Was there supposed to be a point in there somewhere? Because you forgot to include one. I guess you just saw what you wanted to see in my post, otherwise you would not have posted that statement, since it is the complete opposite of my position.
I am pretty sure gay men in 1990 were trying to get married....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#1975
Keep telling yourself this was made up in the later half of the 20th century.
What this decision did not do is declare LGBT's a protected class. So discrimination against LGBT's is allowed; except where local ordinances forbid it.
Yeah, we get it. You place state's rights ahead of individual rights. Good for you.
Your point was that marriage, since the dawn of time, has been between people of the same races? Sorry, I did not realize you agreed with the judge in Loving v. Virginia.
Why would churches be required/forced to marry people they don't want to marry? That by definition would requires them to accept homosexuality as something other than a sin which they are told to not commit. First amendment protections would apply like they did in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.
Technically you are correct. But if you look ALL of our clearly enumerated Rights are able to be regulated to some extent by the states. Does this mean that all the regulations that a state can possibly do are legitimate and not unconstitutional? Or is there a limit to what they can regulate? If there is a limit how do we go about deciding where that limit is? Who can do that determination so that mob rule does not interfere with Rights?
Ah, you failed. You got it wrong, I invite you to think a little harder, and try again. But, I'm not expecting too much.
The 14th amendment at least makes those limitations clear - there has to be a "compelling governmental interest" to void equal protection
Re: polygamy - child custody, taxes, green cards, inheritance, court testimony, the fact equal protection doesn't even apply since like everyone they can marry a person they love, the ratio of multiple husbands to multiple wives all come to mind
Where is it made clear there has to be compelling state interest to void equal protection? Making something clear usually means stating it outright, and I can't find any mention of anything pertaining to a compelling state interest.
Once again, where did I say anything about churches being forced to adopt any beliefs, religious or otherwise?
I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.
Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.
Look up "levels of scrutiny".
Whatever. I am married. Feel free to let me know how that fact has hurt you or your rights in any conceivable way. It seems you want to go out of your way to defend restricting my marriage, so I hope you have some compelling argument as to why you want to restrict my rights.
I can't find that anywhere either.
Oh, God, strike three. Wrong again. I guess you are just going to keep the blinders on. I just can't repost things I've been saying for days, weeks, and months.
Challenging Laws: 3 Levels of Scrutiny Explained - Law and Daily Life
It is interstitial common law.
Contradicted by 5 Justices of which 4 justices spent considerable time telling us why those other five were morons..
Tim-
Wow. According to you medical marijuana is now legal in all 50 States. Now it is REALLY time to celebrate.
5-4 was hardly a mandate for other decisions by this Court either--gutting the VRA, Citizens United 1.0 and 2.0.
What both sides are still missing is that Kennedy and Roberts have their own deep views of Libertarianism.
As we see with Kennedy writing today's opinion on gay marriage and yesterday's opinion on Texas Housing.
And with only Roberts voting with ACA the first time while both Kennedy and Roberts upheld ACA the 2nd time.
I'll continue to maintain these two are sick of the stalemate in Congress and will continue to legislate from the bench.
Both for and against both political parties--as we'll see with rulings next week.
With the death penalty as an example expected to swing back to the right 5-4--not a mandate.
At times, Sotomayor has joined Kennedy and Roberts as part of this new "third" wing that is non-partisan and libertarian .
Sounds like something the courts just made up to me.
When that happens, start a thread and we'll talk about it. But churches are protected by other rights, and can marry or not for any reason as we speak.
Wow, that's an amazingly dumb comment from Alito. I hope there is more to it than that. "Vilifying" others with which we disagree is a cherished American right, and so is dissent. After all the church vilifies gays every day of every week of every year and has for centuries. That's not a problem with him and it's not a problem with me. I can disagree, and I can say they're bigots or idiots or worse (I don't believe that is necessarily true), and we are ALL exercising our rights as Americans.
Sounds like something the courts just made up to me.
Has anyone noticed that the people in the ME are breeding like rabbits, while we allow SSM and abortion, and don't reproduce ourselves? I see that the EU is currently relocating 40,000 muslims who have come to Europe, by sending them to Greece and Spain and more arrive every day, overwhelming the system. Then they start making demands to have things their way. Brilliant strategy - use sheer numbers to kill the democratic process.
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?