Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Kali74

Use of the 2nd? isn't it there to stop tyranny etc..."i'm sorry we don't do gay weddings"...sound of pump action..."but this time we'll make an exception"

a reply to: Kali74

The Justice Department is going to get busy I suspect.

Jade Helm can occupy the Clerk's Offices !!!

it's a drill !!

it's ONLY a drill !!

originally posted by: Kali74
Louisiana won't recognize same sex marriage despite SCOTUS ruling and some state clerks in various states are refusing to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples... so what's the process when a state violates the Constitution? Or do they not realize that they are now violating the Constitution?

The losing side has 25 days to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its ruling. It's a legal hump, nothing more.

The state also requires couples to wait 72 hours after receiving their license before holding a ceremony, though a judge can perform the ceremony sooner.

New Orleans couple Michael Robinson and Earl Benjamin arrived at Benson Tower on Friday morning moments after the Supreme Court issued the ruling, and were told that their application would be delayed while staff made changes to license forms, which include signature lines designated for "bride" and "groom."

www.nola.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, we have this document called the Constitution that doesn't create liberties not specifically mentioned. But a panel of 9 unelected officials can overrule the right of the people to govern themselves and create liberties out of thin air.

I would have fully supported a Constitutional amendment specifying the rights of marriage, gay or traditional.

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

a reply to: Maxatoria

Well, I suppose you could do that...

But there's a definitive downside to that particular use of the 2nd...

But it's a legal bump prior to appeal, the states will not have a choice in the matter, once it becomes case law...or whatever the phrase is.

Thanks for the laugh.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks! Still what happens if they don't comply after 72 hours?

a reply to: raedar

Funny. LOL

It actually stands for Free Energy, but I looked at it shortly after I created it and thought something along the same lines.

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

Deuteronomy 7:3–4

3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, we have this document called the Constitution that doesn't create liberties not specifically mentioned. But a panel of 9 unelected officials can overrule the right of the people to govern themselves and create liberties out of thin air.

Judicial Review has been part of our country since 1803 and you are just NOW finding it unacceptable for this ONE ruling?

I would have fully supported a Constitutional amendment specifying the rights of marriage, gay or traditional.

None needed. There wasn't one to overturn interracial marriage, not sure why'd you think there would need to be one for this issue. All that needed to be done was overturn the bans on it. You know REMOVE laws from the books? Apparently your camp can't get it through your heads. NO NEW LAWS ARE ON THE BOOKS! There are LESS laws on the books now. The state is LESS involved in your business than before. It's EXACTLY what conservatives should want.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thanks! Still what happens if they don't comply after 72 hours?

More lawsuits.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I disagree with the majority court's interpretation of the 14th amendment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you like making blanket statements?

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

Seven Years ago I posted in the forum of Dreams & predictions of ATS a personal prediction, about a drastic incoming change in the world about the concept,the common practices and in the legal status that Sexuality and affection would have in this XXI Century to determine new ways of associations in between individuals.

Please check the original prediction at:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I not only predicted this was going to occur , but even I pointed it was going to happen in the following decade, and well now this started to be a reality, no longer just a personal dream or premonition.

I am under the impression that few understood really the message, but today when the Supreme Court of the US has extended the legalization of the same gender unions to all the country, I feel this prediction has reached the point of its full accomplishment.

This is a Historic Day, the Supreme court has decided that the States do not have right to outlaw the same gender unions. It is significant that Judge Kennedy , a traditionally conservative one in all previous decisions found that this is what is fair

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his 28-page ruling. "The Constitution grants them that right."

I think this is positive for the society , is highly positive for the health care , and for the reduction of negative aspects like violence, harassment, prostitution and promiscuity.

I am sure possibly some conservatives are going to attack me saying that my prediction was evil, but I think there is a misunderstanding of what God expect from people, there is also a misconception of what is sexuality and affection, I don't condemn them however, possibly they sincerely believe they were in the correct track, they believe they have been defending a moral cause, but a true ethics or moral must be universal , it can't be discriminatory or even worst It can't be a double moral.

Congratulations for the same gender couples that are celebrating this decision in true Love and commitment.

The second part of my prediction is still pending to occur, that the organized religion will also update their standards of what is acceptable and reportable in human sexuality and affection, and believe me is going to be toward a more inclusive meaning of Love, is going to be toward acceptance of human diversity but at the same time this will impact tremendously the LGBT communities to switch their style of life from the bar or club scene toward the family life and the home scene.

Sincerely,

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: Kali74

They are to comply. Fines. Jail. Loss of job.

...and some will be willing to go down with the ship on it, too.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
Yeah, we have this document called the Constitution that doesn't create liberties not specifically mentioned.

That document also says that states cannot make laws that apply to some, but not others (see 14th amendment).

But a panel of 9 unelected officials can overrule the right of the people to govern themselves and create liberties out of thin air.

The people never had the right to deny gay people to be married. The SC said states have to follow the Constitution (see 14th amendment).

I would have fully supported a Constitutional amendment specifying the rights of marriage, gay or traditional.

That IS the 14th amendment!

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It couldn't be more clear, yet you keep arguing it...

a reply to: The angel of light

Good prediction indeed.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I disagree with the majority court's interpretation of the 14th amendment.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How do you interpret it?

a reply to: xuenchen

Whoa, I'm starring & flagging a Xuenchen thread!!! I had to check some left wing sites to make sure it was true :p

But this is good. All people should be allowed to decide who they want to live with & love. And they should also have access to the same inheritance rights, visitation rights, tax breaks, access to the spouses insurance, etc.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.