Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses

Isn't that like a state protesting abortion by not allowing women to become pregnant?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution only matter when people agree with them?

Good to know.

You truly believe that there is a "right" to gay marriage under the Constitution ? That the Founding Fathers intended this or would approve?

BS!!

The beautiful thing about the Constitution is it has mechanisms to allow us to change it. The Founders did that on purpose so we could evolve over time. That's one of the things I love the most about the US Constitution. And I'm sure you've looked into the Amendments after the first 10, right?

Yup its called an amendment process, you know, the one where 3/4's of State Legislatures have to ratify something before it becomes law of the land and is included into the Constitution.

It's certainly not done by judicial fiat overtaking legislative powers.

What does this tell you about how they think of other people as well, they would rather do this than accept the fact that we are all Humans

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So Supreme Court rulings on the Constitution only matter when people agree with them?

Good to know.

You truly believe that there is a "right" to gay marriage under the Constitution ? That the Founding Fathers intended this or would approve?

BS!!

The beautiful thing about the Constitution is it has mechanisms to allow us to change it. The Founders did that on purpose so we could evolve over time. That's one of the things I love the most about the US Constitution. And I'm sure you've looked into the Amendments after the first 10, right?

Yup its called an amendment process, you know, the one where 3/4's of State Legislatures have to ratify something before it becomes law of the land and is included into the Constitution.

It's certainly not done by judicial fiat overtaking legislative powers.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that the 14th Amendment calls for equal protections under the law. And guess what the legal basis for the Supreme Court's decision was based on? You got it, the 14 Amendment.

Let's see what the other conservative leaning states are doing, such as bringing up about the 10th amendment. Well, banning all marriage in the state is just going to make things worse overall especially the state being under fire for the flag. The summer of division.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Let's see what the other conservative leaning states are doing, such as bringing up about the 10th amendment. Well, banning all marriage in the state is just going to make things worse overall especially the state being under fire for the flag. The summer of division.

Nah, it's finished. In 1967, the Supreme Court did the same thing to end all bans on interracial marriages. Like I said, they'll complain & delay, but will no doubt concede & move on.

In 1967, the decision by the Supreme Court annulled the laws and constitutions of 16 contiguous south-eastern states that had still banned inter-racial marriages. The state of South Carolina still had an anti-miscegenation law on the books as late as 1998, although it could not be applied. By 2000-OCT, only the state of Alabama still had a clause in its constitution prohibiting a black person or descendent of a black person from marrying a white person. The people of Alabama voted during the general special election of 2000-NOV-07 to delete the clause from their constitution. However the vote was fairly narrow. Only 59% of voters supported the repeal. A majority of voters in 24 out of the state's 67 counties wanted to retain the clause in their constitution even though it had been ruled unconstitutional by the court. 2 Racial hatred dies hard in some localities.

www.religioustolerance.org... (This info is in the middle of the page.)

a reply to: ketsuko

maybe I missed it but I didn't see anywhere where anyone was discussing any type of violence to force anyone to do anything. but then again maybe I missed it.
the point I was making was that regardless of the majority, the minority's rights are to be protected, and it's part of the supreme court's job to see to it that they are. And well, they saw not allowing gays to marry as infringing on their rights as citizens of this country. Just like if the majority suddenly decided that all the people of a certain race should be legally ordered to wear shiny star on their clothing so we could all identify them wouldn't pass the mustard.
The idea that a state would decide to just stop issuing marriage licenses because they don't like the ruling well, is kind of insane in my opinion.
So, because you couldn't deprive the gays of the benefits of being married, and they are far too many unnecessary benefits that shouldn't be and only are because the gov't and society was more involved in coercing people to life a certain lifestyle than they were of preserving individual freedom.....you want to deprive all your citizens of these benefits???
I have to present a marriage license to the VA just to be allowed to be buried next to my husband. I'll have to present one to the social security when I file for retirement benefits since he's worked for me because I was a stay at home mom a good part of my life (isn't it the religious right that loves those stay at home moms?)
so because we just can't stand the idea of gay marriage, we should all just do away with marriage and well, every child in the state can have the potential of being labaled a bastard because no state agency saw fit to record the marriages and there is no proof!!!