Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

[NoDak]

I don't give a shit about gay marriage either way. I don't like the fact that the federal govt stepped in to override state laws, tho.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'm just glad that getting this settled will make it hard for the presidential election to be wrapped up in debate about it.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I don't give a shit about gay marriage either way. I don't like the fact that the federal govt stepped in to override state laws, tho.

Except for the fact that the federal government did not step in.

This was a case brought before the Supreme Court there was no legislation overriding state laws in play here.

This was a constitutional issue, who else should decide those?

Or do you believe a state should have the right to ignore the constitution?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

The legal side is government so you are proposing that marriage be administered by the church even for athiest, etc. And divorces by the state statutes. Who will validate the marriage and issue the licence? It isnt a simple matter in this society to remove government from validating social structures.

I don't think you're understanding. Government would have nothing to do with the divorce. Property would be split up and child custody would be determined seperately. Just like it is now for a couple that isn't married.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Except for the fact that the federal government did not step in.

This was a case brought before the Supreme Court there was no legislation overriding state laws in play here.

This was a constitutional issue, who else should decide those?

Or do you believe a state should have the right to ignore the constitution?

The constitution is part of the federal government.

 

[Jiggyfly]

The constitution is part of the federal government.

No shit.

And all state laws are guided by the constitution (Supremacy Clause).

And I noticed you left out everything else I posted.

This was not a government step in it was an interpretation of existing law, but you already know this and just want to have a semantics debate.

The states according to this ruling never had the right to do this in the 1st place.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

No shit.

And I noticed you left out everything else I posted.

This was not a government step in it was an interpretation of existing law, but you already know this and just want to have a semantics debate.

The states according to this ruling never had the right to do this in the 1st place.

Because there was no point in talking about the rest of your post. I was addressing the issue that you disagreed with. This absolutely is a case of the Federal Government taking away states rights.

 

[skidadl]

Because there was no point in talking about the rest of your post. I was addressing the issue that you disagreed with. This absolutely is a case of the Federal Government taking away states rights.

Dude, he has a history degree...I think he knows the difference.

 

[peplaw06]

The legal side is government so you are proposing that marriage be administered by the church even for athiest, etc. And divorces by the state statutes. Who will validate the marriage and issue the licence? It isnt a simple matter in this society to remove government from validating social structures.

Well, yeah once the government gets involved, they usually don't cease involvement later. But if marriage were strictly a religious institution and wasn't a "contract with the state," and the government didn't give benefits to married persons, then I doubt atheists or other non-religious persons would care about marriage.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Because there was no point in talking about the rest of your post. I was addressing the issue that you disagreed with. This absolutely is a case of the Federal Government taking away states rights.

No this is a case of the supreme court interpreting the constitution which supercedes state laws.

The state never had this right in the 1st place.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Dude, he has a history degree...I think he knows the difference.

Anybody with a 10th-grade education should know the difference.

 

[boozeman]

All I can say is that last couple of days...

 

[boozeman]

I don't give a shit about gay marriage either way. I don't like the fact that the federal govt stepped in to override state laws, tho.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I don't think you're understanding. Government would have nothing to do with the divorce. Property would be split up and child custody would be determined seperately. Just like it is now for a couple that isn't married.

But by whose guidelines? Divorce isn't a always amiable and who will determine what is equitable. Couples that aren't married often end up in the court room to settle disputes.

 

[Cotton]

Nice.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Well, yeah once the government gets involved, they usually don't cease involvement later. But if marriage were strictly a religious institution and wasn't a "contract with the state," and the government didn't give benefits to married persons, then I doubt atheists or other non-religious persons would care about marriage.

But that's the point. Government is so involved in marriage now by virtue of monetary guidelines toward taxes, insurance qualifications, on an on. You cannot remove them from the process of marriage. Folks are making a run to get the licence to take advantage of what the government offers to married status folks. You cannot take that out of the system.
Y

 

[Cotton]

I don't give a shit about gay marriage either way. I don't like the fact that the federal govt stepped in to override state laws, tho.

This is the only issue I have with it. And even then it's not a huge deal to me.

 

[Cotton]

No this is a case of the supreme court interpreting the constitution which supercedes state laws.

The state never had this right in the 1st place.

So, if the Supreme Court changed the interpretation of the right to bear arms and ordered all states to seize them, would it be the gov't stepping in there?

 

[Kbrown]

All I can say is that last couple of days...

I am pretty lukewarm on the issue, leaning more toward states deciding and allowing for civil partnerships that aren't defined as marriage. But the explosion of people on the internet celebrating it while also pretending to be the underdog strikes me as pretty mob-like.

#Lovewins! You don't hate love, do you? Do you?

 

[Kbrown]

So, if the Supreme Court changed the interpretation of the right to bear arms and ordered all states to seize them, would it be the gov't stepping in there?

Basically any time the SCOTUS goes your side's way, it is a victory for the Constitution. If it doesn't, it is legislation from the bench. That goes for both sides.