Republican Governors Refuse To Abide By SCOTUS Decision

9 yr. old? I thought we were talking about gays, not pedophiles? Nice way to avoid answering the question.

 

they did intend it
it all right there in the constitution what they didn't intend was some liberals to twist and manipulate and shred their intent to mean what ever liberals wanted it to mean

they don't even argue the constitution anymore in court cases the use previous court case rulings and precedent as their foundation for their arguments

liberals wipe there ass with they constitution it means nothing to them anymore

 

On the contrary, you're avoiding the answer.

 

we as a country have decided discrimination is unconstitutional, the founders may not have agreed (many owned slaves) but we have come a long way sense then, the founders did take that into account and that is why the constitution is a living document

 

Speaking of having "enough factual ground to stand on", your initial claim was "Since the majority of folks still see homosexuality as immoral the Governors are just abiding by the will of the people.".
It's been clearly demonstrated that "the majority of folks" actually support the rights for gays to get married.

Now who's "Sad"...?

 

Great, let's start by preventing the government from deciding who is and isn't worthy of marriage. Of course, the starting default position would have to be that everyone is equally entitled...

 

preventing the federal government for doing so and give the right to decide to the states a decision that is rightfully theirs to make
any power that isn't specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution is then left up to the states
does that sound familiar

 

And you're changing the topic of conversation. Being gay has nothing to do with a 9 year old, child just as being straight does not. They only apply if there is pedophilia involved, which both heterosexuals and gays can be involved in. Hence, there is no answer to your question, unless you pick both.

 

Why should it be left up to the states? Are they God too?

 

Sweet! Let's have a vote and settle this thing. What do ya say?

 

because the constitution says so any powers not granted to the federal government is there by allotted to the states
you show me anywhere in the constitution that the federal government is allotted the powers to regulate or make decisions on marriage

 

I'm game, the problem of states respecting contracts from other states come to mind, I am sure you will hold the more educated and loving Christian areas of the country (Arkansas and Mississippi quickly come to mind).

If it was your civil rights up for debate I'm sure you would want the public to be able to vote on them, hopefully you be able to experience that one day.

 

Oh no no no... you folks want to make this a federal issue. I say we have a vote on the federal level... perhaps even a constitutional amendment to make it clear that marriage is a privilege and not a right... or perhaps something to amend the 14th amendment to state explicitly that sexual orientation is not a protected class and as such doesn't qualify...

 

I think it's more that the feds believe they are above the constitution.

 

Actually you're the one who did that, by asking a question you vainly imagine is rhetorical.

Obviously incorrect, for the same reason it cannot be said that petty shoplifting has nothing to do with grand larceny: they're both forms of theft, just as pedophilia and homosexuality are both forms of sexual perversion.

 

14th amendment.

 

Hmmmmm, seems to me that the Federal government and in particular SCOTUS is mandated with preserving the civil rights of its citizens. Since homosexuals are citizens too, they should have the same rights as hetrosexuals. Hindi should have the same rights as Christian. Yellow should have the same rights as white.

SCOTUS is not regulating marriage, it is ruling on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of state laws that discriminate.

Once again the most vocal and vociferous "defenders of the constitution" show themselves to hypocritically selective about which rights should be granted to those not like themselves. This despite the fact that the constitution was specifically engineered to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

 

Governor's are bound by their duty to their state Constitutions, not some unelected activists, judge or not...

 

the states own courts have made it clear that same gender marriage is legal in their state

- - - Updated - - -

 

The state's own people made clear their desires. That's how the system works. I guess stomping on the will of the people and the lawful amendments to their own Constitutions means nothing anymore.

 

no, the people want equal rights, this gov is spitting on the courts and the people, they tried this with inter-racial marriage too and failed

.

 

there is no mention of marriage in the constitution. that is why marriage laws are at the state level it is why we have so many different ages to be allowed to marry it changes state by state

 

Gee thanks for the obvious.

What is mentioned in the constitution, is equal rights for all citizens and I believe is considered a founding principle of the republic.


A small constitutional fact that anti-gay people seem to ignore as they decry the corruption of the very document that enables them to voice their opinion and precludes them from imposing their will on a minority of citizens.

 

Marriage is a religious construct not governed by the Constitution. Civil Unions were more appropriate to fight for the same rights that marriage has. All this only has to do with spitting on religion.

 

what you don't understand sense the constitution gives the authority to the states to pass laws on marriage they then get to establish what a marriage is