Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: Prop 8, DOMA To Receive Hearings

[ApolloBalboa]

It's pathetic the length people will go to to enforce their morality on others when what happens doesn't effect them or anybody else other than those directly involved in any meaningful way.

That's humanity for you.

 

[mikexmoran]

The thing isn't Constitutional. It creates separate classes of people. If the SCOTUS rules 5-4 on this thing it will be a joke. I don't think they will, though.

 

[Rattrap]

The thing isn't Constitutional. It creates separate classes of people. If the SCOTUS rules 5-4 on this thing it will be a joke. I don't think they will, though.

I always thought DOMA was a pretty clear breach of the Full Faith and Credit clause (I mean, I guess that breach is intentionally built in to the law?) as well as, one could argue, the 10th amendment (though we all know that one seems be nothing more than toilet paper for ages now). Prop 8 and similar laws throughout the states seem to me clear violations of the 14th amendment.

But, for better or for worse, my opinion - our opinions - on the constitutionality of these things means fuck all (I'll take it as an even trade so that Will's opinions also mean fuck all) - what is constitutional boils down to what those judges say is constitutional. I thought that Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders ruling was a clear violation of the 4th amendment, buuut there it is...

 

[Will E Worm]

Well that kind of makes your input sort of useless, no?

When Mardi Gras and Carnival and anything involving Spring Break allow for naughty hedonistic heterosexual displays it kind of makes Pride Parades sort of a non-issue, doesn't it?

I don't like any of it.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

I don't like any of it.

So then you're against heterosexual marriage and adoption because of all of those terrible hetero people?

 

[Will E Worm]

So then you're against heterosexual marriage and adoption because of all of those terrible hetero people?

I am against Mardi Gras and spring break.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

I am against Mardi Gras and spring break.

So then you're against Pride Parades, but pro-gay marriage and pro-gay adoption?

Or are you a hypocrite?

 

[xfire]

So then you're against Pride Parades, but pro-gay marriage and pro-gay adoption?

Or are you a hypocrite?

He probably just hopes they're all mass murdered.

 

[Elwood70]

He probably just hopes they're all mass murdered.

Probably?

 

[xfire]

Probably?

lol I've got to give her some bait.

 

[Elwood70]

lol I've got to give her some bait.

Give her all the bait you need... :1orglaugh

 

[meesterperfect]

Each state has their own laws concerning marriage. Male and female laws are different for many of these states. I don't think the Supreme Court should decide on this. Leave it to the states.

As most laws should be. Let the states decide.

So... what does this have to do with anything?

Your suggestion is that there are irresponsible people all over the place who probably shouldn't have children. You fully admit that this isn't a "gay" problem, it's a general problem that just also happens to apply to some gays. So really, what does this have to do with gay marriage or gay adoption? What does it have to do with gays at all? Nothing. You don't want weirdos adopting. Fine. That has no bearing on the topic though because the topic isn't about weirdos it's about gays.

It does have bearing.

It's pathetic the length people will go to to enforce their morality on others when what happens doesn't effect them or anybody else other than those directly involved in any meaningful way.

Exactly who is enforcing morality. One can say that about the homosexuals too.
And it does have an effect, it has an effect on our whole society.
i just wish each state would hold a vote on it and be done with it.
Too much focus on this issue and not nearly enough on the things that directly involve all of us in very meaningful ways.

 

[HappyHapyJoyJoy]

It does have bearing.

Except it doesn't.

Your problem isn't with gays, according to you, but with public depravity. You admit that straights engage in public depravity. This thread isn't about giving people who engage in public depravity the right to marry or adopt (many of them already have this, thanks to straights engaging in this sort of activity), it's about givinggays the right to marry (and to a lesser extent adopt, as married couples have a much easier time of a adopting).

So it doesn't have any bearing on denying or granting all gays the right to marry or adopt. Which, yeah, is what this topic is about.

Too much focus on this issue and not nearly enough on the things that directly involve all of us in very meaningful ways.

Easy thing to say when you can marry the one you love and have all of the associated benefits.

 

[wdoall]

First the Dems attacking the 2 nd amendment now the GOP attacking the 14th. They all make me sick!!!

 

[D-rock]

As most laws should be. Let the states decide.




It does have bearing.



Exactly who is enforcing morality. One can say that about the homosexuals too.
And it does have an effect, it has an effect on our whole society.
i just wish each state would hold a vote on it and be done with it.
Too much focus on this issue and not nearly enough on the things that directly involve all of us in very meaningful ways.

Considering we are talking about constitutional and human rights here what you want is no more legitimate than thinking it would be alright to let states vote on if they wanted to bring slavery back or revoke the right to freedom of religion. There is a reason things like that aren't allowed up to a public vote.

 

[wdoall]

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

 

[PlumpRump]

Considering we are talking about constitutional and human rights here what you want is no more legitimate than thinking it would be alright to let states vote on if they wanted to bring slavery back or revoke the right to freedom of religion. There is a reason things like that aren't allowed up to a public vote.

Marriage is not defined, nor guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. And just as a side note, who is it that dictates what a "human right" is, exactly? The SC? You? The people?

 

[JaanaRuutu]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, so fuck you and the Biblical anti-gay states-rights horse you rode in on.

 

[wdoall]

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;....in this country marrying the person you love is a privilege, thus protected by the constitution

 

[Jeep!]

Marriage is not defined, nor guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the 13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. And just as a side note, who is it that dictates what a "human right" is, exactly? The SC? You? The people?

The notion that one group of people can marry while another can't seems directly contrary to the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, which states "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". Essentially, any state law passed which "abridges the privileges" of citizens is unconstitutional, so forbidding individual states to define their own who-can-and-can't-marry laws is certainly defined within your constitution. And given that the 14th amendment was the basis of the decision in Reed vs. Reed, a case hinging on discrimination as regards gender, and Brown vs. Board of Eduction, one hinging on discrimination as regard race, it's pretty cut-and-dry that it would also give the same protections to other personal characteristics as naturally-ingrained and immutable as those.