Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage. Decision expected in June.

[Mark Hunts FIST]

The knuckle draggers in my state of Texas has a bill being introduce that would cut the salary of any state working who issues a same sex marriage license. Even if a federal court allows it.

You should show them and move back to Cali.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

if it gets passed almost all of the southerners i know from high school and throughout my life will cry and complain for days.

 

[FinalFight]

Let love conquer all. If you want to marry a man or women, let it be so, simple as that. For those who are against it, its simple, its not your life, move on.

but.. but.. what if you want to marry a horse or your lazy boy arm chair? think of the children ffs.

 

[FinalFight]

The knuckle draggers in my state of Texas has a bill being introduce that would cut the salary of any state working who issues a same sex marriage license. Even if a federal court allows it.

And apparently it's the gays are the ones you should be worried.

edit:

I love these kind of threads in the WR. They always start out with some logical and rational comments. Then eventually they get plagued by the usual herpa derp incest, bestiality and pedo comments.

any second now....

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

I worry more about the lack of adequate defense for the real marriage position, rather than the strength of the fake marriage argument. As Obama is steadfast in not supporting real marriage, the fake marriage lobby may win by default, in spite of the legal paucity of the claim that gay marriage is a constitutional right.

Both the states and the federal government have exercised constitutional control over marriage before.

Examples: Utah was permitted into the union ONLY UNDER THE CONDITION that polygamy be made illegal in Utah. Utah's laws are a prohibition on marriage, showing not only that individual states, but the states in general (but not as a federal entity) can restrict what sort of marriage relationship their citizens can engage in.

The federal government, meanwhile, passed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, which for 130+ years has federally prohibited a type of marriage relationship, and which has been supported in its constitutionality by the Supreme Court in The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890).

There is quite simply no element of the US constitution that grants the right of a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause cannot be enacted, as every adult man and woman has the right to marry a person who is qualified to be married (someone who is of the opposite sex of their own and who is not currently married to anyone else). The only foundation for claiming the 14th amendment was not respected is if certain classes of people were prohibited from exercising their marriage rights, but every single citizen in the US can marry someone of that meets the prerequisites.

What other countries do is their business, but our laws are rooted in a specific document (the constitution) and the interpretation of that document by our courts and legislative bodies. The arguments in favour of gay marriage are also quite obviously faulty in other countries, and rooted in the false narrative that there is nothing substantially different between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different category of relationship, and any society which does not understand this is ceasing to support the bedrock of civilization - the family.

Then there is the very, VERY real element of tyranny that is part of the passage of pro-gay marriage laws. Above and beyond the will of the people, gay marriage has been jammed down the throats of Americans, with predictable consequences! Now you can be forced to cater, give flowers, officiate, gay marriage in many instances. This tramples our freedom of association, and makes a mockery out of our self-government. Gay marriage has won hardly any arguments in the public square, but has relied on a small amount of activist judges to create a right out of thin air.

The incapacity for the constitution to maintain a law-governed society is beginning to make a serious case for the need for massive constitutional reform.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Then there is the very, VERY real element of tyranny that is part of the passage of pro-gay marriage laws. Above and beyond the will of the people, gay marriage has been jammed down the throats of Americans, with predictable consequences! Now you can be forced to cater, give flowers, officiate, gay marriage in many instances. This tramples our freedom of association, and makes a mockery out of our self-government. Gay marriage has won hardly any arguments in the public square, but has relied on a small amount of activist judges to create a right out of thin air.

The incapacity for the constitution to maintain a law-governed society is beginning to make a serious case for the need for massive constitutional reform.

It's not tyranny to impose your (probably religious based) beliefs onto others and prevent them from marrying? How can you state it hasn't won 'arguments in the public square' when the majority of persons in the US want it legalized?

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage

I hope the SCOTUS strikes down the bans on the grounds that they don't even pass the rational basis test. That would be a statement.

 

[Johntreksmith]

It's Adam and Eve not adam and steve. I don't give a shit about baseball.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

It's not tyranny to impose your (probably religious based) beliefs onto others and prevent them from marrying? How can you state it hasn't won 'arguments in the public square' when the majority of persons in the US want it legalized?

I hope the SCOTUS strikes down the bans on the grounds that they don't even pass the rational basis test. That would be a statement.

Marriage has never been recognized by any society historically, of whatever religion or no religion, as being between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. There is no inherently religious element in place with marriage. Marriage is an institution supported by the state as it is recognized as the basis of our society.

Gay marriage has been made inevitable by activist judges, not supported. It seems people have given up the fight as they have no legal recourse to fighting anymore.

Moreover, as I said: It has never actually won any popular election. I would imagine polls skew somewhat in favour of gay marriage recently because it is more popular to say that, but when people are in the ballot box, people vote against it. This is actually shown in the...you know, actual elections on gay marriage. Even California, one of the most liberal states in the union, could not legalize gay marriage by the ballot. I think that is itself the most telling of points in this debate.

The proper place for political reform in the nation is through legislative action, not judicial fiat. Gay marriage has subverted the legal structure of America to pass an agenda that will favour about 3% of the population, and for which there are no compelling legal arguments for. Gay marriage is not a matter of equality, but special pleading, and the matter of the government's role in marriage has been settled for over a hundred years.

Also, to note: I am not a profoundly religious person. I'm functionally an atheist. These arguments are not rooted in God (as I hope that would be clear).

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Marriage has never been recognized by any society historically, of whatever religion or no religion, as being between a man and a man, and a woman and a woman. There is no inherently religious element in place with marriage. Marriage is an institution supported by the state as it is recognized as the basis of our society.

Gay marriage has been made inevitable by activist judges, not supported. It seems people have given up the fight as they have no legal recourse to fighting anymore.

Moreover, as I said: It has never actually won any popular election. I would imagine polls skew somewhat in favour of gay marriage recently because it is more popular to say that, but when people are in the ballot box, people vote against it. This is actually shown in the...you know, actual elections on gay marriage. Even California, one of the most liberal states in the union, could not legalize gay marriage by the ballot. I think that is itself the most telling of points in this debate.

The proper place for political reform in the nation is through legislative action, not judicial fiat. Gay marriage has subverted the legal structure of America to pass an agenda that will favour about 3% of the population, and for which there are no compelling legal arguments for. Gay marriage is not a matter of equality, but special pleading, and the matter of the government's role in marriage has been settled for over a hundred years.

Also, to note: I am not a profoundly religious person. I'm functionally an atheist. These arguments are not rooted in God (as I hope that would be clear).

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter on issues regarding our Constitution; thus, it is directly in its purview to rule on whether SSM bans run afoul of the Constitution. That's not judicial fiat, it's judicial review.

Polling has shown massive shifts in public opinion on this issue.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Your argument from tradition was the same one used by defenders of interracial marriage laws prior to Loving. Moreover, states that pass any law must, at the very least, show that law to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. I fail to see how such laws could even pass muster at this tiny hurdle.

Furthermore, it's not even clear which level of scrutiny the SCOTUS will use here. It could very well use strict scrutiny as it is certainly reasonable to consider such laws as a possible infringement upon a fundamental right (see marriage in Loving). It could also elect to use intermediate scrutiny or some higher form of rational basis (with bite).

You seem to be all over the place in supporting these bans.

1) Society has always banned it, therefore it should remain banned
2) Judges should no longer have the power of judicial review; at least on issues where you think it's possible a ruling could come down overturning a law(s) you like
3) Most people don't want gay marriage even though the most current polling shows that a sizable majority of Americans do, in fact, want it legalized

The first line of attack is especially dangerous, given it is basically the exact reasoning used by Taney in Dred Scott to rule that blacks could not be citizens and thus had no standing to sue in Federal Court.

Luckily, I see little chance that Kennedy would risk tarring his legacy by siding with the conservative wing on this one. SSM will likely be legal nation wide by this summer.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter on issues regarding our Constitution; thus, it is directly in its purview to rule on whether SSM bans run afoul of the Constitution. That's not judicial fiat, it's judicial review.

And will rule on this soon.

Polling has shown massive shifts in public opinion on this issue.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Then win on the ballot.

Your argument from tradition was the same one used by defenders of interracial marriage laws prior to Loving. Moreover, states that pass any law must, at the very least, show that law to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. I fail to see how such laws could even pass muster at this tiny hurdle.

The government actually had the right to establish racial guidelines for marriage, but they were wrong as the marriage contracted between interracial couples as functionally identical to heterosexual unions. Marriage serves two purposes:

1. To restrict, and elevate, the power of sexuality in society.

2. To bring families together for hte purpose of adding new biological members to said family - the children - in an environment best suited to raising them.

Interracial marriage can satisfy both, gay marriage satisfies neither. Gay marriage is a loosening of sexual restrictions, not a restriction that elevates through turning a dangerous passion into a socially good urge, and homosexuals are biologically incapable of producing children with one another.

And yes, before you argue: But what about sterile couples? Or older couples? Some elements of the social aspect of marriage - certain tax breaks and such, and other favouritism - should definitely be excluded from relationships contracted between people who are sterile at the time of marriage. However, these relationships remain marriage as they hold the form of marriage that would produce children, and it can simply be accidental that the relationship does not produce children. You can have sex with your wife every day for 20 years and never get her pregnant, even while technically both of you remain fertile in a scientific sense.

Furthermore, it's not even clear which level of scrutiny the SCOTUS will use here. It could very well use strict scrutiny as it is certainly reasonable to consider such laws as a possible infringement upon a fundamental right (see marriage in Loving). It could also elect to use intermediate scrutiny or some higher form of rational basis (with bite).

Marriage is a "fundamental right" (yet not one pronounced in the constitution, oddly...) which has been restricted by the states and federal government, constitutionally, before.

You seem to be all over the place in supporting these bans.

1) Society has always banned it, therefore it should remain banned

Yes. I do not see why any society should be forced to accept a new form of marriage because a minority of the population demands recognition for a lifestyle that does not even satisfy the conditions of marriage.

2) Judges should no longer have the power of judicial review; at least on issues where you think it's possible a ruling could come down overturning a law(s) you like

They should not have the capacity to overrule publically supported laws without a clear constitutional basis for rejecting such. There is no right to marriage in the constitution, and the constitutionality of marriage restriction has been established (as I showed above).

3) Most people don't want gay marriage even though the most current polling shows that a sizable majority of Americans do, in fact, want it legalized

Then win the ballots. There are no ballot victories for gay marriage! If gay marriage is so popular, then win it! Gay marriage seems now to have a grudging acceptance, but this is because courts have ruled (well beyond their rightful power) against the public will. You can get a population to accept the inevitability of something until you give them the opportunity to exercise their vote.

The first line of attack is especially dangerous, given it is basically the exact reasoning used by Taney in Dred Scott to rule that blacks could not be citizens and thus had no standing to sue in Federal Court.

Which required a constitutional amendment to overturn. No one is saying this was good, but it required us to establish a new amendment to over turn the Supreme Court ruling, and that is the proper method to go about adding new rights to the US constitution.

Moreover, I must turn this around on you: Judges can manifestly rule in such a way that is morally appalling. Considering legal rights to blacks were then granted to them through a popular process (constitutional amendments), we can assume that this ruling was very quickly so unpopular to be legally rebuked by the people. Perhaps not at the very year it was, but soon black men were recognized as deserving of rights by popular will.

Luckily, I see little chance that Kennedy would risk tarring his legacy by siding with the conservative wing on this one. SSM will likely be legal nation wide by this summer.

If he rules from law, he rules for the capacity for states to choose, through democratic methods, whether or not to allow for gay (fake) marriage to be legal. If he creates law out of thin air, and ignores established constitutional interpretations and rulings, he rules in favour of gay marriage, and we have essentially imposed, by fiat, a fraudulent variety of marriage upon American people.

 

[Darkballs]

God Bless Texas

So fuck the Constitution right? So if SCOTUS (per the Constitution, the sole interpreters of that document) decide that marriage is a fundament right, and same-sex marriage is included; your response with be "god bless Texas for taking money out of the hands of civil servants who follow the law?"

You do realize that when you shit on an entire class of people day in and day out, but dress it up with "but I love _______", no one believe you right? Further, when you get to heaven, the argument against judging others won't be secured because of a "but i love them" at the end of a hate filled rant.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

So fuck the Constitution right? So if SCOTUS (per the Constitution, the sole interpreters of that document) decide that marriage is a fundament right, and same-sex marriage is included; your response with be "god bless Texas for taking money out of the hands of civil servants who follow the law?"

You do realize that when you shit on an entire class of people day in and day out, but dress it up with "but I love _______", no one believe you right? Further, when you get to heaven, the argument against judging others won't be secured because of a "but i love them" at the end of a hate filled rant.

The Bible's injunction to "judge not lest yet be judged" does not imply that we must have no moral standards whatsoever.

No Christian, including Jesus Christ, has ever believed that.

I'm speaking for Christians here, but it is fairly obvious that the message of the Bible is not "please have no moral standards and never tell someone they are doing something wrong". Are we to not have laws? Laws are judgements, imposed by men, upon other men. Are laws, therefore, anti-Christian?

Come now...

 

[Darkballs]

The Bible's injunction to "judge not lest yet be judged" does not imply that we must have no moral standards whatsoever.

No Christian, including Jesus Christ, has ever believed that.

I'm speaking for Christians here, but it is fairly obvious that the message of the Bible is not "please have no moral standards and never tell someone they are doing something wrong". Are we to not have laws? Laws are judgements, imposed by men, upon other men. Are laws, therefore, anti-Christian?

Come now...

Well i grew up Catholic and attended church every Sunday for over a decade plus other commitments necessary for confirmation. I never had a priest explain to me that don't judge other less you be judge really meant "judge every swinging dick over every issue because you need a moral compass". Was that part in the bible? Or was it just another way for conservatives to discard one part of the bible in preference for another because that aligned with their political ideology?

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

Well i grew up Catholic and attended church every Sunday for over a decade plus other commitments necessary for confirmation. I never had a priest explain to me that don't judge other less you be judge really meant "judge every swinging dick over every issue because you need a moral compass". Was that part in the bible? Or was it just another way for conservatives to discard one part of the bible in preference for another because that aligned with their political ideology?

You respond to my point with political soundbites. I'll still humour you.

Having moral standards requires judgement. It doesn't, howeer, require condemnation - in the sense of suggesting to someone that they have no capacity for moral renewal because of what they've done. Nor does it mean that we ought to not impose moral commandments (a subset of those things we call laws) upon general society.

In other words: We must, and should, recognize when people do wrong, but must also keep in mind their capacity to alter their course of life. At the same time, we impose laws which must be obeyed.

 

[Killswitch91]

Bout time.

Hopefully the result is America finally catching up to the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Darkballs]

You respond to my point with political soundbites. I'll still humour you.

No. I responded with scripture and a personal argument. But lets see what you've got for humoring me:

Having moral standards requires judgement. It doesn't, howeer, require condemnation - in the sense of suggesting to someone that they have no capacity for moral renewal because of what they've done. Nor does it mean that we ought to not impose moral commandments (a subset of those things we call laws) upon general society.

In other words: We must, and should, recognize when people do wrong, but must also keep in mind their capacity to alter their course of life. At the same time, we impose laws which must be obeyed.

As I thought. Invoke scripture when it suits you. Insist that scripture really means something else when it doesn't.

 

[AlucardNatasrd]

No. I responded with scripture and a personal argument. But lets see what you've got for humoring me:



As I thought. Invoke scripture when it suits you. Insist that scripture really means something else when it doesn't.

1 Corinthians 6: 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

There, wanted some scripture? There you go.

Or you know, you can read the entire Bible, which insists upon moral behaviour.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

There is a common theme throughout the Bible of being judged as you judge. If you show mercy you will be shown mercy by God. If you are unforgiving you are unforgiven etc.

I don't think it's wrong to "judge" somebody if you are merciful or even just. It's when you condemn them that I think you run into issues

 

[TheBox]

Gay marriage has been made inevitable by activist judges, not supported. It seems people have given up the fight as they have no legal recourse to fighting anymore.

Moreover, as I said: It has never actually won any popular election.

Twelve states (plus DC) have same-sex marriage due to either legislative vote or direct voter referendum.

 

[ripskater]

So fuck the Constitution right? So if SCOTUS (per the Constitution, the sole interpreters of that document) decide that marriage is a fundament right, and same-sex marriage is included; your response with be "god bless Texas for taking money out of the hands of civil servants who follow the law?"

You do realize that when you shit on an entire class of people day in and day out, but dress it up with "but I love _______", no one believe you right? Further, when you get to heaven, the argument against judging others won't be secured because of a "but i love them" at the end of a hate filled rant.

The Constitution does not support gay marriage.