Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
    If there was no grounds for it why did 37 states already allow it?
    .

    37 states did allow it, Scotus did impose it .

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
      If there was no grounds for it why did 37 states already allow it?

      SCOTUS can't use the Constitution as a reason for their decision on a case? Are you kidding?

      This part makes zero sense.

      Uh, transform it into a society without repression for minorities?

      I laughed out loud at this part.
      26 of those 37 States were forced to allow it by the courts.

      Only 11 States have approved of gay marriage via democratic means.

      From 2001-2012, 37 States approved constitutional definitions of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman, bringing the total to 38 States with such constitutional provisions.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post

        SCOTUS can't use the Constitution as a reason for their decision on a case?

        Strawman

        There is nothing in the constitution about same sex marriage,thus Scotus can not use the constitution to impose same sex marriage on the nation .

        The only who can impos same sex marriage is Congress .

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Marriages are illegal. However incestuous and multi-partner sexual relations between consenting adults is not illegal, in part because SCOTUS has ruled that the 14th Amendment protects these private activities.

          They are exactly analogous to homosexual relations and marriages.
          How? Most states prohibit incest in myriad forms, whether it's marriage or even intercourse. Not in a "we won't allow it" but in a "you will go to jail" manner.

          Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia

          How many states still had their sodomy laws on the books this year?

          No.
          How so?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
            The federal government haa had to intervene again, again, again, again, and again to protect civil rights. It's honestly embarrassing. Slavery, black rights gay rights, equal wages, and many other violations,
            No : it is not embarrassing:society is based on discrimination.

            Slavery was not a violation : it was legal til 1865.

            Giving rights on Jones is to take away rights from Smith .

            The present administration is infringing the civil rights of the majority of the population by Obamacare and, not curiously, Scotus is supporting Obamacare .

            Why should gay have the right to marry? Have children of 14 the right to marry?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
              Aren't polygamy and incest illegal?

              Isn't that kinda like asking why isn't illegal speech not protected by the 1st Amendment while other forms of speech are?
              Homosexuality, until recently was... In many countries it still is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                How? Most states prohibit incest in myriad forms, whether it's marriage or even intercourse. Not in a "we won't allow it" but in a "you will go to jail" manner.

                Laws regarding incest in the United States - Wikipedia
                When was the last time two consenting adults were prosecuted for incestuous sex acts?
                Father-adult daughter incest is in the news again; apparently incest among adults is not a crime in New Jersey (though incestuous marriages are void), and a father-daughter couple is planning on moving to New Jersey for that very reason. According to New York Magazine (Alexa Tsoulis-Reay), the daughter, who is now 18, grew up almost never seeing her father (except for weekends between ages 3 and 5). When she was 17, she got back in touch with him, and they quickly began a romantic and sexual relationship. (It’s not clear what state this was in, so it’s not clear whether the sex would have been criminal absent the incestuous component: three-quarters of states have the general age of consent set at 17 or younger.)

                I thought this would be a good opportunity for me to ask again a few questions I asked some years ago about adult-adult incest (speaking specifically of parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, or brother-sister, and setting aside cousins and the like):

                (1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?

                (2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre-Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing adult incest? (Imagine, for instance, a relationship such as the one described earlier in the post, but one in which there was no sex — and even no preparations for sex — until after age 18.) Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex?

                Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners? (For court cases on this, see here (stepfather-stepdaughter) and here (brother-sister).)

                [...]

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...t-and-the-law/

                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay
                How many states still had their sodomy laws on the books this year?
                None have been enforceable since Lawrence v. Texas. It is doubtful that any laws against consenting adult incestuous relations could be upheld with the Lawrence precedent.

                Over 40 States had laws or constitutional definitions of marriage defining marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 woman, prior to the recent onslaught of arbitrary and capricious judicial activism. 37 States had passed constitutional definitions since 2001.

                Friday's ruling "killed two birds with one stone"...
                Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

                [...]

                When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

                [...]

                The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

                http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/...riage-dissent/


                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay
                How so?
                Burden of proof fallacy.

                If there is an analogy, you have to demonstrate it.
                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                Comment


                • About time America. I mean it took you this long. And I find it disgusting so many of you have a issue with it and bring up every thing from religion forgetting the USA is secular, to it was forced on the state's, like give up slavary, to biology where if you look at biology you can find plenty of cases of bisexual and homosexuality. So really what are people's issues with it.
                  you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                  CPO Mzinyati

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                    No : it is not embarrassing:society is based on discrimination.

                    Slavery was not a violation : it was legal til 1865.

                    Giving rights on Jones is to take away rights from Smith .

                    The present administration is infringing the civil rights of the majority of the population by Obamacare and, not curiously, Scotus is supporting Obamacare .

                    Why should gay have the right to marry? Have children of 14 the right to marry?

                    What?

                    How does giveing one guy a right take it away from others? How was slavery not a violation of civil rights?
                    you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

                    CPO Mzinyati

                    Comment


                    • Right or wrong, Texas is now defying the federal government and saying county clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

                      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tex...8o?ocid=SMSDHP

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Right or wrong, Texas is now defying the federal government and saying county clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

                        http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tex...8o?ocid=SMSDHP
                        Unfortunately, this only means that the State of Texas will not pursue legal action against county clerks, judges and JP's who refuse to comply with this "lawless and flawed decision by an 'activist' court."

                        Paxton went on to say that they would likely be sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. The suits would likely be filed in Federal court.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                          Why should gay have the right to marry? Have children of 14 the right to marry?

                          This one ,i keep it and add it to my "top 10 dumbest posts" 's list.

                          How can you connect gays and 14 yo children ?
                          That rug really tied the room together

                          Comment


                          • Looks like this decision may have a positive impact in Australia. The thought of a bunch of right wing nutters in full tantrum mode packing their bags for Australia should be enough to persuade all but the lunatic fringe in our parliament to pass legislation in favour of marriage equality.

                            Thank you tantrum throwing right wing Americans.

                            http://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/a...the#.pqXvAXmgw
                            Human beings are the only creatures on Earth that claim a god and the only living thing that behaves like it hasn't got one - Hunter S. Thompson

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              Unfortunately, this only means that the State of Texas will not pursue legal action against county clerks, judges and JP's who refuse to comply with this "lawless and flawed decision by an 'activist' court."

                              Paxton went on to say that they would likely be sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. The suits would likely be filed in Federal court.
                              So if I worked in a clerks office and were a Muslim, I could decide that I need every friday, all day, off and the AG would have no problem with me taking a stand based on Religion? What if I were a Muslim clerk that decided I could not issue any paperwork to ANY Christian or Jew, I guess that would be fine also. You know personal religious rights are protected in Texas...
                              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                              “To talk of many things:
                              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                              Of cabbages—and kings—
                              And why the sea is boiling hot—
                              And whether pigs have wings.”
                              ― Lewis Carroll

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                                So if I worked in a clerks office and were a Muslim, I could decide that I need every friday, all day, off and the AG would have no problem with me taking a stand based on Religion? What if I were a Muslim clerk that decided I could not issue any paperwork to ANY Christian or Jew, I guess that would be fine also. You know personal religious rights are protected in Texas...
                                The unlawful ruling only dealt with homosexual marriage and that is the only ruling Paxton said he would not enforce.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X