Gay marriage now legal in all but 14 states

[gabosaurus]

Coming soon to a state near you.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-states-20141006-story.html

[Gunny]

Coming soon to a state near you.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gay-marriage-states-20141006-story.html

Yep. Tyranny of the minority. The people HAD spoken. Legislating from the bench subverted the will of the people.

[gabosaurus]

Yep. Tyranny of the minority. The people HAD spoken. Legislating from the bench subverted the will of the people.

The people are the ones who brought the lawsuits that led to gay marriage being made legal.

If you want a example of legislating from the bench that subverts the will of the people, try women's rights.

[Gunny]

The people are the ones who brought the lawsuits that led to gay marriage being made legal.

If you want a example of legislating from the bench that subverts the will of the people, try women's rights.

No, the radical minority brought the lawsuit against the people of the states.

The will of the people was not subverted by legislating from the bench concerning women's rights. The issue itself is and has been irrelevant for decades. Except for those who have an agenda to make money off some controversy.

[DLT]

The people are the ones who brought the lawsuits that led to gay marriage being made legal.

If you want a example of legislating from the bench that subverts the will of the people, try women's rights.

Uh...no. The majority of We, the People voted Hell NO to gay marriage. The few leftists that always want to thwart the will of We, the People if/when it stands in the way of their leftist agenda for America (or rather, against America) are the ones that brought the lawsuits, since they couldn't accomplish their agenda goals via the election process.

[Thunderknuckles]

The fight is over unless the 5th or 6th circuit courts rule against gay marriage sometime in the future. Then the SCOTUS will have to step in and put it to rest. As it stands now, if the SCOTUS had to rule, I'd say it would all come down to Justice Kennedy making the deciding vote and he would ultimately rule in favor of gay marriage.

I think conservatives need to move on from this issue politically.

[fj1200]

Uh...no. The majority of We, the People voted Hell NO to gay marriage. The few leftists that always want to thwart the will of We, the People if/when it stands in the way of their leftist agenda for America (or rather, against America) are the ones that brought the lawsuits, since they couldn't accomplish their agenda goals via the election process.

Not exactly. Nevertheless, SCOTUS has spoken that Equal Protection was violated.

[Gunny]

The fight is over unless the 5th or 6th circuit courts rule against gay marriage sometime in the future. Then the SCOTUS will have to step in and put it to rest. As it stands now, if the SCOTUS had to rule, I'd say it would all come down to Justice Kennedy making the deciding vote and he would ultimately rule in favor of gay marriage.

I think conservatives need to move on from this issue politically.

The issue isn't about gay marriage. Just so we're straight ... I could care less what fags do in the privacy of their own homes.

The issue is about the law, and the Federal government sticking its nose into states' business. Maybe I missed it ... but when was the 10th Amendment repealed? The courts are overstepping their bounds.

[Gunny]

Not exactly. Nevertheless, SCOTUS has spoken that Equal Protection was violated.

I disagree. Hate crime laws do not provide equal protection.

What you're basically saying is, democracy in this country is a farce and we're ruled by justices legislating from the bench.

[Thunderknuckles]

The issue isn't about gay marriage. Just so we're straight ... I could care less what fags do in the privacy of their own homes.

The issue is about the law, and the Federal government sticking its nose into states' business. Maybe I missed it ... but when was the 10th Amendment repealed? The courts are overstepping their bounds.
For the most part I agree. I watched it all go down in my state of California. Voters voted against gay marriage with Prop 8. A U.S. District Court overturned it based on the grounds that it violated the Due Process and Equal Protections clauses in the U.S. Constitution and 9th Circuit later upheld the ruling. Everyone outside of San Fran was none too pleased.

I support "traditional marriage" but I also find it difficult to refute the court rulings from a legal standpoint. I have yet to hear anyone give me a good argument, and believe me, I honestly want to hear one :)

[fj1200]

I disagree. Hate crime laws do not provide equal protection.

What you're basically saying is, democracy in this country is a farce and we're ruled by justices legislating from the bench.

Hate Crimes? :confused: Equal protection was central to the recent SCOTUS decision (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/06/354147384/reviewing-the-four-gay-marriage-cases-the-high-court-tacitly-endorsed):


"We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable. However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws. Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support and security. The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance."

And last I checked we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic where state legislatures can act on behalf of the people and where laws need to be held against the Constitutional benchmark.


The issue is about the law, and the Federal government sticking its nose into states' business. Maybe I missed it ... but when was the 10th Amendment repealed? The courts are overstepping their bounds.

I might agree with you but for the multitude of marriage references made in Federal legislation.

[jimnyc]

Damn, gonna have to move to Iran soon. :(

[Thunderknuckles]

And last I checked we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic where state legislatures can act on behalf of the people and where laws need to be held against the Constitutional benchmark.
Yep. I had to explain this to my wife when she got pissed after the courts overturned Prop 8. Its the single biggest hurdle for me to find an argument against legalizing gay marriage. Damn Constitution!

[Gunny]

For the most part I agree. I watched it all go down in my state of California. Voters voted against gay marriage with Prop 8. A U.S. District Court overturned it based on the grounds that it violated the Due Process and Equal Protections clauses in the U.S. Constitution and 9th Circuit later upheld the ruling. Everyone outside of San Fran was none too pleased.

I support "traditional marriage" but I also find it difficult to refute the court rulings from a legal standpoint. I have yet to hear anyone give me a good argument, and believe me, I honestly want to hear one :)

The argument is simple, and there is no right answer. Our laws are supposed to protect against the tyranny of the majority, but in fact, force the tyranny of the minority on the majority.

[Gunny]

Hate Crimes? :confused: Equal protection was central to the recent SCOTUS decision (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/06/354147384/reviewing-the-four-gay-marriage-cases-the-high-court-tacitly-endorsed):



And last I checked we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Constitutional Republic where state legislatures can act on behalf of the people and where laws need to be held against the Constitutional benchmark.



I might agree with you but for the multitude of marriage references made in Federal legislation.

Who ratified that Constitution? We, the People ...

Hate crime laws are discriminatory. The give preferential treatment to basically, weird people. Any minority with a cause. The majority suffers. You can quote some BS scribblings or finding all you want. The effect is remains the same.

[Gunny]

Yep. I had to explain this to my wife when she got pissed after the courts overturned Prop 8. Its the single biggest hurdle for me to find an argument against legalizing gay marriage. Damn Constitution!

The Constitution doesn't make it right.

In any other case, what do we do with people that behave outside the conforms of society? Murder, rape, child molestation ...?

This isn't about the law. This is about politically appointed justices making political decisions against the will of the majority.

Those representatives you speak of? They're supposed to represent the people, not a political agenda.

[aboutime]

IMO. The U.S. Supreme Court decided nothing, and left the decision to the Constitution. Namely, the 10th amendment.

I guess it just depends on HOW each of us, as WE THE PEOPLE, Interpret the 10th.

Amendment X

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.

[Thunderknuckles]

The Constitution doesn't make it right.

In any other case, what do we do with people that behave outside the conforms of society? Murder, rape, child molestation ...?

This isn't about the law. This is about politically appointed justices making political decisions against the will of the majority.

Those representatives you speak of? They're supposed to represent the people, not a political agenda.

The Constitution doesn't make it right but it was designed to be the ultimate law of the land by which all else is judged, even the will of the people.

Now, I'm sympathetic to your argument but here is the current dilemma:
How do you get around the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? How can you legally argue that only certain classes of people can enter into a marriage contract? I can't find a way.

Aside from that, how realistic is it that we could amend the Constitution today to specifically outlaw gay marriage or even codify traditional marriage?

Like I said before, I think the fight is over. I don't necessarily like the outcome but that's how the system works. I believe Conservatives have to move on from this politically even though they are internally kicking and screaming about it.

[aboutime]

The Constitution doesn't make it right but it was designed to be the ultimate law of the land by which all else is judged, even the will of the people.

Now, I'm sympathetic to your argument but here is the current dilemma:
How do you get around the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? How can you legally argue that only certain classes of people can enter into a marriage contract? I can't find a way.

Aside from that, how realistic is it that we could amend the Constitution today to specifically outlaw gay marriage or even codify traditional marriage?

Like I said before, I think the fight is over. I don't necessarily like the outcome but that's how the system works. I believe Conservatives have to move on from this politically even though they are internally kicking and screaming about it.


Totally agree with you, while feeling exactly the same way. This fight is over, even though we disagree with it. Just like all of us should now SHUT UP about Abortion- ROE V. WADE. Kicking a dead horse year after year on those two topics gets nothing accomplished. The battles go on, and on, and nobody ends up winning in the end.
Any attempts to change the Constitution with a Constitutional Convention..as I see it, could be the END of the entire Document if the same powers who are destroying the nation now..get their way. Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are so Dangerous to America. They will probably live to be 150, just to get their Legacy of IGNORANCE, and STUPIDITY recorded in Liberal, Socialist History.

[Gunny]

The Constitution doesn't make it right but it was designed to be the ultimate law of the land by which all else is judged, even the will of the people.

Now, I'm sympathetic to your argument but here is the current dilemma:
How do you get around the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? How can you legally argue that only certain classes of people can enter into a marriage contract? I can't find a way.

Aside from that, how realistic is it that we could amend the Constitution today to specifically outlaw gay marriage or even codify traditional marriage?

Like I said before, I think the fight is over. I don't necessarily like the outcome but that's how the system works. I believe Conservatives have to move on from this politically even though they are internally kicking and screaming about it.

In the case of all these fringe-element groups, the US Constitution created its own monster.

Marriage is a state matter, not a Federal one. The Constitution covers it perfectly with the 10th Amendment. There's nothing to amend. What needs to happen is the Supreme Court needs to kick these lawsuits back to the states, whose Right under the 10th Amendment is to make the decision.

I'm not arguing about conservatives nor the GOP. I'm arguing ideology.

[Thunderknuckles]

In the case of all these fringe-element groups, the US Constitution created its own monster.

Marriage is a state matter, not a Federal one. The Constitution covers it perfectly with the 10th Amendment. There's nothing to amend. What needs to happen is the Supreme Court needs to kick these lawsuits back to the states, whose Right under the 10th Amendment is to make the decision.

I'm not arguing about conservatives nor the GOP. I'm arguing ideology.
But even State Law must be held against the Constitution. Even if we ignore that for a moment, when it comes to the Feds, we would still have to contend with the Supremacy Clause.

You and I agree on ideology here. So there's no argument. My whole point is with regards to the mechanics of it all.

[Thunderknuckles]

Two more states have fallen to the 9th Circuit!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-26027055

It's getting ugly Gunny. It's time to retreat and regroup, preferably to place with :beer: and :boobies:.

:cool:

[Gunny]

But even State Law must be held against the Constitution. Even if we ignore that for a moment, when it comes to the Feds, we would still have to contend with the Supremacy Clause.

You and I agree on ideology here. So there's no argument. My whole point is with regards to the mechanics of it all.

Okay. So, when you get the state involved in religion ... which marriage is a religious ceremony ... WHO is violating the Constitution? Marriage is actually nothing but a religious ceremony. Religion can't be in government, but government can control religion with threats of withdrawing tax exempt status.

If the states weren't requiring fees for licenses, marriage would have nothing to do with law. Would it?

This was never about legal partnership from a secular government. This is about forcing political will on others and the government using extortion to get its way. It's about political extremists demanding something they were denied. The term "marriage". They weren't happy until they got that word.

The real problem was all these insurance companies and policies that wouldn't allow them to claim their favorite fag. But being legally bound by the state wasn't enough. They had to shove their asses through the church doors.

[Gunny]

Two more states have fallen to the 9th Circuit!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-26027055

It's getting ugly Gunny. It's time to retreat and regroup, preferably to place with :beer: and :boobies:.

:cool:

Not getting ugly to me. I'm discussing ideology with you. I have no dog in this fight other than that ... the ideology. The crap our government is pulling in the name of political correctness. Usurping the 10th Amendment.

My youngest daughter is gay. She knows I don't approve. And she knows I still love her.

[Thunderknuckles]

Okay. So, when you get the state involved in religion ... which marriage is a religious ceremony ... WHO is violating the Constitution? Marriage is actually nothing but a religious ceremony. Religion can't be in government, but government can control religion with threats of withdrawing tax exempt status.
The problem is that marriage is a legal contract to the State. The religious part is irrelevant to them. That's where the shit hit the fan IMO, when government recognized it as a contract. Had marriage remained a private religious ceremony with no legal recognition at all, which would probably open up all kinds of other issues, we would not be having this discussion.

Anyway, I've said all about I can say on the matter and will leave this one to posterity,

[fj1200]

Who ratified that Constitution? We, the People ...

Hate crime laws are discriminatory. The give preferential treatment to basically, weird people. Any minority with a cause. The majority suffers. You can quote some BS scribblings or finding all you want. The effect is remains the same.

States ratified the Constitution. I'm not sure why you're bringing up hate crimes but I agree with you on that. You may not like it when the Constitution goes against you but it's there for a reason. If the minority have a grievance then they have a right to seek redress; Scribblings are how they decide. :poke:

Anyway, how is the majority suffering?

[jimnyc]

Anyway, how is the majority suffering?

Because I have to hear about it EVERY time one of these bastards gets married. Holy crap, I don't care about anyone getting married!!! LOL It's too much, they gotta stop, back in the closet they go. :)

[Gunny]

The problem is that marriage is a legal contract to the State. The religious part is irrelevant to them. That's where the shit hit the fan IMO, when government recognized it as a contract. Had marriage remained a private religious ceremony with no legal recognition at all, which would probably open up all kinds of other issues, we would not be having this discussion.

Anyway, I've said all about I can say on the matter and will leave this one to posterity,

No it isn't. Marriage is a religious contract to the church. Until the state figured out how to make a dime. Only at the government's convenience .. unconstitutionally btw .. is marriage governed.

And it's crap. The government has NO say in the matter.

[Gunny]

States ratified the Constitution. I'm not sure why you're bringing up hate crimes but I agree with you on that. You may not like it when the Constitution goes against you but it's there for a reason. If the minority have a grievance then they have a right to seek redress; Scribblings are how they decide. :poke:

Anyway, how is the majority suffering?

I don't like it when the constitution goes against itself.

The majority is suffering the tyranny of the minority.

[aboutime]

No it isn't. Marriage is a religious contract to the church. Until the state figured out how to make a dime. Only at the government's convenience .. unconstitutionally btw .. is marriage governed.

And it's crap. The government has NO say in the matter.


Gunny. Gotta disagree with you there. The government DOES have a say in the matter. My wife and I have been married for 46 years. And, before we were able, or permitted to get married. We had to get a GOVERNMENT LICENSE to do so. Much like the government controls all of our lives today.

Does anyone reading this thread know anyone who DOES NOT HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?

That is the ultimate Government Leash every American alive has, making them the property of the U.S. Govt.

[Gunny]

Gunny. Gotta disagree with you there. The government DOES have a say in the matter. My wife and I have been married for 46 years. And, before we were able, or permitted to get married. We had to get a GOVERNMENT LICENSE to do so. Much like the government controls all of our lives today.

Does anyone reading this thread know anyone who DOES NOT HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?

That is the ultimate Government Leash every American alive has, making them the property of the U.S. Govt.

The government has no RIGHT to have a say in the matter. Marriage is a religious institution. I'm not disagreeing the premise that the government has its nose up our butts. I'm saying that Constitutionally, the government has NO right to govern marriage. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue. That means it falls under the 10th. The Supremes should be kicking the issue back to the states instead of ruling on crap that's none of its business. I know, very conservative of me.

The only Right, by Constitution the Federal government has to intrude on our lives is presumption. Since the end of the Civil War, the Federal government has been all up our butts. That's when a bleeding heart do-gooder threw the Constitution out the window and used the military to impose its will on us all.

[fj1200]

Because I have to hear about it EVERY time one of these bastards gets married. Holy crap, I don't care about anyone getting married!!! LOL It's too much, they gotta stop, back in the closet they go. :)

No argument here.


I don't like it when the constitution goes against itself.

The majority is suffering the tyranny of the minority.

How is the majority suffering?

[fj1200]

No it isn't. Marriage is a religious contract to the church. Until the state figured out how to make a dime. Only at the government's convenience .. unconstitutionally btw .. is marriage governed.

And it's crap. The government has NO say in the matter.

I think we both agree that government SHOULDN'T have a say in the matter and this would be a non-issue if government had never started doling out benefits based on marriage.


There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. [1] Because the Defense of Marriage Act (http://www.hrc.org/doma) defines "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman, same-sex couples - even if legally married in their state - will not be considered spouses for purposes of federal law.
The following is a summary of several categories of federal laws contingent upon marital status.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples


The government has no RIGHT to have a say in the matter.

I think that is the heart of the SCOTUS argument that legalized gay marriage; government shouldn't but government does which means legislation needs to be equal.