Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

originally posted by: queenofswords
Even Obama, a constitutional lawyer, said at one time that "states and states alone should decide whether same-sex is legal within their borders".

You're not taking your cues from Obama now? He's a politician. He said that when he was trying to get elected. Whatever he really believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant to this issue. He and Hillary have swayed with the breeze.

He was wrong.

Regardless, the States can certainly make their own laws and they have rights within the limits of the Constitution. That's just how it works.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: queenofswords
Even Obama, a constitutional lawyer, said at one time that "states and states alone should decide whether same-sex is legal within their borders".

You're not taking your cues from Obama now? He's a politician. He said that when he was trying to get elected. Whatever he really believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant to this issue. He and Hillary have swayed with the breeze.

He was wrong.

Regardless, the States can certainly make their own laws and they have rights within the limits of the Constitution. That's just how it works.

BH.....they don't seem to understand the word "progress" (as to change and/or move forward) emphasis on the second syllable. a person needs to adjust and adapt if needed, not stubbornly stick to ideas that don't currently work.....past examples....women's right to vote, 18 yr old can vote if he can be sent to war, blacks no longer 2/3 of a citizen, etc....

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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?

And, what specific "additional information" or "consideration" was Obama thinking about after each time he changed his mind?

The 14th A was there every time.

Why didn't he ever cite that or any other "justification" ?

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.

Exactly, and how come the swing vote never comes from the liberal justices?

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???

So you're saying green tax credits are an affront to the 14th amendment, right?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
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.

Dred scott was an answer too. Just like this one, it was an incorrect answer.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Exactly, and how come the swing vote never comes from the liberal justices?

Because there are 5 conservatives and 4 liberals. Of course the swing vote is a conservative. If a liberal judge "swung", the vote would be 6-3. It wouldn't be a "swing vote".

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I think Anthony Kennedy is considered a moderate.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: kaylaluv
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.

Dred scott was an answer too. Just like this one, it was an incorrect answer.

Well, maybe you'll get lucky and a future Supreme Court will overturn this ruling on same-sex marriage - although I highly doubt it. We tend to evolve towards giving more rights to citizens, not taking them away.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Exactly, and how come the swing vote never comes from the liberal justices?

Because there are 5 conservatives and 4 liberals. Of course the swing vote is a conservative. If a liberal judge "swung", the vote would be 6-3. It wouldn't be a "swing vote".

Could a liberal and a conservative not swap? Therefore providing the liberal swing vote? Has that ever happened?

In fact, when your job is to read a piece of paper and decide what that paper says, shouldn't it almost always be unanimous or very near? In my opinion the supreme court should have to reach a 6-3 or 7-2 majority in all cases, if that is not possible it should be retried.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: kaylaluv
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.

Dred scott was an answer too. Just like this one, it was an incorrect answer.

We tend to evolve towards giving more rights to citizens, not taking them away.

LOL did you really just say that? Surely you can't believe that. Maybe you just misspoke?

a reply to: Dfairlite

I am referring to the Supreme Court rulings. If you look at the history of rulings that overturned previous rulings, it was usually to give more rights to citizens, not take them away. Most likely, they will never overturn giving blacks the vote, or roe v wade, or the unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.

Here's a list of 10 overturned rulings. How many of the subsequent rulings gave MORE rights to the citizens?

money.howstuffworks.com...=9

a reply to: kaylaluv

I agree, it's unlikely to be overturned. There's only hope of a constitutional amendment which gives states the right to decide the qualifications for marriage. But that's barely a glimmer of hope in our monstrosity of a government.

Did you miss this post? www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Could a liberal and a conservative not swap? Therefore providing the liberal swing vote? Has that ever happened?

If that happened, it wouldn't be a "swing vote". By definition, a "swing vote" on the Supreme Court is one of the people in the majority voting with the minority for a victory. If two swapped, the minority would still lose.

In fact, when your job is to read a piece of paper and decide what that paper says, shouldn't it almost always be unanimous or very near?

That's why they have 9 instead of just two. Or one. They are human with human failings and personal opinions, contexts and beliefs. Not robots.

a reply to: Dfairlite

So denying peoples rights is a glimmer of hope?.
Nope.
I don't know why people just don't admit they are a bigot stop hiding behind religion.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
There's only hope of a constitutional amendment which gives states the right to decide the qualifications for marriage.

Why, though? Why do you want to deny people the right to marriage?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Dfairlite

So denying peoples rights is a glimmer of hope?.
Nope.
I don't know why people just don't admit they are a bigot stop hiding behind religion.

You're a bigot. Nothing more.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
There's only hope of a constitutional amendment which gives states the right to decide the qualifications for marriage.

Why, though? Why do you want to deny people the right to marriage?

Because marriage is the cornerstone of society. It is an important institution and should be implemented for the betterment of society, not to make some person or group feel good about themselves (cue divorce argument). By allowing the states to do this themselves you get the best of the best. You get states that allow everything, states that are restrictive, etc. Then you can study other states social outcomes and decide which way to go.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Dfairlite

So denying peoples rights is a glimmer of hope?.
Nope.
I don't know why people just don't admit they are a bigot stop hiding behind religion.

You're a bigot. Nothing more.

Sounds like you are too

All this thinly veiled BS about saving states' rights and blah blah. People need to just come out and say "we hate gays" Because a lot of these people freaking out now didn't seem so vocal about Hobby Lobby...huh. Granted not a states' right issues but still interesting.

And allowing the states to rule is NOT making the best of the best

Some time ago we had this little thing called the Civil War which admittedly was very much about state vs. federal. One of those states' rights allowed black people to be put in bondage, forced to work, and the whipped, tortured or sold when they "misbehaved" (see also: tried to run like hell from SLAVERY)

So would you be ok if a states' rights struck tomorrow and some state held a popular vote and instituted slavery? It would be that state's right

a reply to: Seamrog

Was it on the mighty church and Jesus authority that when I went seeking help for my 'affliction' the parish priest hit on me?

What about the multiple (failed) suicide attempts it caused? The lost memories because that priest did something so traumatic that my mind has locked them away?

What about the church council that came to investigate, offered me hush money because the priest had been caught out with other boys then retracted the offer because I was honest and said I can't remember the exact details of what he did beyond a certain point?

If THIS is the organization you defend, the joke is on you my friend. The church had no right to talk about sin when it's own clergy are so corrupt.