Started By
Message
re: TOS: Where is all the love for the SCOTUS decision?
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:19 am to deeprig9
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:19 am to deeprig9
quote:
A church isn't going to be sued for refusing to perform a same-sex marriage. Churches are protected by the constitution.
This whole thread has been about how the Constitution has been ignored, hasn't it? Are you saying that the Supreme Court has been impartial and and done it's job as far as interpreting the Constittution in an impartial and fair manner?
And to compare Homosexual "rights" to Civil Rights? Really? I can't imagine how the courst will strike down polygymy once it gets challenged.
While I don't agree with polygymy I can see a much better argument for that than homosexuals being able to marry.
0
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:21 am to Jefferson Dawg
quote:
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.
Our Independance from England?
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:23 am to Peter Buck
Bob Jones University lost their tax exempt status over a discrimination issue...which refusing to perform same sex marriages will now become. Just think of the money out here with major religious institutions that the IRS would love to get their hands on.
But this is all about civil rights....
But this is all about civil rights....
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:28 am to SquatchDawg
Our preacher at church asked the question "where does it end" that at some point why wouldn't they just make "incestual marriage" legal too? I thought that was already legal in the south.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:38 am to SBJ
quote:
"incestual marriage"
quote:
I thought that was already legal in the south.
Only in Alabama and Mississippi
Posted on 6/29/15 at 11:32 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Our Independance from England?
Yes. But, the script has since been flipped.
The u.s. government now plays the role of the british empire that the colonists fought to escape. Actually, based on the grievances of the colonists in The Declaration of Independence, today's u.s. empire is a million times worse.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 12:32 pm to Peter Buck
quote:
"I bet many if not all churches lose tax exempt status in the next 12 years"
Churches, sure. Mosques? Nope, and they'll still get to preach anti-gay stuff without anyone even noting it.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 12:34 pm to Jefferson Dawg
A little something to lighten the mood:
Posted on 6/29/15 at 7:24 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
You don't think the SCOTUS should override the states? Your a homophobe that hates gays.
I don't like the word homophobic. It's not a phobia. You aren't afraid of gays. You're just an a-hole.
- a famous person
This post was edited on 6/29/15 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 6/29/15 at 8:31 pm to deeprig9
Wow...I'm surprised you can't even grasp the argument. But go ahead and be ignorant and insulting...it fits the profile for most people when it comes to this issue.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 8:35 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Wow...I'm surprised you can't even grasp the argument. But go ahead and be ignorant and insulting...it fits the profile for most people when it comes to this issue.
You believe states' rights trump individual rights, and act like the Constitution says that somewhere.
There's not much to argue.
You are wrong.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 9:18 pm to deeprig9
You're the most smug twat on here, Rig, if you don't see that the opposition to the SCOTUS' decision isn't states' rights taking precedence over individual rights, but rather Federal judicial activism of less than half a dozen justices taking precedence over states' rights in a matter that exists wholly and completely outside of the Constitution. By definition, that leaves it to states and their people to decide individually.
Of course, the aforementioned smug twattery wouldn't let you admit that, even if you finally pulled your head out of your own arse long enough to think about it.
Of course, the aforementioned smug twattery wouldn't let you admit that, even if you finally pulled your head out of your own arse long enough to think about it.
Posted on 6/29/15 at 11:18 pm to VoxDawg
There's only one Honest way to look at this:
It's yet another huge undermining of the shredded wadded-up discarded remnants of the constitution on this one..and another huge victory for big government.. THE END.
If the Feds were interested in actual peaceful rational Solutions, they'd simply agree to bow out of the marriage licensing business altogether. And turn it over to private contracts.
Straights could marry in churches or synagogues or mosques or wherever and gays could marry at their hair salons or Starbucks or wherever.
But that's not how the busy body's who run governments operate.
Divisiveness is their capital. It's what keeps them running by easily fooling the masses into choosing one side of the same corrupt coin. And ensuring that they rely on the illusion of government supreme all knowingness... instead of themselves for solutions and remedies.
This sucks.
It's yet another huge undermining of the shredded wadded-up discarded remnants of the constitution on this one..and another huge victory for big government.. THE END.
If the Feds were interested in actual peaceful rational Solutions, they'd simply agree to bow out of the marriage licensing business altogether. And turn it over to private contracts.
Straights could marry in churches or synagogues or mosques or wherever and gays could marry at their hair salons or Starbucks or wherever.
But that's not how the busy body's who run governments operate.
Divisiveness is their capital. It's what keeps them running by easily fooling the masses into choosing one side of the same corrupt coin. And ensuring that they rely on the illusion of government supreme all knowingness... instead of themselves for solutions and remedies.
This sucks.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:05 am to deeprig9
For the sake of argument, let's assume that gays and lesbians were born that way. I believe that most, if not all, are. Should being born a certain way be a reason to be discriminated against? What if you were born gay? Live and let live.
This post was edited on 6/30/15 at 7:12 am
Posted on 6/30/15 at 8:21 am to Cobb Dawg
quote:
For the sake of argument
But yours is an irrelevant argument. In the wrong thread.
The argument here is about the tyranny of five unelected political appointees subverting the constitution and redefining marriage for all 50 states.
If you agree that these supreme beings in robes did the right thing ....then what does this say about you?
I'll tell you what it says... It says that you endorse big government and all of its lawlessness and tyranny. It says that you grovel to the superiority of government "wisdom " and condone them making decisions they have no business making in the first place. And it says that you are part of the problem.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 11:16 am to Cobb Dawg
quote:
For the sake of argument, let's assume that gays and lesbians were born that way. I believe that most, if not all, are. Should being born a certain way be a reason to be discriminated against? What if you were born gay? Live and let live.
I think you're misunderstanding Jefferson's argument. He's not coming at this from the perspective of "homosexuality is a sin, therefore the supreme court's ruling was bad." He's arguing that this is a matter outside of the jurisdiction of the court to mandate to all states.
Not trying to speak for him, but it's possible to believe that being gay is fine, and even that you'd sign a bill as a state governor to allow same sex marriage and still think the court was wrong. His, and other critics of the ruling, argument is the jurisdiction question, not really the "gay" question.
But for most media that is far too complicated. It's just easier to say "BIGOTS!!!!!!!!!!" and pat yourself on the back for being on the happy side of an issue.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 11:31 am to Dawg in Beaumont
quote:
Not trying to speak for him, but it's possible to believe that being gay is fine, and even that you'd sign a bill as a state governor to allow same sex marriage and still think the court was wrong. His, and other critics of the ruling, argument is the jurisdiction question, not really the "gay" question. But for most media that is far too complicated. It's just easier to say "BIGOTS!!!!!!!!!!" and pat yourself on the back for being on the happy side of an issue.
Don't waste your time. It's apparently been decided via the court of popular opinion that if you want something...healthcare...right to vote without showing ID.....a definition of marriage that fits your needs....then it's a Civil Right so your best bet is to get it in front of the Supreme Court pronto.
This is much cleaner and faster than having laws debated and passed the old fashioned, Constitutional way. Get with the program.
This post was edited on 6/30/15 at 11:36 am
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:19 pm to SquatchDawg
At the risk of wading into something that folks are not going to change their position on . . .
The problem that SCOTUS has to deal with is that marriage, for better or worse, is no longer a religious institution in the US. It hasn't been for some time. It is a status that has certain legal rights associated with it. Not just tax breaks, but preferences under inheritance law, ability to sign/represent that person when hospitalized, etc. These are the facts on the ground that SCOTUS is working with. Marriage is as much a civil institution as religious at this point in time. Atheists can get married. You can go to Vegas. You can pay $50 online and marry someone. You can go to the courthouse.
When this is the case, there ARE rights and privileges associated with marriage that are theoretically being denied from gays. Whether or not the government should have ever gotten into the marriage game is another issue. SCOTUS is not deciding that. The next question is whether there is at a minimum, a rational basis for denying this status.
The best arguments that proponents in the courts have been able to martial are religious, that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that the traditional nuclear family is a much better situation to raise kids. Marriage is not currently a purely religious institution. It is what it is. Sterile people, old people, etc. (i.e. people that can't make babies) can get married. I would say it is fair to say that many traditional nuclear families are in no way fit to raise kids. The problem is that no single identifiable harm resultant from gay marriage has been convincingly identified. Incest won't be allowed because it can cause harm, i.e. retarded children. Polygamy won't be allowed because massive families that are incredibly more difficult to support would arguably not only put the family in a bad situation, but also but a large burden on the state to support them. It is difficult to find something like this to point to regarding gay marriage.
I like to think I am a proponent of states rights. But this isn't a states rights issue. SCOTUS has to take the legal environment, as created by the government, as is when they are looking at the issue. It is more fair to say that this is a culmination of the civic nature of marriage than it is "five lawyers" dictating the law to us.
IF civil unions conferred the exact same rights as the status of marriage does, I think there would be a much better argument that no rights are being denied to a particular class of citizens.
It comes down to whether marriage is a religious institution. It was in the past, but it is not any longer. That's the facts. In no way will or should pastors or religious objectors be compelled to officiate a ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs.
Oh, and the "unelected officials" thing...that was exactly what was contemplated in the Constitution. It is spelled out pretty clearly there. The whole idea was that they could look at the law, make a decision, and not get yanked for it if people didn't like the decision was the entire point. It protected the south in Plessy v. Ferguson, and bit them in the arse in Brown v. BOE. Then again, if enough people are that upset about it after 200+ years, amend the Constitution.
The problem that SCOTUS has to deal with is that marriage, for better or worse, is no longer a religious institution in the US. It hasn't been for some time. It is a status that has certain legal rights associated with it. Not just tax breaks, but preferences under inheritance law, ability to sign/represent that person when hospitalized, etc. These are the facts on the ground that SCOTUS is working with. Marriage is as much a civil institution as religious at this point in time. Atheists can get married. You can go to Vegas. You can pay $50 online and marry someone. You can go to the courthouse.
When this is the case, there ARE rights and privileges associated with marriage that are theoretically being denied from gays. Whether or not the government should have ever gotten into the marriage game is another issue. SCOTUS is not deciding that. The next question is whether there is at a minimum, a rational basis for denying this status.
The best arguments that proponents in the courts have been able to martial are religious, that the purpose of marriage is procreation, and that the traditional nuclear family is a much better situation to raise kids. Marriage is not currently a purely religious institution. It is what it is. Sterile people, old people, etc. (i.e. people that can't make babies) can get married. I would say it is fair to say that many traditional nuclear families are in no way fit to raise kids. The problem is that no single identifiable harm resultant from gay marriage has been convincingly identified. Incest won't be allowed because it can cause harm, i.e. retarded children. Polygamy won't be allowed because massive families that are incredibly more difficult to support would arguably not only put the family in a bad situation, but also but a large burden on the state to support them. It is difficult to find something like this to point to regarding gay marriage.
I like to think I am a proponent of states rights. But this isn't a states rights issue. SCOTUS has to take the legal environment, as created by the government, as is when they are looking at the issue. It is more fair to say that this is a culmination of the civic nature of marriage than it is "five lawyers" dictating the law to us.
IF civil unions conferred the exact same rights as the status of marriage does, I think there would be a much better argument that no rights are being denied to a particular class of citizens.
It comes down to whether marriage is a religious institution. It was in the past, but it is not any longer. That's the facts. In no way will or should pastors or religious objectors be compelled to officiate a ceremony if it is against their religious beliefs.
Oh, and the "unelected officials" thing...that was exactly what was contemplated in the Constitution. It is spelled out pretty clearly there. The whole idea was that they could look at the law, make a decision, and not get yanked for it if people didn't like the decision was the entire point. It protected the south in Plessy v. Ferguson, and bit them in the arse in Brown v. BOE. Then again, if enough people are that upset about it after 200+ years, amend the Constitution.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:27 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
That was an extremely well-put assessment of the argument. Well done.
Posted on 6/30/15 at 12:28 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
quote:
Polygamy won't be allowed because massive families that are incredibly more difficult to support would arguably not only put the family in a bad situation, but also but a large burden on the state to support them.
But this argument falls apart when you consider that there are no barriers to allowing extremely poor people to get married (nor should there be). Those that support the federal government mandating all states to allow gay marriage are going to have to do some pretty serious mental gymnastics to argue against the same rights being given to polygamists.
Again, to rehash my position, I'm not against gay marriage or even polygamy being legal. However I don't think the court's argument passes constitutional muster.
Page 3 of 4
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News