptials are just not recognized. The faux victimhood of he homosexual is insulting to those who actually were

 

[bodecea]

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.

So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....

Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.

Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.

 

[martybegan]

yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.

I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.

And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.

Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".

Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.

Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?

You don't know the difference between a product and a service?

Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.

 

[martybegan]

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.

Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.

So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.

So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....

Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.

Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.

The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.

 

[Synthaholic]

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.

I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.

And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.

Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".

Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.

A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?

If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.

I agree about the hall, but not the tux.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state."

Good point - and Equal Protection requires other states to recognize that marriage.

 

[bodecea]

How is that relevant to the topic of the SCOTUS taking up gay marriage today? I'm pretty sure everyone knows how they were established.

the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.

if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

Only if you are going to ignore the fact that gay marriage is following the same trend and both are civil rights issues.

What Bullshit. Homosexual marrige is no where near on par with civil rights fights. No one is banning homosexuals from marrige the nuptials are just not recognized. The faux victimhood of he homosexual is insulting to those who actually were

It is a civil rights issue if the government recognizes and gives over 1000 protections and privileges to some law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and NOT to other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without a solid, measurable reason to do so.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.

By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.

IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.

The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.

The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”

I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.

Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?

Why can't you get maternity leave? Veteran's benefits are part of contract they signed. Sign the same contract and you'll get them, too. Medicare is for elderly people, but just wait a bit and we'll all be getting the same health benefits. Society has decided that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drive a vehicle. A driver's license isn't the same thing as hospital visitation rights either.

1. Because I am a guy. If equal protection was absolute, it would not matter.
2. What about people the military rejects? If Equal protection is absolute, that would be a violation, as that person does not have equal access.
3. Again, what does age have to do with equality if it is absolute?
4. Same thing.

 

[bodecea]

I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.

You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.

yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.

I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.

And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.

Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".

Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.

A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?

If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.

If you object to certain kinds of legal marriages, maybe you shouldn't be in the marriage business. Just like those muslim taxi drivers who objected to carrying certain kinds of legal passengers....they shouldn't be in the taxi business.

 

[martybegan]

"Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state."

Good point - and Equal Protection requires other states to recognize that marriage.

Guess what? I agree with that 100%. So if the court decides States can still set the requirements i.e. not ISSUE same sex certificates, but they have to recognize and honor any out of state same sex marriage certificate, I have zero issue with that.

THAT is where equal protection and full faith and credit apply.