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.
As it has been pointed out several times. Either he cannot accept it or thinks that only people who agree with him count. In addition rights are never decided by public votes that would be tyranny by the majority. If the Supreme Court has not authority to decide on this case why was it even heard? I don't remember the 4 who voted against it claiming before hand that they did not have the constitutional right to hear it. If the vote had gone the other way would the anti SSM people claim victory and said the SC had ruled and it was final?
If the courts and the governments do not have the right to define what is a marriage within their legal jusisdictions who does? If it is the church which one?
You really ought to read the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no authority to decide the definition of marriage.
After the bakery owners went to the Internet to raise money, the court has decided that that same couple and bakery owners owe the lesbian couple who they denied a wedding cake, $135,000.
Maybe that finally sends the message that no you cannot discriminate against same sex marriage or those who are LBQT.
Of course we can expect outrage by some of the religious fundamentalist around the country. Get into the 21st century, because the rest the world really doesn't care.
You really ought to read the Constitution. The SCOTUS has no authority to decide the definition of marriage.
They didn't redefine marriage, they just made sure EVERYONE has access to EQUAL RIGHTS and PROTECTION as stated in the US Constitution. Apparently some state were not following the letter of the Constitution...so as is the job of SCOTUS, they rightly stepped in and said the 14th amendment applies to EVERYONE, not just heterosexuals or evangelical fundies...
I guess I discriminate then when I choose to buy my shoes from Kohls rather than Payless... Why? I think they are better quality. Should I have to buy my shoes from Payless just because? I don't understand your logic.
It seems that "the logic" is lost on those that are entrenched in getting off on the government playing "Big Bossman" for them and forcing people to do, or not do, things.
The logic is simple: As a Buyer you get to freely and completely choose what Seller to do business with and buy from. For whatever reason you choose. Like in your example. You don't even have to give a reason why you didn't do business with some Sellers. It is your legal right to freely pick and choose.
The ONLY way to make it "fair" and "equal" then...is to let the Sellers get to freely and completely choose what Buyers to do business with and sell to. For whatever reason they choose. They shouldn't even have to give a reason why they won't do business with some Buyers. It should be their legal right to freely pick and choose.
Both Buyers and Sellers should be able to decide for themselves who they will or won't do business with.
As it is now...Buyers are bound by nothing to buy from anybody, but Sellers are fully bound to sell to everybody. It couldn't be less fair or equal then that.
They didn't redefine marriage, they just made sure EVERYONE has access to EQUAL RIGHTS and PROTECTION as stated in the US Constitution. Apparently some state were not following the letter of the Constitution...so as is the job of SCOTUS, they rightly stepped in and said the 14th amendment applies to EVERYONE, not just heterosexuals or evangelical fundies...
Striking the terms "husband" and "wife" from legal documents kinda sounds like redefining to me.
The people CANNOT vote to over rule the Constitution. RIGHTS are not negotiable..
But the people could elect representatives and a POTUS that could vote to Amend the Constitution.
If the Religious wanted to get together and act...at 75 to 80% of the electorate, they could make this country whatever they wanted it to be. Using the very system of government we have now, they could vote in whatever laws they wanted. Vote to disband the Supreme Court. Anything.
"RIGHTS" most certainly are negotiable...AND changeable.
Hey...if you wanna go by "The Government Documents"...it says our "RIGHTS" come from our Creator (Large "C"), and ONLY from our Creator. Based on that...it would figure that if one doesn't acknowledge a Creator...no RIGHTS for them!! I would suggest the Atheists quit using what "The U.S. Government Documents" say as a basis for their arguments. They shoot themselves in the foot by doing that.
My prediction: Keep pushing the Religious...and when they've had enough...they WILL act together.
Keep standing in close quarters, whacking at the bees nest with a short stick...you'll find out where that gets you when all is said and done.
Read "The Art of War"...then tell me what it says about engaging a opposing force that has you outmanned 4 to 1.
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.
