Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by HB Surfer, Jun 26, 2015.

Page 3 of 19
  1. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't say 'states.' I said 'government.'
     
    Bow To The Robots, Jun 27, 2015
    #51
  2. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Granny says now God gonna deal with us like He did with Sodom & Gomorrah...
    :eekeyes:
    Uncle Ferd says we gonna go the way o' the Roman Empire...
    :frown:
    ... possum hidin' behind the couch.
     
    waltky, Jun 28, 2015
    #52
  3. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Any of this sound familiar?
     
    Professor Peabody, Jun 28, 2015
    #53
  4. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." - Matt 36.748
     
    Pax Aeon, Jun 28, 2015
    #54
  5. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This argument fails unless one were to hold the opinion that the decision in Loving v Virginia that struck down laws against interracial marriage was also flawed. The Constitutional Rights of the Person take precedent over invidious laws of the States. That is a historical fact in the United States.
     
    Shiva_TD, Jun 28, 2015
    #55
  6. In The Dark

    In The Dark Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    3,374
    Likes Received:
    508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If this right ALWAYS existed in the 14th Amendment why did the country struggle and fail to secure the passage of the ERA, equal rights for women? That MUST be similarly hidden in plain sight, right?

    Kennedy is an agenda fraud. The four leftists are excused. I know they have no souls.
     
    In The Dark, Jun 28, 2015
    #56
  7. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely nothing

    - - - Updated - - -

    Same sex couples. John could marry jane but he couldn't marry Jason. Because of the genders of the spouses. Can't do that.
     
    rahl, Jun 28, 2015
    #57
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody is enforcing a view of family. The constitution was simply upheld that's all. The 14th amendment precludes discrimination based on race and also gender.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Without the state recognition there is no marriage.
     
    rahl, Jun 28, 2015
    #58
  9. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were still allowed to marry though.
     
    HTownMarine, Jun 28, 2015
    #59
  10. Dollface

    Dollface New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages:
    4,563
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh the states that are against this will issue them. Why? They will lose revenue. And one thing I know about Republicans is God doesn't matter when money is involved.

    Does anyone who thinks God defined marriage want to explain why Egypt was marrying it citizens Five thousand years before Christianity was even a religion?
     
    Dollface, Jun 28, 2015
    #60
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    John could marry Jason in every state prior to this ruling?
     
    rahl, Jun 28, 2015
    #61
  12. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,425
    Likes Received:
    7,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. but John's sister Kathy can marry Jason in every state. We are not supposed to see this as discrimination, because Kathy can not marry Jason's sister, so it all equals out. That is their logic.
     
    btthegreat, Jun 28, 2015
    #62
  13. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    However much we disagree on most things, you are quite correct in your replies in this post. If there is a flaw in the way that the way that the Government of the United States defines who, and who is not eligible for "marriage", then the flaw is in the Constitution, not in the SCOTUS.

    Your second statement that "without...state recognition there is no marriage" is also correct in all countries and societies that require state recognition and approval for a formal, legal declaration of intent to be "married".

    Wow! I got to agree with rahl on something! If Left and Right in this country could agree on more things more often, we might be able to keep this country from nose-diving into even deeper depths of disastrous (*)(*)(*)(*) than we are in already. Ah, but I mustn't get too carried away.... :wink:
     
    Pollycy, Jun 28, 2015
    #63
  14. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's incorrect because Loving struck down laws that penalized interracial marriage whereas this decision compels states to recognize a new kind of relationship as marriage. The other huge difference is that there are four dissenting Justices in this case who make valid points and express troubling concerns, whereas the Loving decision was unanimous - there was no other way to read the law for that decision.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Right, well, before this ruling, the only government that defined marriage was the state.

    - - - Updated - - -

    According to you, people did not get married in Colonial America. Absurd.
     
    AtsamattaU, Jun 28, 2015
    #64
  15. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you still havent answered my question.

    - - - Updated - - -

    In what fantasy land?
     
    Bow To The Robots, Jun 28, 2015
    #65
  16. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It said nothing about starting all at once.
     
    Professor Peabody, Jun 28, 2015
    #66
  17. Sadanie

    Sadanie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    Messages:
    14,427
    Likes Received:
    639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. ..a good description of the Koch brothers! :wink::roflol:
     
    Sadanie, Jun 28, 2015
    #67
  18. Frowning Loser

    Frowning Loser Banned

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    3,379
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    At the time an interacial marriage was a new kind of marriage for many states. Some of the state rullings againts interacial marriage claimed it was against God's way's.

    Also are you now saying that all 5-4 decisions are questionable or just this one?

    And also this is upholding the 14th amendment.
     
    Frowning Loser, Jun 28, 2015
    #68
  19. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Legally? No they didn't.
     
    rahl, Jun 28, 2015
    #69
  20. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    I'm going to let the religious folk and their eschatologists fret about that.
     
    Pax Aeon, Jun 28, 2015
    #70
  21. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first question was answered by Bobby Jindal, for the courts. He said marriage between a man and a woman was established by God. My question to old Bobby(let's not be the stupid party) Jindal, when did he have a conversation with God about this? Can he give us the details of the conversation; http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-lets-just-get-rid-the-court?
     
    bwk, Jun 28, 2015
    #71
  22. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'Evil' Koch Brothers Donate Billions

    Now lets compare...........

    Now there's an inconvenient truth!
     
    Professor Peabody, Jun 29, 2015
    #72
  23. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Revelation 21:8 - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

    If the atheists are right, we all end up in the same place. If the Bible is right they'll need some asbestos BVD's.
     
    Professor Peabody, Jun 29, 2015
    #73
  24. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're not making any sense here. If the Constitution is flawed for failing to provide such a definition, then it is also flawed for failing to provide a definition of, e.g., liberty; but no amount of legal verbiage could possibly compensate for a lack of intuitive understanding of either in the electorate. As for SCOTUS, it has no business fixing any perceived flaws in the Constitution, any more than it has extracting impossible meanings from 14A so as to violate 10A.
     
    yguy, Jun 29, 2015
    #74
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure what you find impossible about the equal protection clause?
     
    rahl, Jun 29, 2015
    #75
Page 3 of 19

Share This Page