|
|
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
  
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Excellent points, Anniemae. | |
| | |
 Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
 
| Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM
JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM 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? 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.
Simple answer reciprocity which is under the court purview. No different than a divers license. | |
| | |
Common Sense and then some
Location: So. California | jbhoot - 2015-06-28 2:38 PM Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM 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? 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. Simple answer reciprocity which is under the court purview. No different than a divers license.
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? | |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Anniemae - 2015-06-28 5:07 PM jbhoot - 2015-06-28 2:38 PM Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM 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? 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. Simple answer reciprocity which is under the court purview. No different than a divers license.
2) You've just proved that equality has not been achieved. This isn't about dignity or equality. It's about inclusion in the privileged class and inequalities created by government.
Edited by TXBO 2015-06-28 5:26 PM
| |
| | |
Proud to be Deplorable
Posts: 1929
| Anniemae - 2015-06-28 5:07 PM
jbhoot - 2015-06-28 2:38 PM Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM 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? 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. Simple answer reciprocity which is under the court purview. No different than a divers license.
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.
Edited by jbhoot 2015-06-28 7:42 PM
| |
| | |
  Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:30 PM
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?
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.
And again, The 14th Amendment was/is specific upon defining race not sexual orientation to have equal rights. There are nor ever have been any specific references to either healthcare rights or sexual orientation rights to include marriage. But yet healthcare and sexual orientation & marriage predate The Constitution by eons of time........................The Founding Fathers were intent on either one of these items as rights. Therefore The Federal Government to include The Judicial Branch has no authority to declare anything whatsoever in regards to these. Even Scalia understands this! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM
JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM 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? 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.
Reciprocity already exists or not via The Concealed Handgun License Concept. California recognizes NO Concealed Handgun Liscenses but allows same sex marriages. States Rights illustrated in a nutshell! | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 3782
Location: Gainesville, TX | I'm a fan of state's rights within limits, but until the SCOTUS stepped in on the issue of segregation, this country remained highly divided on the issue of race. Sometimes the federal government does have to step in to move the entire country in one direction and a direction that the majority finds acceptable.
36 states had already moved on this issue, meaning there was more than a 2/3 majority in this country on this issue. I think the SCOTUS simply forced the states who were not yet ready to move to do so. The SCOTUS is completely constitutional as are the fact that the judges are appointed, not elected, and serve for life. This protects that branch. It is part of our country's system of checks and balances and YES the SCOTUS has been given the power to interpret legislation by the Constitution as well. Just because anyone here personally may not interpret the Constitution or its amendments the same way this particular group of nine does in the end doesn't matter. They are given the power to interpret by our Constitution and they executed that power. You may not like it; you may not agree with it, but at the end of the day there is a reason that body exists, to balance out our legislature and executive branch. If you want to change something, go to law school become a judge and try to make yourself part of that body or influence it. Elect the type of presidents you want to appoint the sort of judges to that body you support. The vote was 5-4; that's a pretty close divide. Just one judge going a different way and this issue would have remained divided.
Anyone here who is upset for religious reasons, I'm sorry but the federal government is not a church and I'm **** glad its not. We have separation of church and state in this country for a reason. Laws should not be based on religious morality but on more general ideas of right and wrong and what the public considers acceptable. Governments are formed by consent of the governed. Not all those governed look to the Bible for their opinions on same sex relations. And they have a legally protected right to have a different opinion than the Bible. There are people here from many different religious backgrounds and their rights should be respected too.
Personally, as a result of this ruling I would like to see 'marriage' licenses changed to civil union licenses which can only be obtained from a JP. Marriage is a word with religious connotations for many and this would let them relax about the semantics. This would keep churches out of the whole deal entirely and keep them from being forced to perform same sex marriages which would violate their religious rights, something I do disagree with. Anyone wanting a traditional marriage ceremony could still have it at their church but would have to finalize it for a state license at a JP. I hope most states see their way through to this eventually; I'm sure there will be a certain amount of time before this issue settles down just as when the South passed their Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from voting. But it will eventually settle down.
The pedophilia issue and bestiality issue doesn't compute. Every state and country has age of consent based on the idea that people must have a certain ability to reason before becoming married, some bypass this with parental consent. But the big idea here is that the person must be a 'consenting human adult' to take part in sexual congress or marriage. Even bestiality in this country is illegal and considered animal abuse because animals cannot consent to these types of act; children too are not considered capable of giving this type of informed consent and are therefore protected by law. I do not see these 'consent' laws going away anytime soon. I'm sure the pedophilia people will try but ultimately fail to get anything done on this issue because of these legal understandings of consent. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | Please reference the specific text within ANY of America's Founding Documents decreeing the specific separation of Church and State...................................... | |
| | |
Expert
Posts: 3782
Location: Gainesville, TX | 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......................................
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. | |
| | |
 Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| 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. | |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 5293
| 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.
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. | |
| | |
 Thread Killer
Posts: 7545
| 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......................................
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.
| |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| BTW,
While we were all in a hoopla over this issue and the flag issue, Congress may have passed with both Obama and the Republican in the same bed, I might add, a measure that would effectively would allow other countries to hold corporation monopolies. I don't understand the entire jist of this bill, but it smells rotten. I hope someone on here knows what I'm talking about. NOW, THERE is something to GET MAD over. | |
| | |
 Just a Yankee
Posts: 1239
Location: Some where I haven't left yet | FLITASTIC - 2015-06-29 8:50 AM 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. 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.
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. | |
| | |
Hawty & Nawty
Posts: 20424
| Lucylouwon - 2015-06-30 9:26 AM FLITASTIC - 2015-06-29 8:50 AM 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. 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.
I think you're far reaching here. I doubt "but it's love" ever came into the judge's decision. On what planet would a supreme court judge rule in favor of beastiallity? The argument for Gay marriage was for equal rights in regards to benefits, health decisions, estate and social security. Until effin' FIDO pays his taxes, the dog has no say. SMH | |
| | |
Common Sense and then some
Location: So. California | jbhoot - 2015-06-28 4:59 PM Anniemae - 2015-06-28 5:07 PM jbhoot - 2015-06-28 2:38 PM Anniemae - 2015-06-28 3:34 PM JBjbhoot - 2015-06-28 10:59 AM 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? 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. Simple answer reciprocity which is under the court purview. No different than a divers license. 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.
Ah, not all states will reciprocate such a union; the federal government certainly did not reciprocate. Windsor v. United States is one of the cases included in this ruling, due to unfair inheritance taxes being assessed. The legally married same-sex couple (or widow in this case) was not afforded EQUAL rights under Federal Law. So much for reciprocation...
| |
| | |
Common Sense and then some
Location: So. California | oija - 2015-06-28 7:47 PM 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...................................... 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.
 | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | 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.
 (AnnabelleAugust2012.jpg)
 (Neva2-22-12-1.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 AnnabelleAugust2012.jpg (83KB - 181 downloads)
Neva2-22-12-1.jpg (43KB - 175 downloads)
| |
| | |
 Forever Young
Posts: 6768
Location: relocated to Texas | 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.
You would be wrong about the keeping your wife part. | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line