Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because … gay marriage

a reply to: Annee

Its what we have. Equal Rights of what we already have.

And it is because of a law that was made and can be changed . I look at it as a slippery sloop where people can find themselves at the bottom of a hill of ice . I find it bizarre that people would want to be put UNDER the law when they have the freedom to choose not to be ....Every right you want to be put onto the books in law will apply to you and you will find yourself on a train headed for the cliff .....less is always best ...They are creating a problem that they will gladly remedy with a new law that never existed before ...then you and others will be bound by that law and what ever interpretation some Judge in the future decides what that law means .

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Amazing how so much power has been delivered to the SCOTUS over the past 6-7 years.

The SCOTUS has always had the power to interpret the Constitution and how it applies to law.
That's their job.

Power they do not have.

What the SCOTUS is doing is SELECTIVELY picking and choosing when the constitution seems to matter.

The SCOTUS says it's perfectly LEGAL to violate someones 2nd,4th,5th,6th,8th,9th,10th, and 14th amendments when it comes to gun rights.

Effective granting the state to usurp those RIGHTS, then turns around and cries foul about 'gay' marriage.

The constitution is pretty cut and dry.

a reply to: neo96

Power they do not have.

False.

The SCOTUS says it's perfectly LEGAL to violate someones 2nd,4th,5th,6th,8th,9th,10th, and 14th amendments when it comes to gun rights.

Your opinion. Which, as far as the legal system goes, doesn't seem to hold much water. But you don't care about that do you. Unless it suits you.

a reply to: Phage

There is nothing false about it.

Your opinion. Which, as far as the legal system goes, doesn't seem to hold much water. But you don't care about that do you. Unless it suits you.

Not really what we are seeing is the OPINIONS of the Scotus on the US constitution.

Quite frankly the BILL of RIGHTS and the 14th amendment do hold water, funny but only when it comes to gay marriage.

Anyone else not so much.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Annee

Its what we have. Equal Rights of what we already have.

And it is because of a law that was made and can be changed . I look at it as a slippery sloop where people can find themselves at the bottom of a hill of ice . I find it bizarre that people would want to be put UNDER the law when they have the freedom to choose not to be ....Every right you want to be put onto the books in law will apply to you and you will find yourself on a train headed for the cliff .....less is always best ...They are creating a problem that they will gladly remedy with a new law that never existed before ...then you and others will be bound by that law and what ever interpretation some Judge in the future decides what that law means .

I have no idea what you are talking about.

No one is forced to have a Legal marriage. It is a choice.

Now it is a choice for everyone.

a reply to: neo96

Not really what we are seeing is the OPINIONS of the Scotus on the US constitution.

Yes. And it is their job to use their opinions in determine the validity of laws and legal decisions. It...is...their...job.

Quite frankly the BILL of RIGHTS and the 14th amendment do hold water, funny but only when it comes to gay marriage.

No. They apply to a lot of things. Just not the way you happen to want them to.

a reply to: Phage

Try again there Phage.

The entire 'beef' with the gay marriage issue is that LGBT say STRAIGHT's have more rights than they do.

The Scotus says treat both the same.

That same Scotus then turns around via gun control says the some people have MORE rights to guns than others, and supports unconstitional legislation depriving gun owners of wait for it.

LIFE,LIBERTY, PROPERTY,and the pursuit of happiness.

Same issue two different faces, but no one gives crap about gun owners. There rights are of no interest.

Only them poor LGBTS.

a reply to: neo96

The entire 'beef' with the gay marriage issue is that LGBT say STRAIGHT's have more rights than they do.

They did. They could be legally married.

The Scotus says treat both the same.

Yes.

That same Scotus then turns around via gun control says the some people have MORE rights to guns than others, and supports unconstitional legislation depriving gun owners of wait for it.

No. The SCOTUS says that states cannot discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. They don't say anyone has more of a right to own a gun than anyone else based on those criteria. Equal protection, you know, the 14th.

They do say that states have the right to determine qualifications for gun ownership as long as they do not discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. You know, states rights.

Same issue two different faces, but no one gives crap about gun owners. There rights are of no interest.

Very different issues.

Only them poor LGBTS.

In what state can a gay felon legally possess a firearm?

Doesn't the bible have strict rules about divorce. I'm sure he OKd many divorces that didn't fit within the bible before gay marriage became legal.

The Judge is a hypocrite, just like Kim Davis and her 4th marriage.

originally posted by: Phage

In the meantime, a bad law is not allowed to stand.

That does not mean that the SCOTUS writes a new law from whole cloth. We still have the legislative and executive branch.

When you get down to it, that's what this judge is kind of saying, paraphrased: "The SCOTUS says that our legally passed and signed marriage license laws are no longer valid. We need new marriage license laws before I can perform any actions regarding any couple with a marriage license."

Kudos to him.

a reply to: Phage

No. The SCOTUS says that states cannot discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. They don't say anyone has more of a right to own a gun than anyone else based on those criteria. Eq

No the second amendment says that followed up by the 4th amendment about people being secure in the person,papers, and effect again unreasonable searches and seizures.

Followed up by the 5th about being held accountable for a capitol offense without a indictment of a grand jury,

Meaning their day in a court of law. Then people being tried for the same 'crime' twice.

Followed up by the 6th which guarantees for people actually getting a day in court.

Followed up by the 7th which means trials by jury.

Followed that up by the 8th which is about cruel and unual punishments, and EXCESSIVE fines.

Followed that up by the 9th which means the state can not use the power granted to them to deny, or disparage other rights retianed to the people.

Followed that up with the 10th which effectively means the STATES get to call their own shots.

And the 14th amendment Doubles down on that.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Back to where we began the SCOTUS says gun control is perfectly acceptable.

Then turns around any cries foul over gay marriage.

The SCOTUS has a epic case of cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96

The entire 'beef' with the gay marriage issue is that LGBT say STRAIGHT's have more rights than they do.

They did. They could be legally married.

Gays could get marriage licenses too. They just had to get the license with a person of the opposite gender. There was never a litmus test for sexual orientation.

a reply to: Teikiatsu
Well, he is a judge after all.

But since it was an amendment to the state constitution which was struck down by the SCOTUS decision, I don't know if the original law is invalidated. The law just talks about marriage. Does it revert to that or does that law go away?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
"The SCOTUS says that our legally passed and signed marriage license laws are no longer valid. We need new marriage license laws before I can perform any actions regarding any couple with a marriage license."

What became no longer valid?

Nothing changed.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr

It's NOT a states' issue. It's a Civil Rights issue, and that makes it a federal issue. SCOTUS didn't make any new laws, they struck down an unconstitutional one.

It is a state issue and the legislature of the state needs to rewrite their current law to reflect the ruling, or they face legal repercussions.

Supreme court decisions do not alter or create law. It interprets the law and rules on it's constitutionality.

States don't have the right to legislate unconstitutional laws.

They have the right to create any law they wish, but the SCOTUS is in place to strike down those laws.

Checks and balances.

.

a reply to: Foderalover

If a person owns their own business then they can turn away and refuse whoever they want except blacks.

Really? Jews? Women? Because they are Jews? Because they are women?
No, they can't.

a reply to: introvert

States have a duty to abide by The Constitution of the United States. If a city mayor makes a decree, for example, or a body of state legislators passes that law that violates the Constitution, then their State Supreme Court has a duty to rule against that law, when asked to rule. If that doesn't work, "The People" have a right to take it to the Supreme Court of the United States for redress.

The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power.

Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution.

Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law.

www.uscourts.gov...

a reply to: Phage

I turned away Jehovas witnesses , meher babas and any other religious person that talked about it in my store when I asked them not to and never got sued til a group of us closed for that destructive week we have here every year and they tried to sue us but never went anywhere just received a few letters. I never had a problem with women or Jews or anyone else now that I think about it, I was only speaking from experience and I deleted my comment because it was more of a rant.

a reply to: Foderalover

So you turned them away for what they were doing at the time not who they were?

Do you understand the difference?