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 Taieb el-Okbi View Post
    I'm surprised at this recent decision of the SCOTUS. With that said I support the position of the Church,

    Supreme Court Decision on Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President of Catholic Bishops’ Conference


    Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

    more,

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm
    Why can't two consenting adults who love each other marry!
    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
      Again we are talking civil rights. People who are too old to bear children or are sterile can still marry. So why not gays?

      The states don't have the right to deprive others of civil rights. Simple.
      They aren't depriving anyone of civil rights. No one is preventing them from forming whatever union they want. The States simply set their own standards for issuing licenses of all kinds.

      Three male first cousins can get a fly-by-night "minister" to pronounce them Happy Madison, Chuck & Larry. They can move in together and have a "gay old time"... If California chooses to issue licenses for such relationships - Power to them. However, nothing in the plain language or ratification debates of the Fourteenth Amendment implies that all States must issue such licenses.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • 14th:

        Section 1.
        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        Section 2.
        Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

        Section 3.
        No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

        Section 4.
        The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

        Section 5.
        The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
        Interesting no mention of race or of former slaves or anything like that....

        So please explain this statement doc:

        the express intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to provide equal protection to newly freed slaves. Desegregation of public schools follows the clear intent of the amendment.
        “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
          I thought in the Obamacare ruling we were told by the dissenters that the WORDS matter and the courts don't rule on what the intent was. They could have written the 14th to expressly cover only issues with the freed slaves. They did not do so.
          Nor did they expressly overturn this with the Fourteenth Amendment...
          Article IV

          [...]

          Section 4.

          The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

          Or this...
          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.

          If the Fourteenth Amendment miraculously requires all States to issue marriage licenses of gay couples, it also must require them to issue marriage licences to any and all permutations of consenting adults.

          A law with specific language and specific definitions can only be changed by Congress.

          If there is a question about the language of an amendment, its intent can easily be found in its ratification debates. As part of the Constitution, it can only be changed by the methods outlined in Article V.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
            Why can't two consenting adults who love each other marry!
            Why can't 3 or more do that? Why can't teenagers and even children marry? What about siblings? If a brother and sister want to get married they are "two consenting adults."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              14th:



              Interesting no mention of race or of former slaves or anything like that....

              So please explain this statement doc:
              You would have to read the ratification debates...

              http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

              The intent of the amendment is clear enough that no one thought it applied otherwise until 1925.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                You would have to read the ratification debates...

                http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

                The intent of the amendment is clear enough that no one thought it applied otherwise until 1925.
                So we should take into account congesses debates on the ACA where they talked about the federal exchange, correct? And the hearings on it etc, rather then the four words....

                Words matter doc, they did not include anything in the 14th that supports your contention.
                “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 T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Why can't 3 or more do that? Why can't teenagers and even children marry? What about siblings? If a brother and sister want to get married they are "two consenting adults."
                  I love it when the silliness comes up. Please post more!!!!!!
                  “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 Delenda estRoma View Post
                    Why can't two consenting adults who love each other marry!
                    They can do so, apparently now in all 50 states here in the USA. If it came down to a vote as to whether I would support the legality of gay marriage or not I would vote no, but obv other American citizens disagree with me and the law is the law.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      So we should take into account congesses debates on the ACA where they talked about the federal exchange, correct? And the hearings on it etc, rather then the four words....
                      If there was ambiguity in the language, they absolutely should look into it... Had there been any debate.

                      However, there was nothing ambiguous about the language. The "four words" were there and the word, "States," was clearly defined in the bill's set of definitions.

                      Originally posted by Combat Engineer
                      Words matter doc, they did not include anything in the 14th that supports your contention.
                      They didn't need to do that any more than they needed to expressly exclude "anchor babies" or infanticide. There were no doubts about the intent for 60 years. Even then, the incorporation doctrine was used very sparingly.

                      The right to murder children in the womb wasn't discovered until 104 years after ratification. The wholesale repeal of Article IV, Section 4 and Amendment X weren't fully discovered until yesterday.

                      It truly is a Miracle Amendment...
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        If there was ambiguity in the language, they absolutely should look into it... Had there been any debate.

                        However, there was nothing ambiguous about the language. The "four words" were there and the word, "States," was clearly defined in the bill's set of definitions.



                        They didn't need to do that any more than they needed to expressly exclude "anchor babies" or infanticide. There were no doubts about the intent for 60 years. Even then, the incorporation doctrine was used very sparingly.

                        The right to murder children in the womb wasn't discovered until 104 years after ratification. The wholesale repeal of Article IV, Section 4 and Amendment X weren't fully discovered until yesterday.

                        It truly is a Miracle Amendment...
                        Well consider you're using the term murder then perhaps this isn't objective fact but personal opinion and interpretation at work. After all, who decides if it was unconstitutional or not?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Taieb el-Okbi View Post
                          They can do so, apparently now in all 50 states here in the USA. If it came down to a vote as to whether I would support the legality of gay marriage or not I would vote no, but obv other American citizens disagree with me and the law is the law.
                          I'm asking you why. Not what the law is.
                          First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                            Why exactly does anyone have a problem with homosexual marriage? Please legitimate concerns and not religious ones.
                            I have nothing against the civil union for the purpose of spousal rights. I also have no problem with religious institutions that willingly perform Gay ceremonies either.

                            The problem will be when one is FORCED to cater to Gay weddings and religious institutions are forced to perform Gay wedding ceremonies under the threat of the law.

                            Don't think that it can't happen? Ask the florist, baker, and pizza baker about the persecution they suffered as a result of comments they made based upon their religious beliefs.
                            “Breaking News,”

                            “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              I love it when the silliness comes up. Please post more!!!!!!
                              Call it silly all you want. Those demands will be next to take place. After all, polygamy was once practiced in Utah until the Feds outlawed it.

                              In addition, children can marry under Islamic Laws to older men, so, why not in places where they live in the US.
                              “Breaking News,”

                              “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                                Call it silly all you want. Those demands will be next to take place. After all, polygamy was once practiced in Utah until the Feds outlawed it.

                                In addition, children can marry under Islamic Laws to older men, so, why not in places where they live in the US.
                                So by that logic we shouldn't have given women the vote because now we can't deny it to children.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X