Same-Sex Marriage is now a Right

sturg33 said:
dooleytweet.jpg
Click to expand...

Who's the username? Was it hidden?
 
Dalyn said:
We've had the same basic discussion involving death. Just because you personally might be an exception, doesn't mean it isn't true. There are numerous ways religion and government has profited from marriage and will continue to do so.

And it's your right to stop signing marriage licenses, as it should be. I certainly don't hold it against you. If you're going to believe in something like religion, you should embrace it...warts and all. Good for you.
Click to expand...

Just think you blow it out of proportion. Anyhow... :-)
 
Bedell, polygamy is next. They open pandora's box by interpreting the word of the Constitution in doing that, they can't go after the Mormons and their practice now. If good for them it is good for all. No holds barred.

This will be good.
 
AerchAngel said:
Bedell, polygamy is next. They open pandora's box by interpreting the word of the Constitution in doing that, they can't go after the Mormons and their practice now. If good for them it is good for all. No holds barred.

This will be good.
Click to expand...

Consenting adults should be married to whomever they choose to be married to. Even if it's multiples, siblings, etc.
 
zitothebrave said:
Consenting adults should be married to whomever they choose to be married to. Even if it's multiples, siblings, etc.
Click to expand...

Whoa, what changed your mind, Zeet?

Before you was totally against it. But after today, they cannot deny it and if they do, they are picking and choosing since no AMENDMENT was passed to allow it. I thought states issues licenses. Well that is none and void, you can marry whoever you want as many as you want (I think Kennedy said something about happiness and not being lonely, well some men rather have four of five women and if he does not have that, he can say he is lonely). I don't mind gay marriage, polygamy or marrying your house dog, I care about opinions in the Supreme Court usurping the state courts which do the license issuing. It would have passed by the states eventually.

They created Pandora's Box by using interpretation for the greater good.

I see issues with them with Search and Seizures and Right to Bear Arms, because people want it change. If you change it, do it the right way, not using opinions of your interpretation.

But I heard they would never get an Amendment passed so this is the only way they can do it. The Civil Right Act of 1964 was an Act. I don't know if this was one. I would be fine if they did do an Act, just not an opinion, because they would do the process correctly. My only beef with this.
 
zitothebrave said:
This has been my opinion for quite some time. Probably not forever, but certainly for the last 3-4 years at the least.
Click to expand...

Me either, it is because change in the world today.

People should smoke weed if they want,
Marry who and what they want, even a harem if they consent.
Purchase weapons to defend themselves
Put in devices to keep guv'ment spy devices out.
Boobytrap your house if intruders come in (stupid law saying you can't do it)
Let every Tom Dick and Harry come across our border have many kids so you and I pay for it.
Just basically ignore the Constitution in its meaning.....this burns me to no end.
 
AerchAngel said:
Just basically ignore the Constitution in its meaning.....this burns me to no end.
Click to expand...

you know it was created to be a document that changes, right?

cause if you don't think that, then you are 3/5ths of a person

to quote a guy who had a little something to do with that document:

11012907_10206155029626596_6011665102103101264_n.jpg
 
Scalia gets a bad rap for his fiery dissents. The media loves to pull lines from them because they're often sensational. Close followers of the court know this isn't really fair.

First of all, Scalia is brilliant. All 9 justices are extremely intelligent. Scalia is absolutely no exception.

Second, when Scalia is writing the majority opinion, he's much less colorful. Scalia believes majority opinions need decorum while dissents can contain more rhetoric.

Third, Scalia is an originalist. People who don't get him usually don't understand this. Scalia's school of thought is that the Constitution does not change over time. The divisions of power and guarantees made were agreed to by the states under a certain understanding and you can't change that. If you want to change the constitution you amend it, you don't change the meaning of the words that are there.

So Scalia big question is "what did the section of the constitution mean when it was adopted?" Naturally this puts him at odds with the doctrine of substantive due process the court trotted out yesterday.

One more thing about the court people don't get is that in spite of their fierce disagreement at times, these people don't usually let these disagreements affect their interpersonal relationships. Ginsburg and Scalia are best friends. There's a difference between debate and argument that some people don't get. Lawyers usually enjoy debating issues and don't take disagreement personally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top