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.
But the constitution said they can't do that. The constitution trumps state law.
The point is that we are American citizens and as such deserve equal protection under the law. Marriage laws provide many legal protections which were being denied to American citizens. Sorry that you don't like the constitution.
10 years earlier, anybody would have laughed if told the Supreme Court would rule as it did. They could, if they wanted, marry a member of the opposite sex. So its not an equal protection issue.
There are simply judges who don't care about the Constitution. They don't care about the legislative process. They simply want a result that they believe is best and implement it. That is dangerous. There are a lot less innocuous issues than gay marriage.
I am fine with allowing parents and medical professionals to make medical decisions for the health and well being of minor children under their care. Gender reassignment surgery is not allowed on minors in the US.
Would you be fine with allowing them to marry a wealthy older member of the opposite sex if they thought it was good for them?
The Constitution says nothing about marriage and sexuality. The legislator and to an extent (where the legislator hasn't acted) state courts can make whatever law they want regarding marriage, how it is defined, what it constitutes etc. It was SCOTUS that played the trick "the constitution says" cutting the electorate, legislator etc out.
It does say something about no state denying citizens equal protection of the laws.
Or associate with Christians . Those persons probably shouldn't impose themselves in Israel or the US .
No idea what point you attempt to make. But if a county clerk starts withholding marriage licenses to Christian couples based on the clerk's religion, they should get the full Kim Davis treatment.
Freedom for Loki as well as for Thor, as we say in my old country.
10 years earlier, anybody would have laughed if told the Supreme Court would rule as it did. They could, if they wanted, marry a member of the opposite sex. So its not an equal protection issue.
There are simply judges who don't care about the Constitution. They don't care about the legislative process. They simply want a result that they believe is best and implement it. That is dangerous. There are a lot less innocuous issues than gay marriage.
That is not equal. If Bob can marry Jane, then Sue can marry Jane or it is discrimination based on the sex of the people getting married. Denying Sue the same right to marry Jane is denying them equal protection of the law.
Look, if people didn't want to fully accept homosexuality or gay marriage or whatever else, then that is their prerogative. I don't question it or judge like an all high and mighty democrat. And if the people want a change of policy it should come by way of the elected legislator, not the Court's new reinterpretations of long standing Constitution clauses and laws and even precedence.
I'll take that as a pass on making a reasonable argument, then? Cool.
Not a Democrat.
The raison d'etre for the Supreme Court is to rule on the Constitutionality of things brought before them.
The Constitution says nothing about marriage and sexuality. The legislator and to an extent (where the legislator hasn't acted) state courts can make whatever law they want regarding marriage, how it is defined, what it constitutes etc. It was SCOTUS that played the trick "the constitution says" cutting the electorate, legislator etc out.
Nor should the electorate or legislators be allowed to remove rights at their discretion. The Constitution makes it crystal clear that “all men are created equal” and as such should always have equal rights under the law. Would you be OK with a government removing your right to heterosexual marriage and all the protections the law provides just because it could? I doubt it.
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.
. Those persons probably shouldn't impose themselves in Israel or the US 
.
.
