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 has been pointed out to you before, this is simply not true. As poll after poll shows.
Why do you keep saying it?
Please note that I am *not* saying that SCOTUS should make its rulings based on a popularity poll. I think that they can reasonably take it into account as a factor in their decision, but I actually don't think it should be the fundamental factor in their decision. I am just saying that your assertion about "most people" is simply not true.
Because it is true. Living in South Florida which a good mix of all cultures. When people see SSC engaged even in holding hands the looks of people says it all. Mother shield their child and try to explain why 2 men are holding hands?
Plus most folks live their daily lives and do not even come across SSC, it so a norm it is not. Unless you live in Key west of frequent South Beach which is a adult atmosphere.
I hope the SC will preserves some traditional standards. The why Roberts explained it I do not think the court is going to rule and leave to the states.
In just a little over one week the US Supreme Court will be hearing legal arguments concerning whether or not gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to get married. The court will announce their ruling in June.
Currently, same sex marriage is legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia. The first state to legalize it was Massachusetts, in 2004. Most - indeed nearly 95% - of the lower court rulings have gone in favor of gay marriage.
What do you think?
The U.S. SC will rule for same-sex marriage, and rightfully so!
Red, my first response was to go through a long and tortuous recitation of Marshall's well reasoned decision, the fact that Framers of the Constitution believed that judicial review was so blatantly obvious that like many things didn't need to be spelled out in the Constitution... but life is short too short to spend my time arguing an issue that has been an established fact, by judicial fiat, tradition precedent or whatever for 212 years and you and I arguing over the issue isn't going to change that.
How can you say that "the Framers of the Constitution" believed that judicial review was "so blatantly obvious", when the defendant in the Supreme Court case about Judicial review was the "Father of the Constitution" himself, James Madison? Who, alongside Thomas Jefferson, didn't even believe the Supreme Court had the right to intervene in the case to begin with.
Secondly, in the Supreme Court's case, Marbury v. Madison, it clearly stated not that there was a "balance of powers", but merely that there was a "separation of powers". In fact, the ruling said pretty clearly that the Supreme Court could not force the Executive branch(James Madison) to give Marbury his commission papers. Thus it could not possibly be the case that the Supreme Court brought "balance" to either the executive, the judicial, or the will of the people themselves. Since effectively, all three could completely ignore the Supreme Court. And at worst, could use the legislature to impeach anyone who didn't agree with them.
And Thomas Jefferson(who was the president during the Marbury v. Madison case) not only believed that the Supreme Court had no authority over the other branches of government. But Thomas Jefferson even believed that the states themselves had just as much right and authority to say what the Constitution says, as any branch in the Federal government. Just look at his "Kentucky resolution".
"Resolved, that the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
The fact that we now accept the decisions of the Supreme Court as being the "final arbiter of all Constitutional questions". And thus placing its decisions above the legislature, the executive, and the will of the people themselves. Is not something which was "intended by our Constitution". It was something that manifested itself primarily in the decades following the Civil War. Mostly as a way to undermine the concept of "states' rights".
Which is why in 1832, Andrew Jackson could simply ignore the Supreme Court with his famous saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"... But then a few decades later, the Supreme Court became unquestionable, supreme to all other branches of government.
As I said, to the extent that the Supreme Court has any validity whatsoever, it is only to the extent that the people accept their decisions.
The truth is, if the Supreme Court rules 5-4 on an issue which the majority of the people don't agree with, and believe the Supreme Court got wrong. All the people need to do is demand their legislature either appoint new justices, or to impeach the ones that are there.
Nothing is preventing them from doing it, except that it would make a mockery of our system.
The fact that we now accept the decisions of the Supreme Court as being the "final arbiter of all Constitutional questions". And thus placing its decisions above the legislature, the executive, and the will of the people themselves.
Supreme Court rulings can be ignored. They can be unfunded (passing laws to make execution of
the ruling impossible), and condemned by the legislature and president. New laws can even
be passed which counterdict them and nullify them.
This, however, requires a unity of purpose which simply does not exist.
The Supreme Court is thoroughly politicized and its rulings reflect the same division
as the members of the legislature and shifting presidencies.
Supreme Court rulings can be ignored. They can be unfunded (passing laws to make execution of
the ruling impossible), and condemned by the legislature and president. New laws can even
be passed which counterdict them and nullify them.
This, however, requires a unity of purpose which simply does not exist.
The Supreme Court is thoroughly politicized and its rulings reflect the same division
as the members of the legislature and shifting presidencies.
No, they cannot be "ignored". You've obviously never heard of a writ of mandamus.
There is nothing to "unfund". The Court will rule that states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and must afford those couples all the benefits of marriage previously afforded only to "traditional" couples.
If a local/state official refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, a federal judge will most certainly order that official to do so via writ of mandamus. If the writ is ignored, the local/state official will be subject to contempt proceedings (not to mention an action for monetary damages). So ... do you get the picture ???
This plane long ago departed the gate, and is in the final stages of landing. The wheels will be touching the runway on or about June 29/30. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it.
It's not a "third option". The Court has accepted cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee and will rule on whether their anti-gay marriage laws are constitutional.
There are no "anti-gay" marriage laws. Marriage is between one man and one woman, gay marriage is between whatever else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Wolf
Not going to debate fake marriage with you. Period. It will never be marriage period no matter what corrupt politicians say.
I agree. We don't need to redefine "marriage" since that is set in stone over the years, a union of one man and one woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
*All* legal marriages in the US are civil unions, and always have been. We know this because it is the government that issues the marriage certificate.
Whether an individual legal marriage should be sanctified by a particular church is up to that church - and always has been.
It will be no different when SSM marriages become legal.
No, the agenda (The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media) will continue by trying to force Christians to participate in any way they can. It is a given. Homosexuals want to drag others into their web of sin in order to feel better about the choices they are making.
*ALL* legal marriages in the US are already civil unions, and always have been. We know this because it is the government that issues the marriage certificate.
Whether or not a church chooses to sanctify a particular marriage is up to that church - and always has been.
Edited to add - how on earth would you propose to effectively regulate the use of the word "marriage"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Kinda like they did with marriage in the context of interracial marriage bans?
Totally different. No one was trying to redefine what marriage was. And interracial couple, one man and one woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
Is a homosexual terrorist trying to force you to marry him?
Trying to force Christian ministers to perform their ceremonies? Yes. Attend their "gay" marriage and take photos, set up flowers and bake a an anatomically incorrect couple on the top.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
It's called equal rights. All groups in this country have had to fight for equal rights except for white males.
Equal rights? Marriage is open to every couple that meets the age requirement and are comprised of one man and one woman. That is equal as that is what marriage is. Equal rights? When you look at what other individuals and groups went through this "gay" thing is a joke!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
The states did not have the right to decide the fate of interracial marriage, so why should they be allowed to decide the legality of same sex marriage? Marriage is a right and no right for anyone should be up to a majority vote.
Seriously, give up on this race thing in combination with homosexuality. Marriage has limitations so I am not sure you can call it a right. One of those limitations is that it be between a man and woman and you also have "off" relationships that aren't allowed.
How were the bans on interracial marriage not the same as the bans on same sex marriage? It was not up to the states to decide the fate of interracial marriage, it was the courts. And marriage is a right that has been held up in many cases. When Loving verses Virginia settled the issue of interracial marriage bans, more then 70% of the population opposed it. The majority does not have the right to vote on the rights of any minority.
Interracial marriages were between one man and one woman so it was a real marriage and not a redefined marriage. I think always classifying homosexual marriage as "gay marriage" versus "marriage" would be a step in the right direction.
I am STILL waiting for the link to the definitive proof that homosexuality is proven to be genetic. Come on, there is more than one person here claiming that. I am guessing we can agree that behavior is a choice and that many of us have within us "genes" that will never impact our lives? Probably can agree that just because a monkey or a hippo does something, it doesn't make it "natural" in our species? Maybe not?
My vote is the 3rd choice, returned to states. US is not ready for this and I had read that the SC felt they made a mistake by moving forward with abortion the way they did because look at today, it is still unsettled and a very hot topic. Accepting and just not giving a darn is not the same thing, it is not that people are coming to "accept" but that many just don't care but don't see the bigger picture.
The U.S. SC will rule for same-sex marriage, and rightfully so!
I disagree. The Federal Supreme Court has no business in this area. It is up to States. And...marriage is for man and woman. Same sex want to form a civil union...fine.
Time to lawyer up bigots. Once SCOTUS rules on marriage equality your current 2nd, 3rd, or 4th marriage won't be worth diddly squat. Them gays will have poisoned the well and the sanctity of holy matrimony will be destroyed.
So save up up your money and put a lawyer on retainer.
There are no "anti-gay" marriage laws. Marriage is between one man and one woman, gay marriage is between whatever else.
I agree. We don't need to redefine "marriage" since that is set in stone over the years, a union of one man and one woman.
No, the agenda (The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media) will continue by trying to force Christians to participate in any way they can. It is a given. Homosexuals want to drag others into their web of sin in order to feel better about the choices they are making.
Totally different. No one was trying to redefine what marriage was. And interracial couple, one man and one woman.
Trying to force Christian ministers to perform their ceremonies? Yes. Attend their "gay" marriage and take photos, set up flowers and bake a an anatomically incorrect couple on the top.
Equal rights? Marriage is open to every couple that meets the age requirement and are comprised of one man and one woman. That is equal as that is what marriage is. Equal rights? When you look at what other individuals and groups went through this "gay" thing is a joke!
lol! You act as if same sex marriage doesn't exist today. I'm a man, married to a man - and no married couple living in the heterosexual lifestyle was forced to get a divorce So... what? You don't think gay people have suffered enough yet?
I disagree. The Federal Supreme Court has no business in this area. It is up to States. And...marriage is for man and woman. Same sex want to form a civil union...fine.
Obviously, it's not only for a man and a woman in 37 states today. But I support your right to completely ignore that fact.
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.
So... what? You don't think gay people have suffered enough yet?
