RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=-

RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/8/2013 1:37:38 PM)
I thought so too. [:)] Who knew the hippest gay guy of the 21st century would be a 76-year-old Star Trek alum?!

njlauren -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/8/2013 8:15:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SadistDave Reading is fundamental folks. I've stated a few times in this thread that the gay lobby needs to get a Constitutional Amendment in order to insure maximum protection of gay marriage. Perhaps if some of you get that through your heads, you'll figure out WHY I'm telling you this fight is going to continue. But ignorant liberals will be ignorant liberals, so I MUST be a bigot and a homophobe for pointing out why this will continue. Frankly, since I'm straight, it won't effect me at all when the gay lobby gets their asses handed to them because they don't have what it takes to settle the issue once and for all in their favor. In the final analysis, it won't affect my personal well being one iota if gays get to marry each other or not. So, if this is what you all want to consider a victory it's really of no consequence to me. If the gay lobby lacks the resolve to do the job properly when it's in their best interest, it's not my lookout. After all, if doing the job half-assed is good enough for gays, it might as well be good enough for me too, right? -SD- Bad argument, because in general the courts have gone forward with rights, despite attempts by the GOP to put fascists on the court (I was laughing myself silly at the right wing's hagiorizing Robert Bork, one of the biggest kooks ever to go on the Supreme Court). Once same sex marriage becomes established law, more then likely by Supreme Court ruling, it is highly unlikely it would ever be overturned, even garbage like Scalia and Alito and Thomas and Roberts would think twice about taking away a right the court granted. Dred Scott was overturned by the Civil war, Plessy Versus Ferguson, that declared segregation legal, was overturned by Brown V Board of ed. Despite the attempts of conservatives to drag us back into the stone age of the 1950's, the trend with rulings has been towards giving more rights, not taking them away. The main thing to realize (which the religious right is scared shitless of) is if Scotus declares same sex marriage cannot be banned, it will be like loving, most people will shrug and say "what is the big deal". Unlike abortion, where there is a clear case to be made that it should be illegal (note, I don't believe it is), every time same sex marriage has been legalized, within 5 years, people shrug. When the Mass Supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage, there was a furor, the legislature passed a referendum to amend the constitution, polls showed something like 65% of the people were opposed......today, 10 years later, some percent close to 85 or 90% say it was the right thing to do....see, when you have religious nuts running around saying the world is gonna end, and it doesn't, people realize they have been fed a snow job, and this is what the droolers fear, it is going to expose their arguments for what they are, total horseshit.

njlauren -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/8/2013 8:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: The will of some of the people does not superceedt he constitution. Sweet. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They were very pro gay marriage and anti-voting. No, the founding fathers were not pro gay marriage, they also weren't pro subsidized electric power, they didn't enumerate the right to an attorney, they didn't think of a lot of things. See, the founding fathers were not a hydrocephalic moron like Sean Hannity, they knew the constitution couldn't cover everything, because they knew the country was going to stay 13 sparsely settled colonies using horse drawn carriages. What they realized is the country would grow and change, and they put flexibility into the laws, they built a Supreme Court into the constitution to interpret the constitution in light of societal changes. There is a reason the founders made amending the constitution so difficult, it is that they expected that both legislatures and the courts would handle issues, they didn't want a situation like California where any whack job can amend the constitution, they wanted the constitution to remain what it was meant to be, the framework to run the government and protect our rights. Other than prohibition, most amendments tend to enhance rights, not take them away (well, unless you are one of those people who dream of the confederacy and think the 13 amendment took away all the fun), but it also is reserved for major issues. Once same sex marriage is settled, that will be it, because even though the GOP will bluster, ma and pa frickert from Alabama will yell and roll on the ground and rant and rave, the fact is that soon enough states will make it legal that the only practical step will be to have states forced to recognize it, otherwise you could see a kind of civil war, states that recognize same sex marriage can refuse to recognize marriage from states without it, it will be a nightmare.

njlauren -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/8/2013 8:25:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: if this is what you all want to consider a victory No one I know considers the DOMA/Prop. 8 decisions a total victory. My fellow members of the "gay lobby" and I are keenly aware that there are plenty more mountains to climb. Most states, after all, do not allow same-sex marriage, and the court didn't resolve the "full faith and credit" issue of marriages legal in one state but not recognized in another. Then there's the minor matter of states in which sexual orientation is an acceptable basis for employment discrimination. But ... For those of us who grew up having to hide our true selves, wondering if we were sick or depraved and hoping that people a century or so hence might dwell in a fairer world, this is a moment to celebrate. As one of my favorite hymns puts it: Yet with a steady beat, have not our weary feet, Come to the place for which our [forebears] sighed? And then, yes, it's time to get back to work. Jerry Brown fucked up royally, he thought he was being pro gay rights by not defending prop 8. He should have done that, given it a half assed effort, because it is likely that the Scotus by a 5-4 would have declared Prop 8 a violation of the 14th amendment, which would be binding on all 50 states, by letting the anti same sex marriage people go to court, who didn't have standing, they ducked the issue.

Powergamz1 -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/8/2013 10:00:53 PM)
quote: I've stated a few times in this thread that the gay lobby needs to get a Constitutional Amendment in order to insure maximum protection of gay marriage. There are already two such amendments, ratified in 1791 and 1868 respectively. The US Supreme Court just got through applying them. And this fight will continue as long as there are those who pretend otherwise.

Powergamz1 -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 12:10:15 AM)
The Supreme Court didn't let those without standing go to court, exactly the opposite, the Court refused to rule because the antis had no standing. That left the lower court ruling in place, and made gay marriage legal in Cali and the other states who had granted it.. The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state. Read the decisions. quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Jerry Brown fucked up royally, he thought he was being pro gay rights by not defending prop 8. He should have done that, given it a half assed effort, because it is likely that the Scotus by a 5-4 would have declared Prop 8 a violation of the 14th amendment, which would be binding on all 50 states, by letting the anti same sex marriage people go to court, who didn't have standing, they ducked the issue.

DomKen -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 5:26:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state. Read the decisions. No. It did not. Only section 3 of DOMA was struck down. Section 2, which is the state recognition part, still stands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 8:17:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: The will of some of the people does not superceedt he constitution. Sweet. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution. They were very pro gay marriage and anti-voting. No, the founding fathers were not pro gay marriage, they also weren't pro subsidized electric power, they didn't enumerate the right to an attorney, they didn't think of a lot of things. See, the founding fathers were not a hydrocephalic moron like Sean Hannity, they knew the constitution couldn't cover everything, because they knew the country was going to stay 13 sparsely settled colonies using horse drawn carriages. What they realized is the country would grow and change, and they put flexibility into the laws, they built a Supreme Court into the constitution to interpret the constitution in light of societal changes. There is a reason the founders made amending the constitution so difficult, it is that they expected that both legislatures and the courts would handle issues, they didn't want a situation like California where any whack job can amend the constitution, they wanted the constitution to remain what it was meant to be, the framework to run the government and protect our rights. Other than prohibition, most amendments tend to enhance rights, not take them away (well, unless you are one of those people who dream of the confederacy and think the 13 amendment took away all the fun), but it also is reserved for major issues. Once same sex marriage is settled, that will be it, because even though the GOP will bluster, ma and pa frickert from Alabama will yell and roll on the ground and rant and rave, the fact is that soon enough states will make it legal that the only practical step will be to have states forced to recognize it, otherwise you could see a kind of civil war, states that recognize same sex marriage can refuse to recognize marriage from states without it, it will be a nightmare. Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

Hillwilliam -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 8:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point. Too bad you didn't bother to read that part about the Declaration of Independence declaring that "All men are created equal".

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 8:31:16 AM)
In case anyone wants to point to the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law under the 14th Amendment in 1868 did not mean equal voting for women when it (the 14th amendment) was passed, so the Constitution did not extend it's reach into the voting laws then or now using that Amendment and did not by itself support or deny equal voting for women during suffrage in the next century. Why do we care, because in the same way it does not extend into some newly made up Right to same gender marriage. Precedence matters. Intent by the founding fathers matters and made up shit does not.

Powergamz1 -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 8:37:58 AM)
Pure nonsense. What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for all, absent a compelling reason. What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right. Maybe you can find another forum where people will actually fall for that drivel. I'm sure the FBI has a list. quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point.

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 8:39:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point. Too bad you didn't bother to read that part about the Declaration of Independence declaring that "All men are created equal". Sweet. Based on your view of this document, this meant that you can eat the same candy I can or lift the same weight or have the same beautiful submissive I have by law. Sweet but no dice, instead, it meant the end of the King of England's rule over the thirteen Colonies and the ability for Americans in the new colonies to decide their own fate and form their own Government which then would make a Constitution, the law of the land.. As a legal document the Declaration does not give or take away rights so, this is another case of making "rights" up.

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 8:50:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Pure nonsense. What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for all, absent a compelling reason. What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right. Maybe you can find another forum where people will actually fall for that drivel. I'm sure the FBI has a list. quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point. quote: What is literally spelled out in the exact wording of the Constitution is equal government treatment for all, absent a compelling reason. No. Quote it if you like. There is no phrase "equal government treatment". quote: What is spelled out in the exact wording of Art III is that when the Supreme Court says that inter-racial/interfaith/same sex marriage is a right, it is a right. No. The only "rights" are in the Constitution itself, this is why the Amendments are so important and why they are called "The Bill of Rights". Anything else is a law allowing or then disallowing activities as long as they do not contradict or remove the rights specified in the Constitution. The Supreme Court cannot make "rights" nor does it make law. Any law can be changed or removed or added as long as doing so does not "Violate the Constitution". The Supreme court decides if a law violates the Constitution whereas Congress (not just the Senate btw) makes Federal Law and the States make, you guessed it, non-Federal law and none of these are "rights". Sweet. I am so glad we had this talk. I hope you do also.

DomKen -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 9:04:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point. I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had. They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made. The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution quote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

tammystarm -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 3:49:49 PM)
never mind.

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 4:02:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Finally. Someone who understands and has read the American Constitution before using it to preface their position. Exactly my point.\\ This is why I chafe every time someone says "it's a right" and it is "Constitutional" to have gay marriage, as if it is a done deal based on the Constitution, because there is no "Constitutional Right" except those spelled out in the document itself and marriage does not appear in any form in the Constitution. So, heterosexuals (different gender) couples or same gender couples do not have a right to marriage under the Constitution, nor is it prohibited but it does say what our rights are, and marriage in any form is not one of them. Nor is health care, for that matter, read it (the Constitution) before you reply and if you find any right in the Constitution for marriage or health car in any form then reply with it. I'm not in the mood for fake "rights" and that is my real point. I think a lot of the Founders would object to the above statement. The Bill of Rights is meant to delineate certain rights but not to limit what rights the people had. They even put in a nifty amendment to basically tell folks not to make the claim you just made. The Ninth Amendment to the United states Constitution quote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people To your point, who decided what your retained rights are? You? Me? Your mother? Do you feel somehow marriage by the same gender is some right you were born with and apparently your father and mother and grandfather and grandmother also but they just were too stupid to know or care? Or is a "right" just something you decide to "retain" and so I can "retain" the right to multiple wives if I so choose because it is a "right" I decide to retain and also btw I might as well "retain" the right to not pay taxes or "retain" the right to your wife because that is liberty. Sweet. I see your point and embrace it completely. I am getting multiple wives, not paying taxes and I want your wife too because it is a "right" I retain and was born with.

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 4:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Sweet. Based on your view of this document, this meant that you can eat the same candy I can or lift the same weight or have the same beautiful submissive I have by law. Sweet but no dice, instead, it meant the end of the King of England's rule over the thirteen Colonies and the ability for Americans in the new colonies to decide their own fate and form their own Government which then would make a Constitution, the law of the land.. As a legal document the Declaration does not give or take away rights so, this is another case of making "rights" up. No, it means that you and I have the same basic rights. You know that part that says "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" If you look at the Constitution, there are significant portions concerned with under what circumstances these unalienable rights may or may not be withdrawn. Please tell me that you're being deliberately obtuse because I really didn't believe it was possible for anyone to have that lack of reading comprehension. Sweet. Except I retain the right to the pursuit of happiness and nothing will make me happier than taking what you have since that is the right I have "retained" since birth. I kinda like this making up rights stuff. It's clearly Constitutional after what I read here and I'm getting into it. Sweet.

Powergamz1 -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 4:08:05 PM)
You can keep chanting that denial of reality all you want, it simply isn't true. After the ruling, no state in America can sustain the prosecution or persecution of a US citizen for being married to their same sex partner under a legal license from another state, no matter how desperately you pretend they can. They have to honor it the same as they would honor a heterosexual license. They cannot strike down the sovereignty of another state that issues said license, that's direct from the written opinion. Since the feds are bound by the ruling, any state that tries to deprive a US citizen of those rights, it is going to lose at the federal level. Give it up, Loving, Lawrence, and now Windsor are the law of the land. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 The Court's other ruling bound the feds and all 50 states to follow the full faith and credit reciprocity of marriage licenses from every other state. Read the decisions. No. It did not. Only section 3 of DOMA was struck down. Section 2, which is the state recognition part, still stands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor

Politesub53 -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 4:10:15 PM)
Sweet. What was that about "made up shit doesnt count" ?

Arturas -> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- (7/9/2013 4:13:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Sweet. What was that about "made up shit doesnt count" ? I was apparently wrong. Made up shit counts. If I decide I "retain" a right because I decide or Chris Mathews decided I was born with it then it is protected by the Constitution. Sweet.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625