Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm torn because I personally support gays having the right to marry sanctioned by the state. But I don't like the SC making rulings that continuously usurp the power of the individual states as that is not the agreement the states had when they joined the USA. SO I'm happy with the result but sad with the way it was accomplished.
In 1967, the State of Virginia had a law that prohibited whites and blacks from marrying. I would have preferred that Virginia come to its senses on its own, but it didn't. So, the SCOTUS, in Loving v. Virginia decided that that law violated the 14th Amendment.
In 1967, the State of Virginia had a law that prohibited whites and blacks from marrying. I would have preferred that Virginia come to its senses on its own, but it didn't. So, the SCOTUS, in Loving v. Virginia decided that that law violated the 14th Amendment.
And it wasn't the Supreme Court's proper authority to rule that either. The 14th amendment does not speak to marriage. If all races were not issued inter-racial marriage license, then that is equal treatment. That was a policy decision reserved for the voters, legislature and the State to decide.
The constitution and the 14th amendment does not address marriage laws or miscegenation or homosexual laws any more than it speaks to incest, polygamy, pedophilia etc legislation nor put that decision in judges' hands. That is a state, people, and legislature policy decision. The judiciary is not supposed to invent rights nor policy. Neither for that matter is the executive, as Obama like to create a lot of new laws and policies.
Whether one agrees with it or not, all people can be issued a marriage licenses to marry one non-related adult of the opposite sex (previously of the same race) is equal treatment as far as the Constitution and Supreme Court should be concerned. Policy is for the people, legislature and the states to decide.
The bombast is tiring. Our government often makes decisions and enacts policy that one side or the other doesn't agree with. Can we stop with the sky is falling BS every time something like this happens?
Ever hear of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? What was the moral of that story?
And it wasn't the Supreme Court's proper authority to rule that either. The 14th amendment does not speak to marriage. If all races were not issued inter-racial marriage license, then that is equal treatment. That was a policy decision reserved for the voters, legislature and the State to decide.
The constitution and the 14th amendment does not address marriage laws or miscegenation or homosexual laws any more than it speaks to incest, polygamy, pedophilia etc legislation nor put that decision in judges' hands. That is a state, people, and legislature policy decision. The judiciary is not supposed to invent rights nor policy. Neither for that matter is the executive, as Obama like to create a lot of new laws and policies.
Whether one agrees with it or not, all people can be issued a marriage licenses to marry one non-related adult of the opposite sex (previously of the same race) is equal treatment as far as the Constitution and Supreme Court should be concerned. Policy is for the people, legislature and the states to decide.
This is called grasping at straws.
Read Kennedy's brief. The laws in question in Loving weren't about some concept of interractial marriage. They were about marriage. Marriage is a right that was, at one point, not extended to everyone, and by the 14th Amendment, that was unconstitutional. So, the Supreme Court fixed things.
Your view that marriage discrimination is somehow equal treatment is, frankly, ridiculous. A gay person's right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not the same as a straight person's right to do so, since the straight person is able to marry and form a family, the building block of our social structure and something that benefits everyone. Gay people were, for a long time, denied that; even if they were allowed to marry people to whom they'd never be attracted, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Everyone knew this was coming.
We've known for a long time that states aren't allowed to violate the Constitution, either.
Read Kennedy's brief. The laws in question in Loving weren't about some concept of interractial marriage. They were about marriage. Marriage is a right that was, at one point, not extended to everyone, and by the 14th Amendment, that was unconstitutional. So, the Supreme Court fixed things.
Your view that marriage discrimination is somehow equal treatment is, frankly, ridiculous. A gay person's right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not the same as a straight person's right to do so, since the straight person is able to marry and form a family, the building block of our social structure and something that benefits everyone. Gay people were, for a long time, denied that; even if they were allowed to marry people to whom they'd never be attracted, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. Everyone knew this was coming.
We've known for a long time that states aren't allowed to violate the Constitution, either.
This is false. Gay people (along with asexuals, polygamist, pedophiles, incestuous etc) could marry the same way and have the same rights as everyone else under traditional marriage.
The point is you are arguing policy. Policy is supposed to be in the hands of the people, legislature and the state, not in the hands of 5 unelected federal lawyers (or the main media).
This is false. Gay people (along with asexuals, polygamist, pedophiles, incestuous etc) could marry the same way and have the same rights as everyone else under traditional marriage.
The point is you are arguing policy. Policy is supposed to be in the hands of the people, legislature and the state, not in the hands of 5 unelected lawyers.
And blacks had the same right to marry someone of their own race just like whites. Right?
How many times are you guys going to trot that one out and get slapped down on it?
Most recent polls cited from various sources show that there is roughly a 60% approval rating for same sex marriage in the US, which is easily a majority, and a far higher percentage than what the approval rating was for marriage when Loving vs Virginia was ruled on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
