Same-Sex Marriage is now a Right

Hmmm Palin did not renew at Faux and now her daughter came out being pregnant to a person she is not married to. Coincidence?

I see a reality show "The Palins" coming soon. Now that would be pure comedy.
 
Hawk said:
Mike Huckabee is a chode:

“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” Mr. Huckabee said. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
Click to expand...

perfect example of why i can't vote republican anymore. embracing these people as part of your base drives off the independent voters like myself
 
Dalyn said:
Churches/pastors can still refuse to officiate interracial weddings, nearly 50 years after it became fully legal in the US. I'm sure the same will be true about gay weddings in 2065.
Click to expand...

because you know, God and stuff
 
AerchAngel said:
They take away all rights that the Right doesn't like, but when the Right want their rights, they won't allow them. Funny how that works. We are not a free nation anymore, it depends who sits on the throne and thrones, if you will. If you don't agree with them, you are not free.
Click to expand...

and here i thought the Huckabee quote was going to be the dumbest thing in this thread
 
goldfly said:
and here i thought the Huckabee quote was going to be the dumbest thing in this thread
Click to expand...

Is America the land of the free or land of whomever is in charge, I want it this way and silence the other.

Well when someone forces you to do something against your morals, you think it is okay? I thought you were a Libertarian. This is a blatant disregard of the Constitution intended meaning. Like others said, the state grant marriage certificates not the Federal government and should remain as such. The throne is the president and the thrones is the Supreme Court justices, they dictate how to run your life depending on which way the wind is blowing. Like I said if one side want it one way, they will ignore the other side and it goes both ways.

I could give a rats ass about gay marriage, I am glad it is over with so I don't have to hear about it, but messing with the Constitution and bending its words to suit a particular group of people, well lets not have a Constitution, it doesn't mean anything.

Let's see.

Freedom of Speech - You don't have it in this country
Right to Bear Arms - its going away
Illegal search and seizures - it is being abused
Amendment 9 & 10 - doesn't mean a damn thing
Amendment 14 - assaulted now

Half the Bill of Rights exploited politically

So?
 
weso1 said:
For benefits and stuff like that. Some states wanted to recognize gay marriage and some didn't (l.e. not all marriages received the same benefits). The reason it went as high as it did is because some see it as a human rights issue backed by the constitution.

I personally didn't see it that way and I think it should've been left up to the states. I support gay marriage and eventually every state was going to allow it anyway. I am a huge believer in states rights though, and I think this decision is another slippery slope that erodes the rights of individual states. Liberal judges are much more inclined to take away the idea of individual state rights.
Click to expand...

But the private sector was already doing a lot of that, including state and local governments in extending benefits to same-sex partners even before gay marriage was recognized in those states.
 
AerchAngel said:
Is America the land of the free or land of whomever is in charge, I want it this way and silence the other.

Well when someone forces you to do something against your morals, you think it is okay? I thought you were a Libertarian. This is a blatant disregard of the Constitution intended meaning. Like others said, the state grant marriage certificates not the Federal government and should remain as such. The throne is the president and the thrones is the Supreme Court justices, they dictate how to run your life depending on which way the wind is blowing. Like I said if one side want it one way, they will ignore the other side and it goes both ways.

I could give a rats ass about gay marriage, I am glad it is over with so I don't have to hear about it, but messing with the Constitution and bending its words to suit a particular group of people, well lets not have a Constitution, it doesn't mean anything.

Let's see.

Freedom of Speech - You don't have it in this country
Right to Bear Arms - its going away
Illegal search and seizures - it is being abused
Amendment 9 & 10 - doesn't mean a damn thing
Amendment 14 - assaulted now

Half the Bill of Rights exploited politically

So?
Click to expand...

what a weird view you have that isn't even grounded in fact

i would love an explanation for this: " the Right want their rights, they won't allow them. "

"This is a blatant disregard of the Constitution intended meaning" hahahaha
 
Hawk said:
Mike Huckabee is a chode:

“I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” Mr. Huckabee said. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
Click to expand...

Huckabee's just mad because he can't find a supporter who can give him oodles of money that this same court provided to others with the Citizens United decision.

Truly though, Huckabee is a total tool.
 
First of all, I'm an attorney so my take on this tends to be a little different.

I don't know how many of you actually read this decision and the dissents. It's 103 pages so you have to be something of a law geek to do it. I am so I did. I will say that regardless of whether you agree with the conclusion reached by the majority, the court's opinion written by Kennedy is one of the worst decisions I've ever read. It's almost unrecognizable as a judicial opinion. Also, the way a court decides something is often more important than what the ultimate decision is. The decision of this case only affects the issue of marriage, the way the court reasoned can actually be taken and applied to countless areas of the law.

Kennedy's opinion is almost completely devoid of legal analysis. He rambles on for pages about why he thinks gay marriage is good for society but only a few paragraphs actually show his reasoning as to why the constitution guarantees it. This is troubling. Courts aren't supposed to create law that they think would be good for people. That's the job of the legislature.

This ruling could easily open the door for courts to openly strike down laws based on the fact that they disagree with the legislature and think the law is bad for society. That's not how the judicial branch is supposed to function. The judicial branch is not supposed to decide whether a law is a good or bad idea, only whether the legislature has the power to pass it. The opinion looked more like a judicial veto than a decision based on law.

There were half a dozen ways the court could have decided this case today, reached the same end result, and yet not upset 50 years of precedent that strove to keep the judiciary away from bald statements of policy preference as the basis for a decision.

Take whatever side you will on whether you think gay marriage should or shouldn't happen. Both sides could very well be affected if this case represents a new era of review instead of being cloistered away.
 
goldfly said:
what a weird view you have that isn't even grounded in fact

i would love an explanation for this: " the Right want their rights, they won't allow them. "

"This is a blatant disregard of the Constitution intended meaning" hahahaha
Click to expand...

Right to bear arms is the first. Frankly I don't care for guns, but the Left doesn't want anyone to have guns even though it is in the Constitution. That is what I was referring when their rights are being assaulted

Blatant disregard for the Constitution are the ones below:

The Patriot Act abuses Searches and Seizures
The States powers are being strip to appease a certain side. I think they put in Federal marriage certs now since the state has no jurisdiction.
Immigration under Amendment 14 is being assaulted right now.

Like I said, our Constitution is being rendered useless when the laws are not being upheld. If you want it to be change to allow this, then do it properly by amending it and not base on a decision by rewording it.
 
striker42 said:
First of all, I'm an attorney so my take on this tends to be a little different.

I don't know how many of you actually read this decision and the dissents. It's 103 pages so you have to be something of a law geek to do it. I am so I did. I will say that regardless of whether you agree with the conclusion reached by the majority, the court's opinion written by Kennedy is one of the worst decisions I've ever read. It's almost unrecognizable as a judicial opinion. Also, the way a court decides something is often more important than what the ultimate decision is. The decision of this case only affects the issue of marriage, the way the court reasoned can actually be taken and applied to countless areas of the law.

Kennedy's opinion is almost completely devoid of legal analysis. He rambles on for pages about why he thinks gay marriage is good for society but only a few paragraphs actually show his reasoning as to why the constitution guarantees it. This is troubling. Courts aren't supposed to create law that they think would be good for people. That's the job of the legislature.

This ruling could easily open the door for courts to openly strike down laws based on the fact that they disagree with the legislature and think the law is bad for society. That's not how the judicial branch is supposed to function. The judicial branch is not supposed to decide whether a law is a good or bad idea, only whether the legislature has the power to pass it. The opinion looked more like a judicial veto than a decision based on law.

There were half a dozen ways the court could have decided this case today, reached the same end result, and yet not upset 50 years of precedent that strove to keep the judiciary away from bald statements of policy preference as the basis for a decision.

Take whatever side you will on whether you think gay marriage should or shouldn't happen. Both sides could very well be affected if this case represents a new era of review instead of being cloistered away.
Click to expand...

I am not good at summary writing, just good at doing my job. This is what I got from it as well. And this is BLATANT misuse of the Constitution.
 
[MENTION=135]striker42[/MENTION] Thanks for sharing your legal reading on this. It's an important aspect to consider; the creation of a precedent which grants the court more direct leeway to intervene on issues that weigh more heavily on constitutional interpretation (14th amendment ... and what 'due process' actually represents) than the scope of written laws, which is usually about the extent of SCOTUS' purview.
 
Hawk said:
[MENTION=135]striker42[/MENTION] Thanks for sharing your legal reading on this. It's an important aspect to consider; the creation of a precedent which grants the court more direct leeway to intervene on issues that weigh more heavily on constitutional interpretation (14th amendment ... and what 'due process' actually represents) than the scope of written laws, which is usually about the extent of SCOTUS' purview.
Click to expand...

Not good.
 
11257746_719759281483870_2679637996973538668_n.jpg


This too will become so embedded in society that it will be impossible to go back.
Where is Bedel ? Thought he might appreciate my finding of the original document of "The Gay Agenda"
 
Dalyn said:
There's profit in it. Same reason religion has been in the marriage game for so long.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I make tons of money off of doings weddings... That right there is funny.

The State paid me some mega-bucks for signing those certificates. Ha!

Well, I'm going to give up those big State bucks and stop signing marriage licenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top