- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,703
- Reaction score
- 11,539
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well they're going to have to live with it then, or live without it. That's where this is headed. Why isn't it discrimination that an unmarried couple living together, or just any two folks living together don't have access to those same benefits?
I was referring to where you said this:
I took that to mean that the government should not sanction or promote marriage. I apologize if I misunderstood. But if I did get it right, the way the government sanctions and promotes marriage is with the benefits to marriage.
Because they can take the steps to get those benefits. They are not barred from doing that.
I wouldn't say that it's a victory in an odd-way. Leaving the lower court decisions in place means almost the same as if they had decided on it (in favor of SSM). In essence, by not hearing the cases they're essentially saying that the decisions were correct.
That is exactly what the Court is saying.
Basically the Supreme Court has sent message to the lower courts. Ginsberg stated recently that the 6th court of Appeals will indicate if the Court hears SSM. If the 6th upholds the bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, The SCOTUS would likely take up an appeal in 2016.
Seems you don't understand what happened here. It was the Federal appeals courts which shot down the states' laws on gay marriage. All SCOTUS did was to let those Federal appeals court decisions stand.
Yeah, they are, by all the same arguments for homosexual marriage. Why shouldn't four roommates have the benefits. They share a living space and their lives (somewhat at least), if they all agree to have sex they're all the way there. Why do they need a license for benefits?
So were you cool with the State of Alabama voting to amend it's constitution to ban interracial civil marriages? I mean the people in that State (and others) had decided how they wanted to handle things.>>>>
That's a different topic for another thread. It's like me asking if you are cool with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of slavery.So were you cool with the State of Alabama voting to amend it's constitution to ban interracial civil marriages? I mean the people in that State (and others) had decided how they wanted to handle things.I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
>>>>
To be clear, I meant I was glad the SCOTUS stayed out of it, as the federal appeals court should have also.
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.Actually it is on topic to the things you said. The discussion is about "federal intervention into States affairs" (your words). "Allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States" Your words. '
The people of Alabama voted to amend their constitution and restrict marriage based on race, the federal government intervened into that States affairs. A handful og judges overruled the voices of the people of an entire state did not get to decide how to handle things in their own state when that action was measured against the Supreme Law of the Land.
So given the same basics, non-federal intervention, States making their own law independent to "handle things" in their State - do you support or disagree with the SCOTUS ruling in Loving?
>>>>
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.
Heck, how many married couples never have sex anymore?
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.
If you give it a try, you should be able to see why they need to intervene in one and not the other. And it is off the topic of the thread.
Actually it is on topic to the things you said. The discussion is about "federal intervention into States affairs" (your words). "Allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States" Your words. '
The 14th amendment makes it a US Constitutional matter. The same is not true of marriage.
The 14th amendment makes it a US Constitutional matter. The same is not true of marriage.
This issue needs to be out to bed once and for all on a national level. It's exhausting.
I'm going to start sounding like a Parrot here but, the whole purpose of the 14th was that everyone would be treated equally under the law, whether that be tax law or family law, where the title of marriage does confer preferential treatment in both of those cases. That's why "states rights" doesn't come into play here, no more than with the cases during the civil rights movement.
And there are lower courts to deal with the issue in those states. I'm sorry things are moving too slowly for you, but the Supreme Court docket is full of cases where people claim to be having their rights denied, and there is actual conflict in the lower courts requiring resolution.it's their job to make sure that fundamental rights are not denied in ANY state. the SCOTUS should have heard the case and thrown out the state bans. because they abdicated, now we have a hodgepodge of states in which people are denied a fundamental right.
I see little difference in discrimination in the two cases.
And there are lower courts to deal with the issue in those states. I'm sorry things are moving too slowly for you, but the Supreme Court docket is full of cases where people claim to be having their rights denied, and there is actual conflict in the lower courts requiring resolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?