mmorado
New member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2014
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 14
- Location
- Pensacola FL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I think you are confusing Marriage with Holy Matrimony
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.
Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.
It will be pathetic and malicious if any state continues to do so. There is a good chance that SCOTUS will say that SSM must be legal in all 50 states. No loophole.
Or they may come back and say that every state must at least recognize SSM from other states. Again, no loophole for TX.
Thos are 2 of the 4 possibilties before SCOTUS.
Have you never read a SCOTUS decision? No matter how they rule, they'll leave holes to crawl through. Heck, read Roe v Wade.
And just NO to the pathetic and malicious comment. Doing their job faithfully is more like it. The feds are the ones not doing theirs.
they did execute an innocent man.
Go back and read your own damn posts. Do I really have to remind you of your own writings not minutes after you've posted them?
Maybe I oversimplifed in SSM.
R v W is off topic
Not useless unless the SCOTUS breaks it's track record and issues a non-nuanced decision. At the very least they'll leave a hole. The constitution doesn't mention marriage and the SCOTUS has some major shoehorning to do to rule for homosexual marriage as a right. That's going to leave gaps, leaving the door open for decades worth of legal battle.
Yup, it costs money for the state to do their jobs. They are supposed to represent the will of the people, there is no codicil in that that reads "only if it doesn't cost a lot".
Yeah, as I am old and forgetful.
Also have no idea of what you are referring to.
You can quote, copy and paste my post or offending posts.
I also found that difficult.
But be patient and you will get eventually get it.
No, it isn't. It's a perfect example of what I was talking about. It made abortion legal in all states, but left holes you could drive a truck through and are still being adjudicated forty years later.
The court does this whenever they stray from the text of the Constitution (which is quite a bit in the modern era).
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses - The Washington Post
Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on law abiding, punishing & on occasion possibly executing innocent people.
Religion has no legitimate claim to the word "marriage" no matter how the word may have originated. No one owns a word. Get over it.
They dont need to stray from the text of the Const to allow SSM under equal protection.
Or, please show me the text of the Const where it does so.
Well I did that, the first time I asked the question. Your post was #1, my question with the quote was #2. But nice try with the obfuscation. :roll:
Yup, it costs money for the state to do their jobs. They are supposed to represent the will of the people, there is no codicil in that that reads "only if it doesn't cost a lot".
I answered what I thought to be your question.
1 Going to get interesting if and I say SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM, and States can literally kiss ass.
2 I thought Republicans, like Texas were right big on (A)law abiding, (B) punishing & (C)on occasion possibly executing innocent people.
1, and or which part of 2. I numbered them and added letters to make it easier for ya.
Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses
Yeah, they do. If it were there these very same justices would have found it long ago at the beginning of their terms together. In fact they wouldn't have put off this issue for as long as they have. They are simply waiting for social conditions to change so they won't be impeached by an angry public. That would put the court's re-engineering of the Constitution front and center and they definitely don't want the public thinking about that.
Yeah, they do. If it were there these very same justices would have found it long ago at the beginning of their terms together. In fact they wouldn't have put off this issue for as long as they have. They are simply waiting for social conditions to change so they won't be impeached by an angry public. That would put the court's re-engineering of the Constitution front and center and they definitely don't want the public thinking about that.
There is a balance of the "will of the people" in this country known as the "US Constitution". That is the ultimate "will of the people", especially since we are a republic, with representatives and a constitution, not a true democracy.
So, where's the text?
Cuz that's just your opinion so far.
I did not know that. Please name this man, tell us when Texas executed him, and explain briefly the proof that he was not guilty.
If democrats focused even a tenth of the energy they've expended with frustrating the will of the people on something useful we would see a much better America...
Indeed. We are also a union of states by that very constitution. And SCOTUS has long since become "the ultimate will of the people" having taken the power to rewrite the constitution at will.
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?