- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
A good lesson for those who think that elections don't matter. The next President will likely appoint at least 1 if not 2 to the Supreme Court. People should think very carefully before casting there ballot. If McCain or Romney had been elected....we wouldn't have this historic ruling today....that is for certain.
It's the end of society as we know it, don'tcha know.
And this right here is the main reason that, while I may not vote for the Democrat, it would take an act of god to get me to vote for a Republican these days.
The bigots said the same exact thing about inter-racial marriage. Marriage will continue to exist as it always has...if anything if will be stronger as a result of this ruling.
They've never been explained. In fact, I know better than to ask you what those costs are because I know from years of experience that no answer would be coming.
Would this be the same Constitution that Sen. John C. Calhoun's father refused to sign and become a Founding Father from South Carolina?
With Sen. Calhoun being the father of the civil war with his "Nullification" Manifesto and description of slavery as for the "positive good" in 1830 .
A good lesson for those who think that elections don't matter. The next President will likely appoint at least 1 if not 2 to the Supreme Court. People should think very carefully before casting there ballot. If McCain or Romney had been elected....we wouldn't have this historic ruling today....that is for certain.
Already asked and answered even in this thread though. So those years of experience haven't helped much, have they.
Just out: U S S.Ct. rules that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage, going further than just ruling that states have to recognize it, if performed in a state where it's legal.
This has an impact on the 14 states that have passed laws banning it.
NOTE: The ruling was NOT just that states have to recognize it. The ruling is that it is now LEGAL, being constitutionally protected. It COULD HAVE made the ruling more narrow, but it did not. It went all the way. The matter is now settled. Gay marriage is legal, like interracial marriage is.
NBC
WTF does that have to do with this conversation?
I haven't said a word about interracial marriage or bigots. And that is irrelevant to the point I am arguing. Do have a nice day.
If Justice Ginsburg doesn't make it to the next President, as she meets her Creator, with this term Creator used in our Constitution;
The USSC will only have eight Justices at the start of the next Presidency, as this Senate will never approve another Obama appointee.
And until then and after, the conundrum of a 4-4 USSC on rulings like today will be in effect.
With the defection of Roberts and Kennedy to what I believe is their Libertarian view of the Constitution,
we may not see a ninth Justice for many years to come.
Unless the Senate and Presidency are held by the same party and the 51-vote nuclear option is instituted .
Well there is one.. The state could refuse polygamous marriages due to those in polygamous marriages having an unfair advantage over those in non plural marriages. In that, government benefits would multiply by the number of plural members in the marriage thus unduly burdening the rest of the tax base. Further, plural marriages would also theoretically have advantages in other intangible ways such as education, employment, property ownership, and many other economic situations. Moreover, plural marriages convey, and encourage more plurality, and discourage diversity among other plural relationships. It is this (of course cleaned up much better into really neat legal sounding big words and all) and for these reasons that the state does have a compelling interest in regulating plural marriage.
Just off the top of my head, but you get the idea..
Tim-
Were you not discussing the Constitution?
All of these decisions that GOPs don't agree with come down to a strong central Federal Government versus State's Rights.
State's Rights have been taken to an extreme since Calhoun's 1830 Manifesto on "NULLIFICATION", which are on full display in 2015.
As for Roberts and Kennedy, they may represent a "third" wing of what I believe is Libertarianism, swinging back-and-forth as a pendulum.
I'd like to think of DEMs, GOPs and Libertarians on the USSC as three circles in a Venn Diagram.
But a closer at the electoral ramifications shows that GOPs will benefit in the long run by the USSC's rulings on ACA and now gay marriage.
Why are GOP politicians privately breathing a huge sigh of relief with today's ruling, knowing that a DEM issue is off the table?
And you fully know the GOP base will be ginned up over gay marriage, as with the ACA ruling !
I can't identify a legitimate state interest to preventing it.
How very accepting of you. Funny how you're not interested in equal protection for all social relationship contracts, just the ones you support.
So, here we have a self-identifying conservative suggesting that an unfair economic advantage is something the state has a legitimate interest in stopping.
Isn't this an argument in favor of eliminating heterosexual marriage so that an unfair advantage is not gained over single people?
Its not irrelevant at all....you just choose to ignore it. The reality is....the same exact argument that you are attempting to make is the same exact argument that the bigots made about inter-racial marriage, which also "changed' the definition of "traditional marriage". They predicted the destruction of the institution of marriage (which never happened). The truth is that their scare tactics are just old and boring.
You are discriminating against people who are already married. Why can't they love another person and be able to express that love through another marriage? How does it affect you if I have 3 wives and one of my wives has 6 husbands?
It was more of a story about a woman who had two "moms" and how it negatively impacted her life.
Canada has had legal same-sex marriage for a decade
So the punishment is nothing. Okay!
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?