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.
Marriage is a "fundamental right" according to several supreme court decisions.
The supreme court has found that the 14th EPC applies to marriage in Loving V Virginia. If the EPC applies to marriage ans race why would it no apply to marriage and sex? Looking at the questions before the court "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" it would appear that they could rule based on sex not sexual orientation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian
Who cares what people thought back in 1868? I think we've evolved a bit since then.
Look, what we are debating is what the Constitution actually says vs what the Supreme says it says. The question then becomes, what is more relevant, what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says, or what we all know the Constitution meant when it was ratified?
Now, there two types of rights, "legal" and "natural" rights. Only a natural right can be "fundamental" or "inalienable". Legal rights are those rights which are granted by governments. But a legal right is more appropriately a privilege.
A great example of this is the term "voting rights". Now, everyone knows that voting is not a fundamental or inalienable right. In fact, to call voting a right is a complete contradiction. Because your right to vote can be taken away by the government, just as in the case of felons, the mentally ill, etc.
Thus, anything which has to be granted by government, is necessarily a privilege. Rights can only be those things in which government cannot take away. Such as your right to free speech(which might also be considered a privilege, since it is heavily restricted as well).
So yes, the Supreme Court came out 180 years after our Constitution was written and declared marriage a fundamental right. But if it was a fundamental right, then why hadn't it been fundamental in that previous 180 years? The 14th amendment is almost 150 years old. So how can it suddenly be true that it has always guaranteed a "right" to same-sex marriage?
If the Supreme Court comes out and says it is so, and you accept their opinion(which will with almost 100% certainty by a split 5-4 decision), then that is your choice. But to anyone who knows anything about our Constitution, and who has the ability to be unbiased in the formation of their opinions, will realize that the ruling of the Supreme Court will be a joke. A mockery of our Constitution. And about as far from being true to our Constitution as there can be.
The people will accept it only because they don't see an alternative. What the Supreme Court says, is the law. Unless of course you can elect a new president, and have him appoint new judges who can "retry" the case and come to a different conclusion.
But what does that have to do with the Constitution?
And no, Judicial Review was not originally in our Constitution. So please don't say anything about how our system was designed from the start to be this way. It simply isn't true.
Step 1. Churches that don’t recognize gay “marriage” lose their tax exempt staus.
Step 2. The government fines out of existence and closes these churches because they are “just another business” and “discriminating” against gays by not holding gay “wedding” ceremonies is reason enough to close down these “businesses” (churches).
Step 3: Churches that don't recognize sodomite "marriage" are officially identified as "hate groups" by the DoJ.
Step 4: Congregates of those churches are summarily fired from federal civil service and administratively discharged from the military (active membership in a hate group is incompatible with federal service).
Step 5: The administration publishes a rule demanding that government contractors do not employ members of "hate groups." They are then fired from all companies with government contracts or subcontracts.
Next comes banning the Bible as “hate speech”, then monitoring church sermons and arrest and jail for any Pastors who dare preach against homosexuality. It’s already happened in countries where gay marriage is recognized.
Did I miss anything?
#1 should happen, but then all churches should lose tax exempt status not just those which don't recognize gay marriage.
The others are not going to happen under any scenario.
#1 should happen, but then all churches should lose tax exempt status not just those which don't recognize gay marriage.
The others are not going to happen under any scenario.
Anyone who think churches should lose their tax exempt status has no ****ing clue why churches have tax exempt status to begin with. They are just atheist whinebags who hate religion.
Look, what we are debating is what the Constitution actually says vs what the Supreme says it says. The question then becomes, what is more relevant, what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says, or what we all know the Constitution meant when it was ratified?
Now, there two types of rights, "legal" and "natural" rights. Only a natural right can be "fundamental" or "inalienable". Legal rights are those rights which are granted by governments. But a legal right is more appropriately a privilege.
A great example of this is the term "voting rights". Now, everyone knows that voting is not a fundamental or inalienable right. In fact, to call voting a right is a complete contradiction. Because your right to vote can be taken away by the government, just as in the case of felons, the mentally ill, etc.
Thus, anything which has to be granted by government, is necessarily a privilege. Rights can only be those things in which government cannot take away. Such as your right to free speech.
So yes, the Supreme Court came out 180 years after our Constitution was written and declared marriage a fundamental right. But if it was a fundamental right, then why hadn't it been fundamental in that previous 180 years? The 14th amendment is almost 150 years old. So how can it suddenly be true that it has always guaranteed a "right" to same-sex marriage?
If the Supreme Court comes out and says it is so, and you accept their opinion. Which will with almost 100% certainty by a split 5-4 decision. Then that is your choice. But to anyone who knows anything about our Constitution, and who has the ability to be unbiased in their formation of opinions, will realize that the ruling of the Supreme Court will be a joke. A mockery of our Constitution. And about as far from being true to our Constitution as there can be.
The people will accept it only because they don't see an alternative. What the Supreme Court says, is the law. Unless of course you can elect a new president, and have him appoint new judges who can "retry" the case and come to a different conclusion.
But what does that have to do with the Constitution?
Right OR privilege doesn't matter. Either way the state can not deny a citizen equal protection of the laws. If Bob can marry Jane and get all of those legal protections that come with marriage, but the state denies Sue the ability to marry Jane and have those same legal protections that is unconstitutional.
How long was slavery legal before the government decided that it was a no-no?
How long was interracial marriage banned before courts decided that the bans were unconstitutional?
How long were women denied the right to vote before the government decided that was bad?
The question should be why has it taken so long for various groups to have the same rights as others. Why have so many groups had to fight for the same rights as others? What ever happened to ALL men are created equal? Or. No state shall abridge privileges or immunities of citizens?
The Court will rule 6-3 in favor of allowing same-sex marriages in all states. The Chief Justice will join in the majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy. The majority will base its decision on equal protection grounds, and the Chief will concur in the result, with an opinion stating that refusal to allow same-sex marriage is a form of sex discrimination, which can only be justified under facts which survive the strict, or heightened, scrutiny test: the government must show that the challenged classification serves a "compelling state interest" and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest. None of the cases before the Court has a record demonstrating that the state has established a compelling state interest in disallowing marriage based on the gender of the participants.
I make this opinion after having listened to the oral argument recordings, having followed the cases for the last several years, and having served as a law clerk to one of the Justices (and no, I'm not disclosing who it is).
Look, what we are debating is what the Constitution actually says vs what the Supreme says it says. The question then becomes, what is more relevant, what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says, or what we all know the Constitution meant when it was ratified?
Oooo! Ooooo! I know, I know!!!!
The answer is and has been for 212 years, the Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means!
As for "we all know" what the Constitution meant... since most folks can pass a basic civics test, I don't know who this "we" are referring to. If we all knew what the Constitution meant, then we wouldn't have cases being tried before it.
Look, what we are debating is what the Constitution actually says vs what the Supreme says it says. The question then becomes, what is more relevant, what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says, or what we all know the Constitution meant when it was ratified?
To answer your question, the only thing that's relevant is what the SC says the Constitution says. Everything else makes for interesting conversations, college classes, law review articles, etc..
To answer your question, the only thing that's relevant is what the SC says the Constitution says. Everything else makes for interesting conversations, college classes, law review articles, etc..
Exactly. Obviously some of the people here have never bothered to read Marbury v. Madison.
Good chance that the SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is a constitutional right. The writing is on the wall and despite what people may say, all the justices are concerned about their legacy and being on the right side of history. Furthermore, I don't see how they could logically divorce themselves of the Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas rulings to rule against same sex marriage.
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.
