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

[bodecea]

I must disagree. The use of public accommodations laws to force others to acknowledge private, yet legally sanctioned relationships, is imo an overreach.

Then feel free to try to abolish them all (federal laws that protect race, religion, disability etc) and not just whine about the small number that protect the gays.

I won't waste the effort, but imo gays and lesbians will in the longterm do themselves more harm than good by hammering these religious zealots instead of simply ignoring them.

Ignoring didn't work work out so well for homosexuals- only by demanding equal rights did homosexuals gradually get equal rights.

Exactly. It is the squeaky wheel and all.

 

[thanatos144]

First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep with

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegal

 

[thanatos144]

correct, not a simple majority, 38 states. 75%. But such a vote of 38 states could create a new amendment or repeal a previous one.

my point is that constitutional rights that we enjoy were establshed by voting, not govt decree.

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

What the **** are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they can. Checks and balances

 

[Syriusly]

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

What the **** are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they can. Checks and balances

You are clueless

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment

 

[thanatos144]

What the **** are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they can. Checks and balances

You are clueless

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment

Please go take a civics class

 

[Syriusly]

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they can. Checks and balances

You are clueless

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment

Please go take a civics class

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.

 

[thanatos144]

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they can. Checks and balances

You are clueless

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment

Please go take a civics class

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.

I dont need to prove you wrong the constitution does that already

 

[Syriusly]

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment.

Yes they can. Checks and balances

You are clueless

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment

Please go take a civics class

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.

I dont need to prove you wrong the constitution does that already

Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said so" is noted.

 

[thanatos144]

Yes they can. Checks and balances

You are clueless

The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.

Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.

The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment

Please go take a civics class

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.

I dont need to prove you wrong the constitution does that already

Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said so" is noted.

Hey dummy i didnt say so the constitution says so. You know the document you are shitting on?

 

[bodecea]

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegal

However, that is the EXACT 14th amendment sticking point. Surely you see that. If the government offers 1000 + benefits and protections to group A of law-abiding citizens....how can the government NOT afford the SAME 1000+ benefits and protections to group B of law-abiding citizens? At least without some valid, convincing reason why Group A gets something that Group B does not.

 

[thanatos144]

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegal

However, that is the EXACT 14th amendment sticking point. Surely you see that. If the government offers 1000 + benefits and protections to group A of law-abiding citizens....how can the government NOT afford the SAME 1000+ benefits and protections to group B of law-abiding citizens? At least without some valid, convincing reason why Group A gets something that Group B does not.

Nope. It doesnt since the law is applied equally no matter race or religon or sex

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegal

However, that is the EXACT 14th amendment sticking point. Surely you see that. If the government offers 1000 + benefits and protections to group A of law-abiding citizens....how can the government NOT afford the SAME 1000+ benefits and protections to group B of law-abiding citizens? At least without some valid, convincing reason why Group A gets something that Group B does not.

Nope. It doesnt since the law is applied equally no matter race or religon or sex

Wrong.

The law is not being applied equally due to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage law, to deny them access to that law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[thanatos144]

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegal

However, that is the EXACT 14th amendment sticking point. Surely you see that. If the government offers 1000 + benefits and protections to group A of law-abiding citizens....how can the government NOT afford the SAME 1000+ benefits and protections to group B of law-abiding citizens? At least without some valid, convincing reason why Group A gets something that Group B does not.

Nope. It doesnt since the law is applied equally no matter race or religon or sex

Wrong.

The law is not being applied equally due to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage law, to deny them access to that law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

So laws against rape and murder and assult are unconstitutional since they too are based on a action.

 

[Redfish]

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

So...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages. .....Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)

Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegal

However, that is the EXACT 14th amendment sticking point. Surely you see that. If the government offers 1000 + benefits and protections to group A of law-abiding citizens....how can the government NOT afford the SAME 1000+ benefits and protections to group B of law-abiding citizens? At least without some valid, convincing reason why Group A gets something that Group B does not.

Nope. It doesnt since the law is applied equally no matter race or religon or sex

Wrong.

The law is not being applied equally due to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage law, to deny them access to that law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

using that argument then 4 men and 5 women have the right to marry, a brother an sister, father and daughter, father and son. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

[martybegan]

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

Who's forcing you to like my marriage? As for acceptance....are you really whining about having to recognize that my marriage is just as legal as yours? Truely?

Only if the courts force it do I have a problem, and only when you use the government to force people to accept it in their every day lives.

"The courts force it".....the courts force it on who? Who will the courts FORCE to marry?

The courts force the States to accept something the people don't want, and later you will use PA laws to foc

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

Who's forcing you to like my marriage? As for acceptance....are you really whining about having to recognize that my marriage is just as legal as yours? Truely?

Only if the courts force it do I have a problem, and only when you use the government to force people to accept it in their every day lives.

"The courts force it".....the courts force it on who? Who will the courts FORCE to marry?

The courts force the States to accept a contract they do not want to recognize. And we all know the next step is prosecution via PA laws.

 

[martybegan]

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.

Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals

My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.

Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.

You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.

They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.

You mean like a country free of slavery?

You mean like a country where women have political rights?

You mean like a country with legal protections against child labor?

You mean like a country with freedom of and from religion?

You mean like a country with a WRITTEN Constitution?

There was ZERO precedence in history for ALL those things. May the gods forbid you be FORCED to accept those things.

Lets go point by point.

1. Slavery is explicitly banned by the 13th amendment.
2. Women have the Franchise explicitly via the 19th Amendment
3. Child labor laws are not mentioned in the constitution, thus should probably go to the states, and actually the states are the ones who set the specific guidelines, the feds set minimums.
4. You have no freedom from religion, you have a right to practice or not practice your own, or even not have one, but you are not free from others practicing theirs.
5. Plenty of other civilizations have written constitutions, the 12 Tables of Rome, 450 BC as an example.

Your anger is noted.

 

[martybegan]

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

Then your complaint is with Public Accomodation laws....which has been pointed out to you several times. You are choosing not to accept that fact.

My problem is with process when it comes to modifying the actual marriage contract, and results when it comes to PA laws. The topics are related.

 

[martybegan]

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.

I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.

Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.

Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals

My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.

Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.

You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.

They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.

This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.

You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.

 

[Vigilante]

Looking for a FIFTH, and it's NOT for bridge!

 

[martybegan]

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

Those are business people. And as such, they are subject to the PA laws of their states. You don't have to 'accept gay marriage'. You simply have to treat your customers fairly and equally.

Otherwise known as "BAKE THE ******* CAKE PEON!"