Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Dfairlite

I GOT IT! I actually have it now!

You are saying that if male = A and female = B then A + B does not equal A + A or B + B

((sarcasm btw...I got your terrible premise already))

The problem is that the way you are writing, you are committing two faults

1. You are implying unequal is the only definition that matters
2. You are in a backwards (though honestly pretty overtly) telling us unequal means one is lesser and one is better

The problem with the Supreme Court decision is that the process should have gone through all the channels, meaning the the US congress should have made a law one way or the other concerning the issue. Instead, the Court acting on it's own decided that because some states made laws saying homosexuals can marry, that all states need to honor that.

Flipping the coin, it could have as easily been said that those states making such laws abridged the liberties, and pursuits of those states that did not.

The 14th amendment does not mean that a state may make a law and then expect that all states need to obey that law. It means that because there is a conflict as a whole, the matter goes to the federal legislature to work out one way or the other.

Will the same thing happen in the future if one state decides to make incest marriage legal? Will all states then have to make it legal? That is exactly what happened here.

The Supreme Court is an embarrassing failure. They should follow the Constitution as it is read and not interject it's own ideas into the matter.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Dfairlite

They are an extension of the Bill of Rights, they are the law of the land and should be abided by. Either way, Amendment 14 makes it clear that the banning of gay marriage is against the law. Even Amendment 14 abides by the Constitution, all of them do.

No the amendments are part of the constitution. You don't even understand the constitution quit trying to sound like you do. Amendments change the constitution because they are the constitution. an amendment that bans gay marriage would be constitutional.

a reply to: KyoZero

I want to marry a man(same sex) i couldn't, i don't want to marry a women and i can = Equality

a reply to: Fromabove

...an embarrassing failure...except when they uphold Hobby Lobby right?

What would you have said if Congress passed a law against all bans on homosexual marriage? Would you have respected it then?

a reply to: kaylaluv
The State should have legal precedence regarding marriages over a Federally enforced law. Gun ownership is also at risk here; there is something else happening. The Federal Government is going to usurp your State laws (ATF or BATFE) is NOW illegally raiding gun owners which should be of the individual STATE's concern. ATF is overreaching its jurisdiction. This has nothing to do with the right of homosexuals to marry. This is start of something very strange and frightening. There is such a thing as 'common law' regarding two people dedicated to each other for years regardless of any corresponding sexual relationship and carries the same merit/weight as a traditional "legal binding marriage'.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: KyoZero

I want to marry a man(same sex) i couldn't, i don't want to marry a women and i can = Equality

NOW you're getting it your glorious thing you

a reply to: Dfairlite

Apparently the Federal Government doesn't consider marriage to be limited to One Man and One Woman does it??? Neither do a whole lot of other people feel it must limited to that either. This should be obvious by the amount of support that same sex marriage has behind it.

If marriage was once assumed to be One Man and One Woman that assumption has changed. It now also includes Two Men or Two Women as well. Not a big deal. Corporations weren't always considered "People" or Money to be "Speech" either but it looks like that changed too. Blacks weren't always considered to be 100% "People" either but that also changed. I guess what I'm saying is that "things change". It happens all the time so I'd say get used to it.

In fact every two people, whatever their sex may be, has a marriage which is unique in some ways simply for the fact that it's a marriage between those two people. It doesn't effect anyone else and their marriage. It doesn't effect anyone who isn't married. It doesn't effect anyone at all for that matter other than those two people, so gives a damn if they're the same sex. It doesn't effect anyone else but those two people.

Now that is logical and reasonable.

originally posted by: KyoZero
a reply to: Dfairlite

I GOT IT! I actually have it now!

You are saying that if male = A and female = B then A + B does not equal A + A or B + B

((sarcasm btw...I got your terrible premise already))

The problem is that the way you are writing, you are committing two faults

1. You are implying unequal is the only definition that matters
2. You are in a backwards (though honestly pretty overtly) telling us unequal means one is lesser and one is better

I'm being honest. As for number 2, in some ways yes. In love and commitment, probably not, they're likely equal. In procreation, diversity in child rearing, etc. traditional certainly is better.

See the problem with gay marriage is that it puts it up there with traditional marriage which has it bested. Now I'm not necessarily opposed to gay marriage. I just think we don't have enough information. I mean, would you agree that no fault divorce has generally been bad for society? (This is often claimed by those arguing your viewpoint, that marriage has already been pummeled by divorce).

a reply to: Dfairlite

It is possible that because of this that a sweep in the next election with state legislatures having the votes necessary, that an amendment banning homosexual marriage can be had.

Liberals do not understand the Constitution and they can twist it into the shape of a pretzel with little to no effort.

So to them all arguments are circular in nature.

a reply to: KyoZero

Yay i can be smart too! even for a Gayosexual...

2+2= 5!

originally posted by: KyoZero
a reply to: Fromabove

...an embarrassing failure...except when they uphold Hobby Lobby right?

What would you have said if Congress passed a law against all bans on homosexual marriage? Would you have respected it then?

I am so glad you asked this question.

After the Congress made a law that would apply to all 50 states, the next Constitutional step would be for those states opposing the law for homosexual marriage to file suit with the Supreme Court. At that time, the Court would have proper jurisdiction to rule.

They could go either way, and we know now what they wanted to do, but at least it would have been legal.

The next Constitutional step for the people, or the States, would be to propose an amendment to the Constitution to ban such laws for homosexual marriage. If that passed be the necessary number of states, that would be the law of the land.

But in this case, the Supreme Court over reached and failed in it's duty to let the Constitution work. They are failures.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

How is that logic? how are we not equal when we are still people?

can you please explain to me?

See what you're doing is breaking it down further, you're inferring it's just persons. The problem is you can break it down indefinitely. I mean, when they grant dolphins personhood will devoting myself to a dolphin be marriage? There has to be a stopping point because if there's not then the institution of marriage is meaningless. it's a word with no definition.

You can further break it down to adult persons, well what makes an adult? Puberty? What? So why should those persons be treated differently under the law? You'll likely respond saying that that is different, but why is it different. You've taken a construct of man and woman and broke it down to adult persons. Why can't they break down what a person is and what an adult is? How can you try to stop that when you've furthered the decay of the institution?

personhood dolphins

originally posted by: KyoZero

originally posted by: Dfairlite


Sure it did. Equal protection under the law which protects everyone from having laws applied to to some different than others.
That and protecting the right of everyone to peruse happiness in the same way as everyone else.

Except it doesn't even pass muster that the law was being applied unequally. As any man could marry any woman. four supreme court justices came right out and said it had nothing to do with the constitution, they never say that much, they disagree but they don't say there is no constitutional basis.

I don't expect your side to understand. Afterall your side doesn't even understand logic in any way I mean; according to the liberals here me standing up for my beliefs which are contrary to yours makes me a bigot. However you standing up for your beliefs which are contrary to mine makes you.... tolerant?

It's really a sad state of mind that the left has taken in this country. They're stuck in this world of black and white, there is no in between. You're either with them or your the enemy. There can be no progress with that mindset on either side (and it is seen on both sides but far more on the left).

Do you read what you write?

In this set of paragraphs you said that we're stuck in black or white thinking. Before that you state "Well shucks, that gay guy could marry that gay girl any time he wanted! How was that discrimination?"

You've parroted that concept a couple times. So I will make an attempt to lodge a bit of logic into your mind...here we go

1. You are telling me that the bans on homosexual marriage were not discriminatory
2. You are telling me that any man could marry any woman (consensual of course), hence still no discrimination
3. However, a gay man, as his nature, would not want to marry a woman
4. That gay man, in those remaining states DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE TO MARRY A MAN
5. Ergo...discrimination

Just because you have this ridiculous idea that if I were gay, (which I am not...I play ALL sides...giggidy), but if I WERE strictly gay you are sitting there and telling me, "Well Kyo, I am not discriminating against you. You can marry anyone you want...so long as she is a woman."

So I return and say. "But...I am gay. I want to marry a man (again...consensual)"

And you say "but you CAN marry....a woman."

It's like you go out of your way to ignore the reality. I don't mind so much that you disagree with gay marriage. I may not like it, but again I am always for free speech. The part I don't get is how you have this idea that saying I can either marry a woman, or nobody, isn't discriminatory when you know darn well that as a gay man, my only preference for marriage would be a man.

AGAIN...if you want to all it dirty, sinful, or unequal...fine...but don't pretend that isn't discrimination.

I'm gonna say this as if I were a five year old...

I ask dad if I can have Starburst. He agrees. I only want the pink Starburst. He agrees and says, "you can have any Starburst you want, as long as it is the red Starburst."

But I have explained that I do want one, but I want the pink. In your weird idea of "logic," I am totally getting what I want despite asking for pink and only being allowed to have red

I mean seriously...someone help me out. Am I missing something?

Ok so then tell me why the tax breaks are different. As brought up in my earlier posts that no one seems to have wanted to address.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

here you go

What part of unbiased did you not understand?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Why can't they break down what a person is and what an adult is? How can you try to stop that when you've furthered the decay of the institution?

If you think that's possible and that enough people will find your argument reasonable then try it. If you think you can actually convince others to join you in those crazy ideas go ahead and do it and when it's done then tell all of the rest of us, "See, I told ya so!!"

How satisfying that will be for you and what an embarrassment it will be for all of us.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Why would I care why people divorce? The way I look at it is this. If my wife decides "F it...I'm out" then something was already wrong...

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Dfairlite

The law WAS applied unequally, as heterosexuals could marry the consenting adult of their choice, but homosexuals could not - for no other reason than that they were homosexuals. The gender of the consenting adult of your choice should make no difference. The same with interracial marriage, except in that case the race of the consenting adult of your choice shouldn't make a difference. If a state passed a law that Jews couldn't marry Christians, then it would be a case of the religion of the consenting adult of your choice shouldn't make a difference. The state isn't allowed to use personal judgments of people's race, gender or sexual orientation as the basis of their laws. Because that is a little thing called d-i-s-c-r-i-m-i-n-a-t-i-o-n.

Omh, no it wasn't. As a heterosexual male I could not marry another male. As a homosexual male I could not marry another male. As either male I could marry a female. Equality.

As a heterosexual male, you wouldn't want to marry another male, so that's no skin off your nose. But if you were told that your only choice was to marry another male, then I'd think you'd be singing a different tune. The homosexuals would be fine with that though, so why don't we change the law to banning heteros from marrying someone of the opposite gender? Or.... we could just let consenting adults marry the consenting adult of their choice, regardless of gender, race or religion.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Animals =Human=Logic?

Ok, who defined it as One man one women.. the Bible? God Him/Herself? you? the Church..

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Fromabove

Ok fair. And I do thank you for your reply

The problem I have is that at that point, it would have been an allowance to discriminate. If you allow a section of people to do something (marry) and then tell another section of people not to (LGBT,etc) then it is discrimination.

Despite what some fools like to think, we didn't make it so pedophiles could marry, etc. This was an allowance for two consenting people to do something that two other consenting people could already do.

I mean I know it gets parroted a lot but I have to bring it right back to black or white. We allowed white males to vote but not black males/females. Then at another point we allowed all males to vote but not females. It's what I call discrimination. So I think that SCOTUS found these bans unconstitutional...which is their purpose