It's not my argument, silly. This is how the liberal judges on the USSC will approach the challenge. Man, sometime for someone that's usually pretty bright, ya kinda missed that one..
Tim-
I'm not going to even try to explain to you how non sequitur that is to anything I have posted. Do have a nice day.
True, and the repercussions and impact of this 'face slap' are yet to be seen.
My guess would be an even more accelerated moral decline in the population.
Wonder how long it'll be before this society slides into that Sodom and Gomorrah area (oh wait :doh, we're already there - between NYC and DC).
You don't have to......because your avoidance and ignorance is blarring. The fact of the matter is that the exact argument that you are trying to make is the same exact argument that the bigots of the 50's attempted to make. That is hardly "non-sequitur.....it is directly on point....your choice to ignore it doesn't strengthen your claims....in fact it weakens them.
I don't have time to explain why the argument I am making is quite different from any argument from the 50's either, but again, have a pleasant evening.
I don't have time to explain why the argument I am making is quite different from any argument from the 50's either, but again, have a pleasant evening.
The 'power of the states' to decide whether they got to discriminate based on race, sexuality, etc has been in jeopardy for quite some time.
It's an example of the decline of the state right to discriminate.
If you really knew the arguments used by the segregationists during the Jim Crow era, you'd understand...because the arguments they used then really aren't much different from those used against same-sex marriage today - against God's law, against nature, and all that.
Look up "Loving v. Virginia" and you should see what I mean.
Well, I asked "who is they?", so I guess you mean to say that you are referring to the States. But, we must keep in mind that the word "State" includes the federal government.
They never should have had the right to "discriminate." Though, the Supreme Court has given them the okay on slavery, etc... for hundreds of years.
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.
The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.
Apparently they argued it is both a fundamental right and a necessity under equality under the law.
Scalia was...pissed. Not really any other word to describe him. His dissent reads like a rant.
This goes against the wishes of the people. It's like in 2010 when the people reacted to having Obamacare shoved down their throats...too much too soon. There will be backlash in the electorate.
This goes against the wishes of the people. It's like in 2010 when the people reacted to having Obamacare shoved down their throats...too much too soon. There will be backlash in the electorate.
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.
The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.
Apparently they argued it is both a fundamental right and a necessity under equality under the law.
Scalia was...pissed. Not really any other word to describe him. His dissent reads like a rant.
I don't need to look up that case, I know it's not about redefining marriage, it's about discrimination against blacks. It never attempts to say marriage is no longer just between a man and a woman, it actually tries to cut it down. Exact opposite of SSM, which is redefining marriage to expand it to multiple meanings, not just one.
The Court in that case defended marriage, the opposite of what was done to it today.
The decision is pretty fairly grounded in constitutional law. 14th amendment is clear, marriage, like many rights in the US, is considered a right based on precedent(and trust me, if we stopped having all those rights derived from precedent, you would be unhappy), and from there there is not many options for the court.
Figured this was going to happen at some point. :shrug:
Well maybe now we can move on and address some issues that are actually important to us all...
Yeah, I understand it. Even though I consider it a stretch in some ways I was pretty sure they'd invoke the 14th if they ruled this way, it's pretty obvious.
Personally I thought the silence of the Constitution on marriage rendered the 10th the most important, and that the matter should be left to the several states with SCOTUS maybe deciding a "full faith a credit" clause applied.
But I get the rationale behind the ruling and can't really blame them for going that way.
At least, if they stretched a point, they stretched it in favor of an individual liberty... :shrug:
Surely you'd agree that even state powers under the 10th amendment are still subject to the 14th amendment.
Absolutely... if we're talking enumerated rights.
If we're talking assumed/implied rights, the matter is perhaps a smidge more hazy.
Yeah, this was pretty predictable. I'm fine with it, but I'm finer with the idea that we don't have to talk about it anymore and people can focus on issues that impact all of us now.
Well, maybe.
"Movements" don't stop moving just because they achieved their primary goal; they never say "Ok, we won, we're good now. Go home and be happy." Heh, no. They get in the habit of pushing for things (and some people get in the habit of making a comfy living by being a vocal spokesperson of the movement, ahem) so they tend to find more things to pitch a bitch fit about and continue generating news and consuming bandwidth for at least another generation. :doh:
Eh, we'll see... :shrug:
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?