It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

page: 54
67
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
So you are Okay with States Denying the 'Constitution'. so your state could Ban Guns, deny you free speech, and ban you from Practicing any Religion.. and you would be ok because the state made that law?




TENTH AMENDMENT: 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.[3]




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
This is why the nomination of Supreme Court judges and federal judges by a prez is soooooo important....probably the most important power the prez has, especially since they serve for life once appointed. The ruling on this issue was 5to4. One appointment made the difference. One.


So regardless of the legal questions and matters at stake here, your primary concern is what political party's platform is endorsed in the halls of our highest Court?

How interesting and saddening.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords


originally posted by: Darth_Prime
So you are Okay with States Denying the 'Constitution'. so your state could Ban Guns, deny you free speech, and ban you from Practicing any Religion.. and you would be ok because the state made that law?




TENTH AMENDMENT: 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.[3]





This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARTICLE VI, SECTION 2

edit on 14Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:01:52 -050015p022015666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:02:50 -050015p022015666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: queenofswords
This is why the nomination of Supreme Court judges and federal judges by a prez is soooooo important....probably the most important power the prez has, especially since they serve for life once appointed. The ruling on this issue was 5to4. One appointment made the difference. One.


So regardless of the legal questions and matters at stake here, your primary concern is what political party's platform is endorsed in the halls of our highest Court?

How interesting and saddening.


You misunderstood. As usual, you turn it into a party issue when all I was pointing out was the fragility of an issue and how ONE appointment can change everything. Interesting...and saddening.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Homosexual citizens wanting to get a marriage license is new. They weren't suing for discrimination back in the 1800's, but they are now. So, we adapt by looking at our founding documents for guidance. Sure enough, there's an amendment there that says all citizens deserve equal protections under the laws - laws can't discriminate against any group of citizens. There's our answer.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

... no one, anywhere is asking for "homosexuality" to be acknowledged.

The only issue is equitable treatment before the law. The law allowing marriage as a contract, which cannot be excluded to any citizen based on their sex (not sexual preference).


As an aside, why does equal rights in marriage for all bother you so much???



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Or perhaps you didn't think your statement all the way through ... ?

If the power of a President to nominate to the Supreme Court (approved by the Senate) is so earthshakingly vital, then, given the vast divide in this country in the ideologies of our two main political parties (you know, that mechanism that actually gets Presidents and Congresspersons elected? Yeah that one.) the "winner" of political elections, particularly the President becomes of monumental importance, right?

I mean, surely, you weren't merely reiterating what we learned in 5th grade Civics that the President nominates Justices ... right?

Right? You're usually at least a bit more profound than merely stating a well known common fact ...

Maybe I'm wrong ...



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

... no one, anywhere is asking for "homosexuality" to be acknowledged.

The only issue is equitable treatment before the law. The law allowing marriage as a contract, which cannot be excluded to any citizen based on their sex (not sexual preference).


As an aside, why does equal rights in marriage for all bother you so much???


No it is not the only issue. Even Obama, a constitutional lawyer, said at one time that "states and states alone should decide whether same-sex is legal within their borders".

I have no problem with the marriage issue. I do keep an eye on States' Rights issues, however.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Thank goodness for all of us that Mr. Obama's word is not law, eh? That he is ultimately just another American citizen? (EDIT: Who like many of us can grow and evolve and change our minds on issues, yes?)

It's not a matter of State's Rights. States set up the legal structure of marriage, that was noted in its implementation to be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. That has been clear to anyone who understands the basic nature of contractual agreements ... the race, sex, religion et. al. of one of the parties to the contract should make no difference.

That's all the Court did. It's actually one of their strongest rulings (as based in legal precedent) in years.
edit on 14Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:18:02 -050015p022015666 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Factual Reality Point: a politician has to get elected before they can make change.

The #1 priority of any politician is to first get elected. Period.

ALL politicians walked on eggshells (except outwardly extreme anti-gay) during the evolution of LGBT rights.

Many of those politicians have publicly acknowledged their evolvement of LGBT rights and marriage equality.

Continuing to dredge up old videos etc, of these evolved politicians shows desperation.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: queenofswords

Thank goodness for all of us that Mr. Obama's word is not law, eh? That he is ultimately just another American citizen? (EDIT: Who like many of us can grow and evolve and change our minds on issues, yes?)

It's not a matter of State's Rights. States set up the legal structure of marriage, that was noted in its implementation to be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. That has been clear to anyone who understands the basic nature of contractual agreements ... the race, sex, religion et. al. of one of the parties to the contract should make no difference.

That's all the Court did. It's actually one of their strongest rulings (as based in legal precedent) in years.


ONE....just one SC judge and the whole thing would have been a different ruling. That's all I'm saying. Have you read all of the dissenting arguments? Just curious.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I read the Majority Opinion as well as the Dissenting Opinions as soon as the material was available.

Roberts and Scalia have left all basis in reality, citing the Court for "only being lawyers" when every decision on every matter that has ever been made (including many in the Roberts Court itself) have been made in exactly the same way.

How childishly petulant!

Your observation that ONE vote could have made the difference applies to every other situation in which there has been a 5-4 decision in the Court.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Continuing to dredge up old videos etc, of these evolved politicians shows desperation.



Also exposes the hypocrisies of trusted politicians.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Annee

Continuing to dredge up old videos etc, of these evolved politicians shows desperation.



Also exposes the hypocrisies of trusted politicians.





... because no politician should ever change their minds on a subject when additional information and further consideration is available?

They should always just "keep the faith" eh?




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Could a man not marry a woman, regardless of their sexuality. Of course they could. That satisfies equal protection.


And you realize that no matter how you frame that "argument", a gay man marrying a woman is not fundamentally equal to a straight man marrying a woman. The relationship is fundamentally not the same as an adult choosing to marry someone with whom they wish to spend their lives, most times out of love and the desire to "cleave". That argument is lame. Heterosexuals had the right to choose a their partner, form a bond and marry. Homosexuals were being denied that right.



The supreme court changed the definition of marriage, the essence of the relationship. They didn't establish equality, because it already existed.


What definition of marriage? There are many. If you consider that the word marriage simply means "an intimate or close union", then the only people who have "changed the definition" are those who put all the legal restrictions on this word in the first place, including those who have thought they "owned" the word. There is no ONE definition of marriage.

NO ONE defines my marriage except for my husband and I. Not the government, not the Supreme Court, not religion, and not you. It's no one else's place or privilege to define my marriage. The Supreme Court did not "change the essence" of ANYONE'S relationship. That's crazy talk. My relationship does not fit into a mold. ALL relationships are different and don't conform to an "essence".

If I, as a heterosexual woman, can choose who I have this "intimate or close union" with, then homosexuals should have that same right.

And they do. I know you know that, I just like saying it.
edit on 6/28/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   



Your observation that ONE vote could have made the difference applies to every other situation in which there has been a 5-4 decision in the Court.



Yep. Like CITIZENS UNITED.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I always hear that modern conservatives are so committed to the freedom of individuals to create and sustain their own lives and their own happiness ... that is ... until they don't.

How could anyone who believes in minimal state interference in our lives have any negative feelings about individuals being allowed to pursue a government-recognized contract that has heretofore been restricted to a portion of the citizenry?

Why should the government tell me who I can marry so long as we are both competent adults?

Just another one of those irrational enigmas in the conservative ideology, I guess ...

/shrug



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords



Your observation that ONE vote could have made the difference applies to every other situation in which there has been a 5-4 decision in the Court.



Yep. Like CITIZENS UNITED.


And hundreds more ... what is your point?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs.


That is just poetry, man.

And what occurs to me makes me sad... If that were a quote from a ruling that favored a RELIGIOUS case, the people who are so up in arms now, would be singing its praises... Personal choice! Individual dignity! Beliefs!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Good arguments are already being made that this precept will also apply to concealed carry permits being accepted state to state as well ... which I have no issue with.

I choose to believe in time that all will see this is a win for all Americans, that we got a little bit closer yesterday to our ideal "and justice for all."

Perhaps the blinders will come off. One hopes.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join