Started By
Message
re: TOS: Where is all the love for the SCOTUS decision?
Posted on 6/26/15 at 8:40 pm to retooc
Posted on 6/26/15 at 8:40 pm to retooc
JD gets it.
The only reason that this is even an issue is that govt got involved via tax policy with marriage when married and unmarried couples receive different benefits under the law. If they just stayed out of it then this would all be a non issue and would've remained a religious union rather than a state mandated fiscal/economic one.
Also...Finley is spot on as well. This isn't about gay rights but rather states rights. This is about states voting one way with hefty margins and the SCOTUS basically negating the people's opinion. Like it or not the Constitution doesn't include freedom of marriage as a right to be defended at the Federal level....but those of us that naively think that the SCOTUS or govt in general is remotely interested in defending the Constitution are deluding ourselves.
The only reason that this is even an issue is that govt got involved via tax policy with marriage when married and unmarried couples receive different benefits under the law. If they just stayed out of it then this would all be a non issue and would've remained a religious union rather than a state mandated fiscal/economic one.
Also...Finley is spot on as well. This isn't about gay rights but rather states rights. This is about states voting one way with hefty margins and the SCOTUS basically negating the people's opinion. Like it or not the Constitution doesn't include freedom of marriage as a right to be defended at the Federal level....but those of us that naively think that the SCOTUS or govt in general is remotely interested in defending the Constitution are deluding ourselves.
This post was edited on 6/26/15 at 8:41 pm
1
Posted on 6/27/15 at 5:35 pm to SquatchDawg
This whole thing is depressing beyond description. The worst part is that it's only going to get worse..
You can't have these big seismic shifts without there being earthquakes. And when they happen, the busy bodies will use each event to grab even more control.
Keep your powder dry.
You can't have these big seismic shifts without there being earthquakes. And when they happen, the busy bodies will use each event to grab even more control.
Keep your powder dry.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:43 pm to Jefferson Dawg
The worst part about this for me is that the SCOTUS has had a couple of pretty clear cases where there was no Constitutional basis whatsoever for the matter before the court and in both cases they showed no impartiality or Constututional deference in their decisions.
In the first ACA decision, there is no justification for the federal govt whatsoever to mandate that every American buy health insurance or suffer a penalty. They ruled there was and Roberts contorted and sold his soul to try to make it fit by calling the fine a tax. Name another tax that you get assessed by NOT doing something. You can't. You can get fined...or penalized...but not taxed. He said that their role is not to protect us from the decisions of our elected officials so he had to find a way to make it work. I thought the SCOTUS's role was SPECIFICALLY to protect us from unconstitutional legislation.
Then...they had a situation where the states had referendums and made pretty overwhelming decisions...AND there is not Constututional right to open marriage...which clearly leaves it to the decisions of the states...which was overturned. So much for not protecting us from our own decisions.
Short version...the SCOTUS cannot be depended on to adhere to the Constitution or police our govt and hold them accountable to actions that fall outside of the Constitution in issues that are not vague or inconsequential...but pretty damn obvious.
Shits all up for grabs and popular opinion or the flavor of the day dictates law now and the SCOTUS just wants to be popular..like everyone else now. There are no guard rails...
In the first ACA decision, there is no justification for the federal govt whatsoever to mandate that every American buy health insurance or suffer a penalty. They ruled there was and Roberts contorted and sold his soul to try to make it fit by calling the fine a tax. Name another tax that you get assessed by NOT doing something. You can't. You can get fined...or penalized...but not taxed. He said that their role is not to protect us from the decisions of our elected officials so he had to find a way to make it work. I thought the SCOTUS's role was SPECIFICALLY to protect us from unconstitutional legislation.
Then...they had a situation where the states had referendums and made pretty overwhelming decisions...AND there is not Constututional right to open marriage...which clearly leaves it to the decisions of the states...which was overturned. So much for not protecting us from our own decisions.
Short version...the SCOTUS cannot be depended on to adhere to the Constitution or police our govt and hold them accountable to actions that fall outside of the Constitution in issues that are not vague or inconsequential...but pretty damn obvious.
Shits all up for grabs and popular opinion or the flavor of the day dictates law now and the SCOTUS just wants to be popular..like everyone else now. There are no guard rails...
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:20 am to SquatchDawg
Nine "supreme beings" wearing robes making decisions from on high for 300 million people....bound by no law. Only their "supreme" judgement.
What a farce.
Seriously. We are living in a fricking science fiction novel.
What a farce.
Seriously. We are living in a fricking science fiction novel.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 12:00 pm to Jefferson Dawg
The Tenth Amendment was rendered useless, last week.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 1:32 pm to VoxDawg
In 1792 the 9 robed supreme beings of the u.s. supreme court attempted to threaten the sovereignty of the state of Georgia in their ruling in a case called Chisolm vs. Georgia.
Here is part of the formal response from Georgia.....
"Any Federal Marshal........attempting to levy, on the territory of this State..... under the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States . . . are hereby guilty of a felony, and shall suffer death, without the benefit of clergy, by being hanged."
The supreme court ruling was overturned and this resulted in the 11th Amendment to the u.s. constitution protecting states from the judicial power of the feds.
I wonder what the Georgians of that generation would think about us today and what we so pathetically tolerate from our rulers in DC. So sad......
Here is part of the formal response from Georgia.....
"Any Federal Marshal........attempting to levy, on the territory of this State..... under the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States . . . are hereby guilty of a felony, and shall suffer death, without the benefit of clergy, by being hanged."
The supreme court ruling was overturned and this resulted in the 11th Amendment to the u.s. constitution protecting states from the judicial power of the feds.
I wonder what the Georgians of that generation would think about us today and what we so pathetically tolerate from our rulers in DC. So sad......
Posted on 6/28/15 at 1:59 pm to VoxDawg
Wrong about 10th amendment.
Tenth amendment reserves power to the people where government authority isnt explicitly granted by the constitution.
Gay people getting married is an excercise in individual liberty. The court ruled in favor of the people over the state.
Tenth amendment reserves power to the people where government authority isnt explicitly granted by the constitution.
Gay people getting married is an excercise in individual liberty. The court ruled in favor of the people over the state.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 3:10 pm to deeprig9
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'll split the difference with you, since it's an "or".
Posted on 6/28/15 at 3:23 pm to VoxDawg
The 10th amendment is really just a reminder. Even without it, the constitution only delegates a few limited enumerated rights to the federal government. And obviously re-defining the definition of "marriage" isn't one of them.
If you read the ruling the supreme beings are actually using the 14th amendment to try and find implied authority to justify their decision. Which is fricking absurd. To think that the men who authored that amendment thought it would have anything remotely close to say about redefining "marriage".
But this is the world we live in. These super humans believe they somehow have the right to re-define whatever they want.
Are there any gay people with the dignity and principle to admit how crooked this process is?
or do they not care as long as the crooked process benefits them?
If you read the ruling the supreme beings are actually using the 14th amendment to try and find implied authority to justify their decision. Which is fricking absurd. To think that the men who authored that amendment thought it would have anything remotely close to say about redefining "marriage".
But this is the world we live in. These super humans believe they somehow have the right to re-define whatever they want.
Are there any gay people with the dignity and principle to admit how crooked this process is?
or do they not care as long as the crooked process benefits them?Posted on 6/28/15 at 3:45 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Marxist stuff like the Department of Education is what really burns my arse. I see the Equal Protection angle to the argument for gay marriage, but there's no Constitutional mandate to seize control of education of minors.
This post was edited on 6/28/15 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 6/28/15 at 4:35 pm to deeprig9
Marriage as seen by the government is a status that affords different treatment under the law as regards ownership transfer, tax treatment and other functions where the married status plays a role. Nobody is proposing to limit an individual from being gay, loving each other, living together, comingling funds, fighting over money, etc. but rather not allowing them this status.
Saying that somehow it's an infringement on the liberty of an individual for not being able to be "married" is the equivalent of me saying I'm being denied my right to not being classified as a minor....or a minority...or a citizen. Just because I want to be granted a different status under the law and get certain advantages of that status doesn't give me right to it.
Establishing domestic unions would've solved the problem...but this isn't about solving problems. This is about politics and control to who knows what end. I think it's a bigger move against religion so maybe we'll see Churches sued by the govt for refusing to perform same sex marriages at the risk of losing their tax exempt status? People that speak out against it charged with hate speech? Who knows...
This is my take on it...
Saying that somehow it's an infringement on the liberty of an individual for not being able to be "married" is the equivalent of me saying I'm being denied my right to not being classified as a minor....or a minority...or a citizen. Just because I want to be granted a different status under the law and get certain advantages of that status doesn't give me right to it.
Establishing domestic unions would've solved the problem...but this isn't about solving problems. This is about politics and control to who knows what end. I think it's a bigger move against religion so maybe we'll see Churches sued by the govt for refusing to perform same sex marriages at the risk of losing their tax exempt status? People that speak out against it charged with hate speech? Who knows...
This is my take on it...
Posted on 6/28/15 at 7:25 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Marriage as seen by the government is a status that affords different treatment under the law as regards ownership transfer, tax treatment and other functions where the married status plays a role. Nobody is proposing to limit an individual from being gay, loving each other, living together, comingling funds, fighting over money, etc. but rather not allowing them this status.
Saying that somehow it's an infringement on the liberty of an individual for not being able to be "married" is the equivalent of me saying I'm being denied my right to not being classified as a minor....or a minority...or a citizen. Just because I want to be granted a different status under the law and get certain advantages of that status doesn't give me right to it.
Establishing domestic unions would've solved the problem...but this isn't about solving problems. This is about politics and control to who knows what end. I think it's a bigger move against religion so maybe we'll see Churches sued by the govt for refusing to perform same sex marriages at the risk of losing their tax exempt status? People that speak out against it charged with hate speech? Who knows...
This is my take on it...
So if we let black kids go to the same school as white kids, what's next? Let donkeys in the school too?
You're better than this.
A church isn't going to be sued for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. Churches are protected by the constitution. Churches can do whatever they please, for the most part. Churches are not the victim of anything. The church business is thriving right now.
Pull your head out of your arse.
I just dropped you from the smart-person list.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 8:17 pm to deeprig9
Sorry I disappointed you. 
I know for a fact that national church organizations are already putting together defense teams to deal with the first suits from their refusal to perform a gay marriage. And if you think it's a slam dunk for religious freedom then you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on with the courts or similar challenges in this area.
You're also better than looking at this just on the emotional level and responding with canned knee jerk, cut and paste reaction above.
Did I mention polygamy or "da whole wurld is goin to hell?" I must've missed that.
I know for a fact that national church organizations are already putting together defense teams to deal with the first suits from their refusal to perform a gay marriage. And if you think it's a slam dunk for religious freedom then you haven't been paying attention to what's been going on with the courts or similar challenges in this area.
You're also better than looking at this just on the emotional level and responding with canned knee jerk, cut and paste reaction above.
Did I mention polygamy or "da whole wurld is goin to hell?" I must've missed that.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 8:58 pm to SquatchDawg
Would any sovereign state/country ever enter into a union with other sovereign states/countries.....if they were told that joining that union meant that five unelected individuals could snap their fingers at any time and change every state's laws based on their "supreme"opinion??
Hell no. Of course not.
Yet, hypocrites across the "nation" will celebrate the 4th of July next weekend completely oblivious as to how this country is the exact OPPOSITE of what that day represents.
I realize it's not breaking news that the original intent of the republic has been betrayed and turned upside down , but the shite just gets more and more absurd by the day..
Hell no. Of course not.
Yet, hypocrites across the "nation" will celebrate the 4th of July next weekend completely oblivious as to how this country is the exact OPPOSITE of what that day represents.
I realize it's not breaking news that the original intent of the republic has been betrayed and turned upside down , but the shite just gets more and more absurd by the day..
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:49 pm to Jefferson Dawg
The problem is that you can't have a debate on this, the ACA or even the flag because the masses have been so ginned up to yell bigot and racist to objectors that they're incapable of peeling back the onion to see how power is being centralized and taken from them.
You don't like the ACA? You don't want people to have healthcare.
You don't think the SCOTUS should override the states? Your a homophobe that hates gays.
You think Flag phobia is silly? You're obviously racist.
It all fits in nice little boxes for the masses. It ingenious really...
You don't like the ACA? You don't want people to have healthcare.
You don't think the SCOTUS should override the states? Your a homophobe that hates gays.
You think Flag phobia is silly? You're obviously racist.
It all fits in nice little boxes for the masses. It ingenious really...
Posted on 6/28/15 at 11:54 pm to SquatchDawg
What in God's name are you talking about? Civil Rights shouldn't be up to the majority. It's not about state's rights, how can people miss this so badly?
Posted on 6/29/15 at 12:21 am to dawgfan24348
Civil rights protect people's freedom and liberty from being infringed on by the government. They don't gaurantee a right to some government entitlement. Big difference.
Stick to nba talk and other flatbill subjects.
Stick to nba talk and other flatbill subjects.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 12:39 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
It all fits in nice little boxes for the masses. It ingenious really...
I don't know if i'd go so far as to call it "ingenious". Our culture is so oblivious and unthinking that distracting it from the actual real dangers is, for the most part, not even necessary. That's what all this shite is anyway. Distractions from the real problems common to us all.
Uh oh. What's that? You say bank runs are happening right now in Greece?
Dus dat meen Lebron might get traded? This post was edited on 6/29/15 at 12:42 am
Posted on 6/29/15 at 6:55 am to Jefferson Dawg
I bet many if not all churches lose tax exempt status in the next 12 years
Posted on 6/29/15 at 6:55 am to Peter Buck
Wouldn't doubt it
Page 2 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News