I think the 14th Amendment was misinterpreted in the same-sex marriage ruling; whether you want same-sex marriage to be legal or not, it's not a Constitutional right since bans against same-sex marriage aren't discrimination against individuals, it's simply regulating a specific type of intersex activity. Therefore it should be something for the states to decide on a case-by-case basis. If you interpret the 14th Amendment to mean that discrimination of activity between the sexes is "separate but equal", then by that standard shouldn't sororities and fraternities also be illegal, and shouldn't housing male and female inmates in sepearate prisons be illegal as well since it could be claimed they are "separate but equal"?
Look, you have a right to your opinion... but all of that didn't go through lower courts and then the United States Supreme Court for nothing. I think it's right to say that it's settled law, at this point. And really... WHY are you so concerned about it?
Sororities and fraternities are private clubs. They are a little different than states. For what it's worth, no I don't necessarily agree with what the federal supreme court did. It wasn't necessary. Full faith and credit should have been enforced however. Alas I don't think the SCOTUS is going to over torn their decision any time soon. Further why concern yourself with it?
The Supreme Court did the right thing on June 26, 2015 when the majority declared Same-Sex Marriage to be the law of the land. States cannot decide on Same-Sex Marriage because the rights of a minority cannot be taken away by the majority. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. The Constitution does not mention marriage, therefore, it was up to the Supreme Court to decide on the matter on a 21st century viewpoint.
"intersex activity"? thats funny. nice try though. being gay isn't an activity, nor is marriage an activity.... by the way intersex means having both female and male anatomy.....
This question is the only one people should be asking. It's because the answer is non existent. The multitude of answers are irrelevant. "Because it's a sin" "Because it's gross" "because I don't like it" All these answers don't apply, these may be good trains for the people that don't like it to not be gay, but they say nothing about what others who don't hold thus opinions should think. It's more about lack of respect for religion. They can't say it that way because the first amendment states it is unconstitutional to respect religion. The first amendment would have been a good argumentative point against the states. This was all about restricting liberty to individuals in order to pay respect to a religion.
I agree. And... Separation of Church/State is something we need to value all the more in America; it avoids a LOT of unnecessary social woes.
Think that all you wish. But I think otherwise. And I'll explain. From the fourteenth amendment: "No state shall make or enforce laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United states." Is marriage a privilege? Are gay people citizens? And same sex marriage is a privilege and immunity in the United states. That's really why the court ruled the way it did on this issue. - - - Updated - - - It seems like religion sometimes is more about conquering and converting than it is about worship. Such things don't gel with the US.
Nice try. Really, that was a very nice attempt. Except you're missing the "rational basis" for the discrimination, which must be clear and present. Otherwise the discrimination is indeed unconstitutional. And no one has been able to present a rational basis for why same sex marriage should be illegal.
That's what people who have what they want always say - its settled law, live with it. Its not going to happen. Obergefell opened a real can of worms, it expanded the conflict from one of simple gay marriage to an attack on religion. Things are going to get a lot more uncomfortable for everyone.
Well this you don't have to be concerned with in the least. If you don't believe it is right to marry the same sex, than don't marry the same sex. this law doesn't force anything on anybody, except forbidding the states from infringing on the liberty of the people. that is really the purpose of the judiciary. I read the court documents, it menntioned nothing about churches or religion. it talked about the state. The state cannot be a religious entity as dictated by the first amendment. The "can of worms" simply doesn't exist. Further we don't decide what liberties people have based on the comfort level some choose to have. If you are uncomfortable with ssm it is simply a personal problem. Much like Those that were uncomfortable with interracial marriage. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...xcNwN323i0IG3iy8Q&sig2=dY_XowDa3WD8gUpnPWbgEQ
No, you did not read the supreme court opinion - neither the majority nor the dissenting opinions. Religious freedom is addressed in multiple places in the majority opinion, and is a theme in the dissent. You have no credibility.
Religious freedom is still intact. It didn't go anywhere. They may have talked about it. But it was never part if this discussion. It's an attempt to justify states continuing to ban same sex marriage. They never were banning it to maintain religious freedom. Two people of the same sex getting married has nothing to do with your religion. It doesn't interfere in the least. Apparently the court saw it that way too.
You said you read the Obergefell opinion and the opinion did not mention or discuss religion, when the opinion clearly does. You did not read it. You have no credibility.
it's gender based discrimination in the same way inter-racial marriage bans were racial discrimination if a white man can marry a white women, a black man should be able to do the same (racial discrimination) if a man can marry a women, a women should be able to do the same (gender discrimination) "shouldn't sororities and fraternities also be illegal" they are private clubs, if a bakery wants to make itself a private club open to members only... it can .
I don't care if I don't have any credibility with you. Since that discussion is over, back to the original one. Religious freedom is intact even after the court decision. If I have no credibility with you place me on ignore it waste time continuing to tell me I have no credibility with you. Either way it's not a very productive discussion.
The Supreme Court disagreed with your assessment. Deal with it and draw new ideas about the society you live in.
Actually, you're quite mistaken about that. It very much is discrimination against the freedom of the individual to choose consenting marriage partner, appropriate to their orientation. It's also no secret that the people who authored these laws were targeting gay people, and that these laws were a proxy for expressing anti-gay religious beliefs. I realize the Court didn't want to go there, but I have no qualms about doing so, because I've conversed with the author of my state's amendment, and he wasn't shy about sharing his motivation for doing it. To him, it was about making sure that same-sex relationships would never enjoy any legal or social status, due to his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. So no amount of argument is going to convince me that there was some other purpose, because I have it straight from the horse's mouth.
