FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:28 AM I am so happy over today's decision for equal rights, but I still dislike ObamaCare

TXBO - 2015-06-26 11:37 AM


44% of the population of the US is unmarried.  All this decision does is add a small percentage to the privileged class of state sponsored inequality. 

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:40 AM I'm a firm believer that anyone who wants to get married should. Anyone who doesn't agree can go blow smoke because their opinion doesn't matter anymore. It's passed, its law, now people can get over it.

barrelracr131 - 2015-06-26 10:18 AM

 I see the issues as very different. 
in turn, I'm extremely happy about today's decision, however I am unhappy about the decision upholding the affordable care act. 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 11:48 AM


Celebrate the victory of government endorsing your personal morally but equality it is not. 

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:53 AM How isn't it? You can't say crap like that and not support it. They were prevented from doing things based solely on one characteristic. Now they are being given the right they were denied. They can now equally do what every other american citizen can do SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO. If that's not equality, then I don't know what is.

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:40 AM


I'm a firm believer that anyone who wants to get married should. Anyone who doesn't agree can go blow smoke because their opinion doesn't matter anymore. It's passed, its law, now people can get over it.

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:53 AM How isn't it? You can't say crap like that and not support it. They were prevented from doing things based solely on one characteristic. Now they are being given the right they were denied. They can now equally do what every other american citizen can do SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO. If that's not equality, then I don't know what is.

Three 4 Luck - 2015-06-26 11:06 AM  I think he's saying the legal advantages conferred upon married people is not equality in the first place, therefore adding a new class of people to that number only increases the people benefitting from state-sponsored inequality.

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:53 AM How isn't it? You can't say crap like that and not support it. They were prevented from doing things based solely on one characteristic. Now they are being given the right they were denied. They can now equally do what every other american citizen can do SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO. If that's not equality, then I don't know what is.

horsesinharleton - 2015-06-26 11:06 AM Your statement that you are a believer that "...anyone that wants to get married should" is kind of broad, isn't it? Do you want to elaborate on exactly who should be able to get married, or more importantly, who shouldn't?

Nevertooold - 2015-06-26 12:13 PM I think they should be able to share in the great delight of divorce. Can't wait to hear the whining when that happens..LOL 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 11:27 AM Scalia's dissents are always interesting to read.  This one is rather poignant:



"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee

of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant

praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important

liberty they asserted in the Declaration of

Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the

freedom to govern themselves."

Scalia 

FlyingHigh1454 - 2015-06-26 10:40 AM I'm a firm believer that anyone who wants to get married should. Anyone who doesn't agree can go blow smoke because their opinion doesn't matter anymore. It's passed, its law, now people can get over it.

MS2011 - 2015-06-26 12:34 PM

So - I can't pick which of my baby daddies I want to marry.... By this logic I can marry them both!!!  Whoop!  

Pologamy is ok? 
Can I marry my 14 year old cousin if her parents consent?
I really really love my dog....I'm gonna marry him.. (seems fine by your logic).

What about state's rights?
 

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 1:05 PM Since SCOTUS just took away the States right to determine whom can marry whom you are correct. They have left the door wide open on this and any of the state laws that pertain are void. So if you want to marry your minor cousin of the same sex feel free under this decision the state can't stop you. Keep in mind that federal law supersedes state and local laws.

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 8:52 AM I am neither for or against the issue of gay marriage. However SCOTUS just ignored 50,000,000 voters in several states that voted against gay marriage in their States. SCOTUS has never ruled on marriage since 1789 they have left it up to the States and their voters as of today it is now federal. Gay marriage in some form was going to happen either way it was legal in 36 states anyway but this issue is in no way defined under Federal law. They have also left open the issue of Religious objection which is defined under the Constitution. In both cases to me they are rewriting law in their opinions.

TXBO - 2015-06-26 1:11 PM


Isn't there a father/daughter couple planning to marry already?  Seems like it was NY or NJ. 

Anniemae - 2015-06-26 1:18 PM


Loving v. Virginia (1967) is an example of the SCOTUS overturning state laws in regards to marriage (overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883). Of course, this had nothing to do with same sex marriage, but at the time, was a highly controversial matter dealing with interracial marriage. The ruling invalidated state Anti-miscegenation laws, and was generally considered an unpopular ruling particularly by the southern states.  Interesting to note, SCOTUS ruling on Loving v. Virginia was unanimous.  

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 11:39 AM That case was not argued on marriage it was argued on race that was expressly defined under the 14th amendment. This case was argued under the 14th amendment also in which SCOUS has now added SEX. By doing this they have in effect changed the text of the of the 14th amendment with out the States or it's voters input.

MS2011 - 2015-06-26 12:34 PM So - I can't pick which of my baby daddies I want to marry.... By this logic I can marry them both!!!  Whoop!  



Pologamy is ok? 

Can I marry my 14 year old cousin if her parents consent?

I really really love my dog....I'm gonna marry him.. (seems fine by your logic).



What about state's rights?

 

oija - 2015-06-26 5:37 PM I'm just going to be honest. Hopefully this decision will at least keep the next election focused on issues that have more to do with government, like foreign affairs and trade, and less to do with people's personal lives

Anniemae - 2015-06-26 2:33 PM

Both cases cited the 14th amendment, specifically section 1. 
Both cases concern marriage and the states definition therein. One was interracial, one was same sex.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text to the 14th amendment hasn't been changed or altered. The interpretation of the 14th amendment has been futher defined by today's SCOTUS ruling.     
 
 

Bear - 2015-06-26 9:41 PM

I'm glad the gay marriage war that has been going on is finally drawing to a close. Public opinion on this matter has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years. Oh, the debates will continue, for sure, but legally it's a done deal.
As to the state's rights being a "cop out", I couldn't disagree more. States rights is, or used to be, protected by the Bill of Rights, specifically the 10th ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Jd&ez feels it's a cop out. I disagree.
As to abortion, I actually agree with jd&ez, in that I hate them and am against them. I don't think the abortion battle can be completely won through legislation or in the courtrooms. Realistically, I think the best we can do is to win hearts and minds on the issue, and appeal to people's better angels. One thing that I have a problem with is the cliche' about a woman's right to do what she sees fit to her body. That's fine, except what about the baby's rights? If people feel that an unborn child is not a living human being and can be extinguished on a whim, under the guise of a woman's freedom to do what she wants to her body, then I have a problem with that. Using the "pro choice" brand of logic, if a pregnant woman is shot in the belly by some man and the baby dies, then I guess the assailant cannot be charged with murder. That would fall under the category of unintended consequences. I've yet to get a straight answer to that scenario.

Nevertooold - 2015-06-26 11:13 AM


I think they should be able to share in the great delight of divorce. Can't wait to hear the whining when that happens..LOL 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 6:27 PM


Don't bet on that.  There is plenty of fallout to come.  Some counties in Alabama have stopped giving marriage licenses to anybody already.  TX Governor Gregg Abbott has already issued directive to all under his authority to make preservation of religious rights a priority.  Some states are considering not giving out licenses to anybody.  Churches are concerned about being forced to violate their conscience.  This discussion is long from over.  Civil disobedience by Churches, religious organizations and some state and local authorities is at it's highest probability since the civil war. 

jbhoot - 2015-06-26 5:47 PM I do not agree with you on this. The intent of 14th was to settle the race issue after the civil war. No where was the Virginia case settled on marriage it was settled on race which was the intent of the 14th. Only by ignoring the intent of the 14th and adding the assumption that sex is covered in the 14th can SCOTUS find for same sex marriage there by changing the text ( in effect). Nothing in the 14th gives the right to marry. That is covered under the 10th amendment which gives the right to the States.

Anniemae - 2015-06-27 12:47 AM


 Opinion
WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1

Anniemae - 2015-06-26 2:33 PM

Both cases cited the 14th amendment, specifically section 1. 
Both cases concern marriage and the states definition therein. One was interracial, one was same sex.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text to the 14th amendment hasn't been changed or altered. The interpretation of the 14th amendment has been futher defined by today's SCOTUS ruling.     
 
 

TXBO - 2015-06-26 6:27 PM


Don't bet on that.  There is plenty of fallout to come.  Some counties in Alabama have stopped giving marriage licenses to anybody already.  TX Governor Gregg Abbott has already issued directive to all under his authority to make preservation of religious rights a priority.  Some states are considering not giving out licenses to anybody.  Churches are concerned about being forced to violate their conscience.  This discussion is long from over.  Civil disobedience by Churches, religious organizations and some state and local authorities is at it's highest probability since the civil war. 

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 11:37 AM


And what about The Tenth Amendment (which precedes and is observed as one of The Bill of Rights)?


Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Tenth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw



constitution.findlaw.com/amendment10.html


In essence an unelected group of Nine Judges in effect neutered The Tenth Amendment and forces THEIR Own Political Doctrine upon a Constitutional Republic thereby null and voiding The Constitutional in which THEY (the Nine Appointed Judges) have sworn to uphold! A Case for Treason could be construed from this and other SCOTUS that flagrantly defy The Constitution of The United States of America.

Bear - 2015-06-27 12:53 PM


My position on homosexuality has evolved over the last 20 years or so, I'm proud to admit. I used to hate homosexuals.....yes, the word "hate" is the best way to describe it. I don't know why, exactly, but I did. Maybe it's because the thought of gay sex was revolting to me, I suppose just like the way heterosexual sex is revolting to many gays. I came to be of the belief that gay people are usually born that way. In other words, God created them that way. Once I became convinced of that, I asked myself, "why would God create someone like that and turn around and condemn them to hell?" I accept that the bible clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, just like all the other sins we are all guilty of committing, but until recently this particular sin has been singled out as one that is particularly revolting. Lying, cheating, taking His name in vain, adultery, stealing, coveting, etc..., are things that we as a society have a lot more tolerance for, compared to homosexuality. We have tended to have much more tolerance for those since which we are more apt to commit. If you believe that gays are born that way, then we don't have to worry about becoming homosexuals.....hence we, as a society, have had this selective outrage. Being gay evolved into a punching bag, of sorts, for the rest of us sinners.
If you are of the belief that unrepentant sinners are to be condemned to hell, then I suspect hell will be just as hot for us as it will be for gays.
I was once married to a woman who "acted" religious. She quoted the bible incessantly to prove that homosexuality is a sin. She also felt they are all condemned to perdition. She was also a bigot. I thought she was a saint, incapable of lying. Then came the day when I realized she was a hypocrite who hid behind a huge religious facade. Somehow she felt that the outward appearance of religiosity would earn her a pass for her own sins. In reality, she was a masterful liar and adulteress. Within a year of my realization of this, we were divorced.
I have relatives who are gay. Carol and I have gay friends. We love them, even though they are just as capable of being an ******* as I am. One thing I have experienced, as far gay people is concerned, is gay people have the same good qualities as the rest of us heterosexuals. They are kind, generous, loving people who only want the freedoms and liberty that the rest of us often take for granted. I don't think they are asking too much.
For these reasons, I am happy for them. The Supreme Court ruling was a huge landmark decision for them, and I hope this paves the way for society to focus on matters that remain problematic. I am also a huge believer in states rights, which is a sticky wicket here, because I'm a huge believer in states rights, but let's all remember that "states rights" was a big premise on which we suffered through a civil war. Back then, the pro-slavery people used the 10th amendment was the premise on which they bolstered their views that slavery ought to be allowed. It was a false premise then, just as it is now. Those who use "states rights" as the basis of banning gay marriage, conveniently and selectively forget another important fundamental principle on which this nation was founded, namely: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This is why I have decided to leave the matter of the "gay sin" up to the real "Supreme Court", who shall determine the ultimate punishment and fate of all of us sinners.

Bear - 2015-06-27 12:53 PM...... Those who use "states rights" as the basis of banning gay marriage, conveniently and selectively forget another important fundamental principle on which this nation was founded, namely: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." .....

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 12:59 PM


Your understanding of History is flawed Doc. Follow the money on The Civil War.....................Who benefitted (monetarily) from keeping The Union intact? When you answer that, then we will discuss more.
Apply the same benefitting logic to Same Sex Marriage Permission via a Rogue un-elected nonaccountable group of Activist Judges.

And my beliefs on Homosexuality are separate from my support of The Constitution of The United States of America which has the ability to modified but not via Rogue Activists Lawmakers or Judges!

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!

I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.



So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.



Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.

(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)

 

cavyrunsbarrels - 2015-06-27 2:58 PM I didn't read through all these, but I'm extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court. I have nothing against gay people at all, but it is written in the bible, the very definition of marriage is BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. Creating "gay marriage" is completely redefining an institution that has been around for thousands of years. It's not even that that worries me the most, because as we were given free will some choose not to follow God's laws, and don't feel that they apply to them. Sad but true, and it is not my place to condemn them. That is God's job. BUT the left won't be happy with "gay marriage" just being legal. Now they will attack our religious freedom. Just like they did with the christian bakers, they will demand that churches go against the law of God and provide the same services to gays that they do to real marriages. As a Christian, I will be labeled as a bigot and homophobe simply for acting out my RIGHT to Religious freedom. 

Three 4 Luck - 2015-06-27 7:41 PM  Since churches can refuse to marry heterosexual couples, I don't see how they could be forced to perform a gay marriage service.  That's what JPs are for. 

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!

I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.



So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.



Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.

(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)

 

TXBO - 2015-06-27 9:25 PM

 Guess who's next to demand equal rights?  Two phycologists from Canada declare pedophilia a sexual orientation. 

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-was-fast-yesterday-it-was-gay-marriage-now-look-who-wants-equal-rights/

 

jbhoot - 2015-06-27 9:57 PM I said back on page 2 that this decision left the door wide open.

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 12:27 PM

To further support this issue (same sex marriage) as being a States Rights Issue covered by The Tenth Amendment vs. The Fourteenth Amendment, the language of The Fourteenth Amendment SPECIFICALLY spells out it is addressing Race Issue(s) which do NOT include Sexual Orientation or mention Marriage. While States have focused upon the Sexual Issue of Same Sex Marriage which is NOT Defined in ANY Legal Document in The American Legal System and therefore falls under The Tenth Amendment. Again, this decision is one of MANY un-Constitutional Rulings of late by a Rogue Group of un-elected non accountable activists Judges.

America as We know it is has been voided!

jbhoot - 2015-06-27 9:57 PM


I said back on page 2 that this decision left the door wide open.

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM

We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!
I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.

So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.

Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.
(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)
 

Chandler's Mom - 2015-06-27 10:11 PM


You would be surprised at the number of younger people that I thought could care less about this who cannot fathom that the Confederate flag is under fire yet the gay flag colors light our White House. It is at federal ground zero, yet for those that find it offensive (same as some do the Confederate flag), where is the recourse there? The C flag needs to come down yet those colors and what they represent are crammed down others' throats.

Itsme - 2015-06-27 9:01 PM


Wide open for what?

musikmaker - 2015-06-27 2:52 PM

We forget that the States created the federal government....not the other way around!
I support same sex marriage...I do not support judicial legislation.

So...the Eisenhower Report (1962) clearly shows the jurisdiction of marriage is state held...every state has varying rules/regs, remember when some states required blood tests? A waiting period?  How about 'common law' marriage? It, too, varies by state...I see a lot of issues with the fed getting involved in marriage, a religous institution that, because of taxation, is now a government institution. Just wow.

Its not love. Its money. Or rather, 'Love of money'.
(Strange isn't it? One day an old battle flag is deemed offensive...the next day a rainbow flag lights up the white house...lmao...!)
 

SKM - 2015-06-28 7:50 AM


 With the way they interpreted the law, it opens the door for pedophiles to say that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality so it shouldn't be against the law and child porn should be okay because without it, pedophiles are being denied the right to happiness.

Bear - 2015-06-28 10:37 AM

This has been a great thread. I've learned a thing or two, plus it has forced me to examine my own reaction to this ruling. The truth is that I must confess I know nothing about the specifics of the case on which this ruling was made. My own reaction probably typifies the reaction of a great many fellow citizens. While I am still eager to see the gay rights issue put behind us so we can focus on other matters, I have essentially tacitly approved of a process that contradicts our constitution. It goes to show that popular opinion can basically enable our government to ignore the US Constitution....and get away with it. Shame on me for falling into this trap. It's interesting that Governor Scott Walker has been talking about a constitutional amendment allowing states to determine for themselves the legality of gay marriage. It's a serious proposal, but I think ultimately all states will allow gay marriage.....even Texas. What I find a little troubling is how we can be talking about an amendment that defines a state's right on a specific issue, when, supposedly that is already enumerated.

Do we need to divide this country in two.....one espousing the idea that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document" subject to the whims of a given ideology, and the other strictly adherent to the Constitution as written?

Frodo - 2015-06-27 8:46 PM


What this person said...............

 

foundation horse - 2015-06-27 1:28 PM I am still awaiting on the satisfactory answer as to just where SCOTUS and The Federal Government derives the authority to regulate marriage? Or where the word(s) marriage or healthcare are mentioned or defined in The United States Constitution which DOES authorize The Federal Government to exist?

JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM Doc in a sense the Constitution is a "living ,breathing document" the founders gave us several ways to change it. I am not against change I was happy to let the issue of gay marriage work it's way thru States (the people) it was more than apparent it soon would be the law the way the founders intended from the people. My main objection is the way the ruling came down. SCOTUS just shoved a square peg thru a round hole. To me they ruled on emotion not law. Thru emotion they found a way to contort the 14th amendment while ignoring the rest of the Constitution. The ruling it self is way to broad it opens way to many doors to be abused. It essentially puts all state laws on marriage at risk. The ruling essentially states that if you are humane and in love you now have a Constitutional right to marry GREAT. Now stop and think of how many possibility's you can cram in to that. And to those that say that will never happen REALLY!!!!! To me it comes down to do you want to be ruled by emotion or laws that work their way thru the states as intended in the Constitution. I WILL ALWAYS CHOOSE THE LATTER.

Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM


 JB - what happens when a legally married same-sex couple move to another state that disallows same-sex marriage?  How does that state handle it? Are they no longer legally married because of the state where they now reside?   How would that work?

jbhoot - 2015-06-28 2:38 PM Simple answer reciprocity which is under the court purview. No different than a divers license.

Anniemae - 2015-06-28 5:07 PM Are you insinuating that if a same-sex married couple moved to a state that disallows same-sex marriage, they would be considered married? Then any couple could go to another state, get married and return to their non same-sex marriage state and claim maritial rights.  How would that state handle state income tax returns? Inheritance rights? Medical decisions?  When said state, does not allow the legal distinction?  

Anniemae - 2015-06-28 5:07 PM


Are you insinuating that if a same-sex married couple moved to a state that disallows same-sex marriage, they would be considered married? Then any couple could go to another state, get married and return to their non same-sex marriage state and claim maritial rights.  How would that state handle state income tax returns? Inheritance rights? Medical decisions?  When said state, does not allow the legal distinction?  

Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:30 PM


FH you know darn well how the process of SCOTUS works.  When it was argued in the lower courts that state laws were unfair by disallowing gay marriage, thus not affording EQUAL rights and privileges under the constitution, the case(s) would make it's way up to SCOTUS. 

Marriage is not defined in the constitution, it doesn't say that only hetro-sexual unions are allowed. I've yet to find anywhere in the constitution that states same-sex marriage is not allowed either.

They are consenting adults, why do you care what they do or whom they love?  

You may not agree with the ruling, but it is now the ruling of the land. SCOTUS has had the last say, as the third branch of our Federal government, which is CLEARLY defined in the constitution. 

Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM


 JB - what happens when a legally married same-sex couple move to another state that disallows same-sex marriage?  How does that state handle it? Are they no longer legally married because of the state where they now reside?   How would that work?

foundation horse - 2015-06-28 9:03 PM

Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................

RidenFly - 2015-06-29 8:32 AM

Normally, I believe very heavily in State rights. Especially after witnessing what Arizona has gone through. However, this is just something that was long overdue. The argument over marriage has gone on too long and has muddied the dialogue and detoured us when we should be discussing more important issues. I'm a conservative saying this. The Federal Government is already in the marriage business and this is no different. There is no where in our founding documents that outline marriage and in refrencing the Bill of Rights, all men are equal and should be afforded the same liberties under law. If it considered a sin with Christians then that is where separation of church and state come into play. There was once a time we could not interracial marriage, women couldn't vote, etc etc... sometimes things need to change as the population changes. Thank god the Fed. stepped in on those issues.

Gay marriage doesn't affect you personally, so I don't see why it cannot pass. There are no solid reasons. Let's take Arizona and the immigration problem for example, that affects everyone and that definitely should be left to the citizens dealing with this issue.

The pedophile argument is ridiculous. No judge, party or individual is ever going to allow children to become victims of the depraved. That is a scare tactic that is shameful to suggest. Those whackos can try all they want to pass this into law and it won't ever happen. Ever.

foundation horse - 2015-06-28 10:03 PM

Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State......................................

FLITASTIC - 2015-06-29 8:50 AM Absolutely PERFECTLY said. Same sex couples have no affect on ANYONE. If its your personal or religious beliefs that you are against it, then thats fine as well. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. You would be hard pressed to find someone who was personally injured or depraved because same sex people were allowed to marry.

Lucylouwon - 2015-06-30 9:26 AM Actually, this law passing has become a Lawyer's paradise.  Why.  Well, When you accept Two Men or Two Women marrying under WHAT moral and legal grounds can you now keep the following items illegal?  under the "but it's love" arguement:  Incest, Polygamy, and Beastiality.  A Father/Daughter/Son/Sister etc they Love each other??  The problem with this is under What legal/moral grounds are you going to call Sodomy of a child illegal?  For instance ... Two men have adopted a boy and are raising him as a son.... say this boy is 14 and has sexual relations with a male teacher.  Under what grounds are you going to say that action is Wrong?  When the boy and his teacher "love" each other.  This arguement has nothing to do with religion, it's about right/wrong and the after effects of someone wanting special treatment for their sexual preference.  The ripple effects of this law are far reaching, it's one more attack on the church.  What I don't understand is - Marriage is an institution of the Church, by forcing this they are wanting the Churches approval.  I am curious as to why this movement wants the Churches approval so much.

jbhoot - 2015-06-28 4:59 PM Yes I will give you an example: say two people get married in New Hampshire one 14 and one 13 ( legal in that state with consent ) and get a state issued license from New Hampshire. Later they move to Ohio. Under Ohio law they could not be married at that age. Yet thru reciprocity agreement Ohio will honor the marriage license of New Hampshire and will grant all rights that come with it. It is legal in one state and illegal in the other yet thru reciprocity they agree to honor each others license.

oija - 2015-06-28 7:47 PM That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools. And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS. BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers.

Bear - 2015-06-30 10:45 AM I wish they would rule in favor of bestiality and polygamy. That way I could marry my Rotti and my mare, while still keeping my wife.

Hollywood's Fan - 2015-06-29 12:09 PM


 You would be wrong about the keeping your wife part.

oija - 2015-06-28 9:47 PM


That is a cop-out, pure and simple. The first amendment of the United States both prevents the establishment of any state religion or the prohibition of one's free exercise. While it may not use the word "separation," Thomas Jefferson, the main author of one of our founding documents and an undisputed founding father, himself interpreted it this way. Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." As part of our early government he was assuring this organization that the government would not interfere with their religious practices and that this was the way to interpret the first amendment. The SCOTUS would uphold this ruling in Reynold v. United States and most explicitly in the 1947 SCOTUS ruling Emerson v. Board of Education where the SCOTUS clearly referenced Jefferson's 1802 letter and agreed with it. Most people are more familiar with the 1962 ruling, Engel v. Vitale banning prayer in state schools.

And don't even try to pull a line like, "Well, none of those are Founding Documents." That is BS.

BECAUSE the Constitution, which is THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT, protects the SCOTUS's right to interpret the Constitution, any ruling they make, until a new interpretation is reached, IS a founding document; it becomes part of our federal law. The writers of the Constitution KNEW that societies change, grow, and must adapt. They wrote a document that could be adapted to the needs of those later societies. In their foresight they provided a particular group to interpret the Constitution based on the needs of the current society. This is not 1776; it's 2015. This decision was reached through Constitutionally and legally protected processes. Whatever your personal opinion, if you agree with the Constitution, which clearly supports the creation of the SCOTUS and their ability to interpret the Constitution, then you must accept the ruling. The SCOTUS simply performed a function they were given the power to perform in the Constitution and used previously established precedents from their own rulings to support this, even basing their rulings on the opinions of founding fathers. Separation of church and state IS the law of the land because they have interpreted it so based on the opinion of one of the founding fathers.

Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 11:00 AM


From the first Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In other words, Congress cannot pander to Christian beliefs, but your right to be a Christian is most certainly protected. You can believe what you want, but you cannot force those beliefs on others.

foundation horse - 2015-06-29 4:07 PM


However this ruling The Federal Government IS mandating a Church Function......

Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PM


Can you not tell the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? The SCOTUS has decided that gay couples can now marry LEGALLY. They can now go to the Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license. If the government forced all churches to perform gay marriages, then yes, you would have a point there. That is in direct violation of the first Amendment and Christians (and all other religions) are still protected by it and should be.  

Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 3:28 PM   Can you not tell the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? The SCOTUS has decided that gay couples can now marry LEGALLY. They can now go to the Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license. If the government forced all churches to perform gay marriages, then yes, you would have a point there. That is in direct violation of the first Amendment and Christians (and all other religions) are still protected by it and should be.  

Just Plain Lucky - 2015-06-29 1:28 PM


Can you not tell the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage? The SCOTUS has decided that gay couples can now marry LEGALLY. They can now go to the Justice of the Peace and get a marriage license. If the government forced all churches to perform gay marriages, then yes, you would have a point there. That is in direct violation of the first Amendment and Christians (and all other religions) are still protected by it and should be.  

foundation horse - 2015-06-29 1:38 PM


There is ligation in the works to use The Courts to LEGALLY force The Church to perform same marriage.

FLITASTIC - 2015-06-29 4:20 PM


In that case, absolutely against it. No church should be forced to perform gay marriages.

foundation horse - 2015-06-29 2:06 PM


Tis not a 'cop out' when the text does NOT exist in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Neither did this exist in The Articles of Confederation. And please forgive me, but when did 'doctrine' replace Founding Documents as signed and voted i.e. ratified by the Majority of States?

oija - 2015-06-29 4:58 PM  And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant....

TXBO - 2015-06-29 4:06 PM


 Last I saw, a Christian Oregon baker was facing a $135,000 settlement for not making a cake.  You think Christian Pastors are irrational from fearing the same?

oija - 2015-06-29 4:58 PM 

Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state.

oija - 2015-06-29 3:58 PM Seriously??? Is this ignore the part of the Constitution you don't like day? The part that gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution? The Supreme Court interpreted the establishment clause to mean separation. Until another panel of judges interprets it differently it doesn't really matter how you read it. If you want to influence interpretation become a judge yourself. Their right to interpret is perfectly constitutional. And the Articles of Confederation is completely left field. Founding document or not it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant. As for establishment, the government is no more setting themselves up as a religion by licensing marriages or civil unions than they are by licensing various religious nonprofits or allowing private schools. Allowing something to happen that some see as religious and others view as purely secular hardly makes them a religious entity. They are concerned with inheritance and taxation tied to these licensed partnerships. As stated before I do disagree with making churches perform marriages they do not wish to which is why I stated I thought ONLY JPs or judges should be allowed to marry people. Any religious ceremony would be entirely up the couple but legal license should be left entirely in the hands of the state.

musikmaker - 2015-06-29 5:20 PM


The 9th Amendment actually 'prohibits' the interpretation of the Constitution! By ANYONE!

TXBO - 2015-06-29 5:16 PM

Interesting fact for you.... "Separation of Church and state" and "religious tolerance" were both "scrapped' language by the founding fathers.  Like the Articles of Confederation, they were both rejected for 'something better".





 

musikmaker - 2015-06-29 5:20 PM


The 9th Amendment actually 'prohibits' the interpretation of the Constitution! By ANYONE!

oija - 2015-06-29 5:30 PM They were adopted by the Supreme Court later though and particularly defended in 1947. From the constitution, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The court is given jurisdiction to law and fact (thus to interpret cases and be the final word on legality) unless Congress says otherwise.

TXBO - 2015-06-29 5:38 PM


Well sure but if they were consistent with your reasoning, " it was scrapped because IT DIDNT WORK. It was a bad model so they came up with something better. As it is not law of the land, i refuse to refer to it. I care about what is relevant"...., you'd agree that it was judicial activism?  You're ok with the Supreme Court justices violating your personal sensibilities?

oija - 2015-06-29 5:46 PM Yup. It was legal pure and simple. I promise you it violated a lot of people's 'personal sensibilities' when they got rid of segregation. Still needed to be done. Government cannot act like individuals. It must act for the public good. Plenty of sins can be committed under the search for public good but plenty of great things have happened too including rights for blacks and women to vote. It ain't perfect but it's what we got. So we work with the system. If I disagree I can vote differently or run for office myself and try to get something done.

foundation horse - 2015-06-29 5:37 PM

The rights are enumerated via the text. Marriage, abortion and gun control are NOT enumerated via text. Per ANY Amendment!

TXBO - 2015-06-29 6:04 PM


The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not write law into the Constitution.  That is what they have done here.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that marriage is a fundamental right.  The Constitution is certainly a living, breathing document that allows us to make changes and correct horrible wrongs like you mentioned with women and blacks.  But those need to take place through the proscribed process laid out in the Constitution.  Women make up roughly 50% of the population and they gained their civil rights through the proper amendment process.  Blacks were roughly 11% of the population and they gained their rights through the amendment process.  What makes homosexuals at less than .5% of the population any different?  Our abandonment of rule of law has repercussions way beyond the scope of this case.