Supreme Court declares bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Could be said of every religion interpreting their holy book.

It could be said about 6 of 9 justices who couldn't understand the plain language and meaning of four (4) words when it came to Obamacare, "through a state exchange" or the definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman".

You've got to get past the "good intent/feelings" of what is going on and look at the bigger picture outside of your LGBT world. Everything starts with some kind of "precedent" which then opens the door for more b.s. down the road.

Whether or not you believe in gay marriage is a small part of what happened. But what you should really be upset about is the fact the SCOTUS (and the President for that matter) are over stepping their bounds as laid out by the Constitution. And that's what really matters.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You need to brush up on your Separation of Powers. The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to do what it did.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Sam Ervin
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams
"Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a Constitution for a nation I do not recognize."
Justice Antonin Scalia

What is your logical argument for what they have done wrong?

I see you posted a website, but it wasn't written by a lawyer, it was written by a guy who describes himself as "Joe Citizen".

"If this web site seems less than scholarly, it's because I am not a Constitutional Scholar. I hold no law degrees nor can I offer any qualifications whatever which would serve to prove me competent to hold forth on issues of constitutional law. I'm just Joe Citizen with a copy of the Constitution and the ability to read and comprehend plain English."

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Let's please refrain from name calling before Scheides blows up this section...again.

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

No you TOOL.

This thread is about to need some cooling off time.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You've got to get past the "good intent/feelings" of what is going on and look at the bigger picture outside of your LGBT world. Everything starts with some kind of "precedent" which then opens the door for more b.s. down the road.

Agreed fully with this statement.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

What is your logical argument for what they have done wrong?

I see you posted a website, but it wasn't written by a lawyer, it was written by a guy who describes himself as "Joe Citizen".

"If this web site seems less than scholarly, it's because I am not a Constitutional Scholar. I hold no law degrees nor can I offer any qualifications whatever which would serve to prove me competent to hold forth on issues of constitutional law. I'm just Joe Citizen with a copy of the Constitution and the ability to read and comprehend plain English."

Who said you have to be a "Constitutional Scholar" to understand something in plain English?

Prove him wrong if you believe the author to be so,.....

[Goat Blower]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Didn't take long at all:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-w...-equal-rights/

It is a very slippery slope...once you start making changes it's tough to stop that rolling ball of progress.

#pedolovewins

[AJ]

Seems like a way to flush out a population that could use some lead poisoning...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Who said you have to be a "Constitutional Scholar" to understand something in plain English?

Prove him wrong if you believe the author to be so,.....

Three Critical Questions
Here are three questions to ask yourself:

Does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations, and uphold or strike them down as the court sees fit?

The court has the final say in all cases that come before it.

Does the Constitution prohibit the states from determining the constitutionality of federal laws and regulations, and uphold or strike them down as they see fit?

The states have no say in federal law.

What does the Constitution have to say about the powers not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States?

They are delegated to the states. In this case, the court ruled on a matter that it concluded was under the authority of amendments 5 and 15 of the Constitution which deal with due process. Due process acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.

[A//// Guy]

How you guys see pedophiles asking for equal rights is beyond my comprehension. First of all, gay marriage harms NO ONE. If marriage itself were so sacred, why do people get divorces? Shouldn't a divorce harm the sanctity of marriage? Apparently not.

Pedophilia is a crime because it harms kids! You guys are not thinking clearly. Basically saying rape will be the next equal rights opportunity.

#fail

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

#pedolovewins

You seem very excited about that.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by A//// Guy

How you guys see pedophiles asking for equal rights is beyond my comprehension. First of all, gay marriage harms NO ONE. If marriage itself were so sacred, why do people get divorces? Shouldn't a divorce harm the sanctity of marriage? Apparently not.

Pedophilia is a crime because it harms kids! You guys are not thinking clearly. Basically saying rape will be the next equal rights opportunity.

#fail

Let's not forget it's not the church that really declares a marriage. It's a fee paid to the state. And when divorce happens what dissolves it? A court, not a Sunday service when you stand in a line to be divorced... wouldn't that be interesting though.

With that why religion is such a big factor in how people see marriage I don't understand. I respect someone's view not to agree with gay marriage, but just don't feel anyone should not have the same rights their peers do simply based on the type of hole people be pleasing.

Now who's a fan of the show Big Love? When is that ok?

[Halon]

I didn't see Peter mention anything about religion in his post.

EDIT Tom, I actually agree with you that you think conservatives should be happy with this. I think this topic really brings to life the difference between the terms conservative and republican. I consider myself conservative. Anyone on here who knows how cheap I am can attest to that lol. But issues like these are where it's quite obvious that I'm not republican.

I'm glad it passed, I think it helps more than it hurts.

[AJ]

I know, but it's the sacred comment, which does tie to the process of how you get married or divorced.

[A//// Guy]

I agree with that, but people are saying gay marriage challenges the sanctity of non gay marriage. Opening ever other type or relationship up... pedo, animal, burger love.

Marriage stems from religious roots, but its now a political issue because the state govt controls and grants marriage licenses.

[AJ]

with this law, does it force a church to perform a marriage? My understand is that the paperwork through the state is the only thing impacted. Though I guess more doors open for people to be sued if they don't want to participate in gay wedding due to it simply being a gay wedding.

You can refuse business to someone for being a dick, but as soon as the dick says he's gay you can't. Weird.

Anyway, back to shoutbox. Sorry for thread jack.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by A//// Guy

Marriage stems from religious roots, but its now a political issue because the state govt controls and grants marriage licenses.

Marriage really isn't a Christian institution. If you look at the history of marriage, it's something that's been practiced many non-Christians though out the history of humanity. It's really not even a religious institution for that matter. Marriage was really mostly intended to be an institution of identification so that people know who's offspring belong to whom. As in property/possession. Over the years it's purpose has changed many, many times in many different cultures as societal needs have changed.

Some have argued (with out using religion) that if it's purpose was to identify belonging of offspring, than it must also have been intended to promote families, and population growth. Fair enough, makes sense. Then they go on to argue that if same sex marriage doesn't promote either of these things than it's wrong.

And I can even agree with that; same sex marriage does no promote population growth. However, most scientists believe that homosexuality is natural population control. Homosexuality can be found in nearly every single species of animal. Its has been observed that as populations of many animals go up, so does that species' rates of homosexuality.

We permit all kinds of things in our society that don't have benefits to anyone else. And the reason for this is usually simply that they also don't have a negative affect on society as a whole. Same sex marriage doesn't have to effect anyone else. Don't like it? Don't have a gay wedding and don't go to them. If you avoid doing either, it's really not going to affect your life.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AJ

Now who's a fan of the show Big Love? When is that ok?

If enough of the population decides polygamy is for them, it'll eventually be made legal. Thus is the nature of a government for the people by the people...

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by AJ

with this law, does it force a church to perform a marriage? My understand is that the paperwork through the state is the only thing impacted. Though I guess more doors open for people to be sued if they don't want to participate in gay wedding due to it simply being a gay wedding.

You can refuse business to someone for being a dick, but as soon as the dick says he's gay you can't. Weird.

Anyway, back to shoutbox. Sorry for thread jack.

I don't believe this will allow any level of government to force a church to marry homosexuals. Even in Loving v. Virginia where interracial marriage became legal, I can't find anything saying churches were ever forced to marry interracial couples.

[Alpha D]

I dont understand...http://thefreethoughtproject.com/sup...O0lJ6.01....so no more search warrants...or no search warrant not required if one person says enter and the other says do not enter....? on the note of rights and changes to do with the supreme court. Not sure if true of fake story -.-

[jeremy1375]

^
"Justice Samuel Alito said that while police may not override a home dweller's objections to a warrantless search when the objector is physically there, when he or she is gone, those objections are no longer valid if another occupant consents to the search."

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/25/282589...olice-searches