Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

[Cotton]

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.

While I agree on the perception aspect, it's still the gov't putting their nose into the states' business.

 

[L.T. Fan]

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.

The real truth is that the constitution is a declaration that has been interpreted by so many people so many times that it no longer resides as the framework for determining law rather the determinations have been made from stacks of rulings and interpretions and from existing presidences. All under the name of constitutional rights.

 

[L.T. Fan]

While I agree on the perception aspect, it's still the gov't putting their nose into the states' business.

That's always the question. When is it states business and when is it a constitutional question.

 

[boozeman]

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.

Pretty much the same as you.

I have a real problem with the Federal Government basically mandating the States what to do, especially on something like this.

Meanwhile, a far less hot button issue, like marijuana legalization, is left up to the states.

Make up your minds.

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

That is the whole mob thing you referred to. There is a lot more philosophically and culturally to it than just "love wins". Sounds like a cheap shitty and convenient way to enforce a mob mentality.

That is basically what is happening these days on social media, which no doubt is driving policy on so many levels that it is almost amazing.

It is like the entire nation became a message board and when there is dissention, a beat down of words is definitely in order.

 

[Kbrown]

Just don't dare call "Caitlyn" Jenner anything but brave.

I mean, all the organs of culture are overwhelmingly in "her" favor, and the Twitter mob will threaten your literal, physical death if you say something negative about that whole deal, but, yeah, "brave."

 

[Cotton]

That's always the question. When is it states business and when isit a constitutional question.

Unless it is a matter of national security, it should be the states' decision. The role of the federal gov't is to defend the union, coin money, bring justice, and tax shit. And before anyone says this law brings justice should remember that in 1996 Congress passed an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This, also, was a slight on the states. it should have been up to the states to define what marriage is. So, it does work both ways. Personally, I don't give a shit if two guys can get married. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I'm just getting tired of the feds deeming what is right and wrong for every state.

 

[L.T. Fan]

The pursuit of same sex marriage as a practical matter is a financial and economic issue. In a country that espouses equality for all citizens, I agree with the court's decision. I don't think the equality for all citizens would ever be equitable at the States right level. As to the religious issues that's an individual determination and has nothing to do with territorial boundries.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Unless it is a matter of national security, it should be the states' decision. The role of the federal gov't is to defend the union, coin money, bring justice, and tax shit. And before anyone says this law brings justice should remember that in 1996 Congress passed an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This, also, was a slight on the states. it should have been up to the states to define what marriage is. So, it does work both ways. Personally, I don't give a shit if two guys can get married. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I'm just getting tired of the feds deeming what is right and wrong for every state.

See response above.

 

[peplaw06]

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.

Dude....

Both Cowboysrock55 and I have said multiple times that once the government got involved, there's no way to get them out. The original post you responded to said it...

Yeah this is pretty much how I feel. Live and let live. To me it doesn't matter whether you agree with homosexuality or not. It's about freedom and letting people do what makes them happy. Of course I also have no idea why marriage is a government thing in the first place but since we have already gone down that road we aren't going to go back.

You responded to this post with...

If marriage wasn't a government thing how would it be administered and by who. I don't know how it can't be a government thing.

We're just informing you of the concept of it not being a government thing from the beginning. Now you're arguing that the government is involved, so you can't get them out. Yes, we know. Thanks.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Dude....

Both Cowboysrock55 and I have said multiple times that once the government got involved, there's no way to get them out. The original post you responded to said it...



You responded to this post with...



We're just informing you of the concept of it not being a government thing from the beginning. Now you're arguing that the government is involved, so you can't get them out. Yes, we know. Thanks.

What I understood of your positions were is that government should have no involvement in marriage and I posed the question what alternative is there in this society to alleviate the government from being involved? I dont recall seeing a response that could fully alleviated the government from this role due to all the issues involved with marriage and divorce.

 

[peplaw06]

And we told you what the alternatives are...

It could be done... yes.

Will it be done? No way.

 

[L.T. Fan]

And we told you what the alternatives are...

It could be done... yes.

Will it be done? No way.

Saying it can be done is not a substitute for how it would be done. But, we will just let it go at that.

 

[townsend]

I can't get behind "states rights" on constitutional rights given to citizens. I wouldn't want to wait for some bum fuck state to get its act together for integration, and I want Miranda rights enforced in all 50 states. Provided the justices have come to the decision that the constitution guarantees equality in the eyes of the law, it makes no less sense to call for states to decide for themselves in matters of free speech, and exercise of religion.

 

[Smitty]

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.

Bingo. No need for "marriage" as it exists now to be a thing at all as far as government is concerned. All it is, is a package of certain fringe benefits anyway.

 

[Smitty]

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

Sure you can.

 

[Smitty]

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?

Welcome to liberalism 101.

You believe in states rights? RACIST!!!

 

[BipolarFuk]

Good god, it is fucking simple.

Some states were discriminating against people.

The Feds stepped in and stopped it.

States don't have the right to discriminate.

Just like the Feds decided that the same shitty, backwards ass fucking POS states don't have the right to discriminate against blacks back in the day.

 

[Smitty]

What I understood of your positions were is that government should have no involvement in marriage and I posed the question what alternative is there in this society to alleviate the government from being involved? I dont recall seeing a response that could fully alleviated the government from this role due to all the issues involved with marriage and divorce.

Those issues are already decided by courts for non-married people. Simply do it for everyone that way.

Im not sure what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

 

[Smitty]

Good god, it is fucking simple.

Some states were discriminating against people.

The Feds stepped in and stopped it.

States don't have the right to discriminate.

Just like the Feds decided that the same shitty, backwards ass fucking POS states don't have the right to discriminate against blacks back in the day.

Well, none of this post is really true.

 

[townsend]

Is there an argument against this ruling that couldn't also be applied to legalized interracial marriage. Or should that have also been left to the states?