• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

Status
Not open for further replies.

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Forty years, and countless battles, and hurdles, all culminate in a victory in the war against anti-LGBT discrimination at the state and federal levels! Despite being happily single, I'm glad the day has come, when the option is there for me to marry the person I may love, in the future if it happens, male, female, trans*, or non-gendered. What SHOULD have been a legal right since the founding of our nation, but has been denied by the idiotic of voters, who thought that rights exist at the will of the majority, has been affirmed, and unstoppable by anyone. I've been a Southern Democrat much of my life, and a proponent of states rights, but when the states fail to recognize a basic human right, there is no choice but for the federal government to step in. Hopefully this monumental case will show both sides of the political aisle, that you CANNOT vote away the rights of ANYONE, no matter how much you disagree with said rights, or the people who enjoy them.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.
It means the 14 states with bans on same-sex marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341

(Surprised no one has made a congratulatory post about it yet.)
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Absolutely. Rights are rights, not to be granted or given. And sometimes to be taken back from those who would take them away by force. (Sounds oddly familiar)

And yet, the Texas Governor has decided that public employees may continue to enforce their individual bigotry and superstition on the public. Paraphrasing "no adverse action may be taken against a public employee who refuses to do their assigned job if they claim a conscientious objection to gay marriage." For god's sake, they aren't being asked to get married, only to process the paperwork. I can only imagine if this was permitted everyday..."no, you too can't marry, he's too stupid and she's too ugly. It's against my religion to facilitate procreation in these terms"

Despite this, the SCOTUS ruling seems to make it a "shall issue" situation now. In Texas, the counties are telling the Governor to f'off


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
It is one of those not enumerated rights, just like the right to self defense. NOTE that no where in the constitution is the right to self defense in plain language, because IMO it is so basically clear that it does not need to be written. There are no doubts about it, just like there are no doubts about one's personal choice of a mate for life.

SCOTUS has grossly misrepresented the 2A, but on this one they are correct.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I think you had better look up the definition of "enumerated". You seem to have it backwards.

I forgot to put "not" in there, just like you forgot to stop YELLING.

Go back and read the edited version of my post, plus please cite where the constitution spells out self defense.
 
Last edited:

Whitney

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
435
Location
Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
Congradulations

Forty years, and countless battles, and hurdles, all culminate in a victory in the war against anti-LGBT discrimination at the state and federal levels! Despite being happily single, I'm glad the day has come, when the option is there for me to marry the person I may love, in the future if it happens, male, female, trans*, or non-gendered. What SHOULD have been a legal right since the founding of our nation, but has been denied by the idiotic of voters, who thought that rights exist at the will of the majority, has been affirmed, and unstoppable by anyone. I've been a Southern Democrat much of my life, and a proponent of states rights, but when the states fail to recognize a basic human right, there is no choice but for the federal government to step in. Hopefully this monumental case will show both sides of the political aisle, that you CANNOT vote away the rights of ANYONE, no matter how much you disagree with said rights, or the people who enjoy them.



http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341

(Surprised no one has made a congratulatory post about it yet.)
.

I am interested to know your thought on the requirement for a marriage license as it is analogous to the licensing of firearms.
It is my contention the requirement of a government permission slip to execute this new found right is instituted for the sole purpose of entering into contract with said government.

More simply stated, if it is really a "right" why would anyone need the permission of a government agency to execute said right?

~Whitney
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
I think it is a matter of verifying eligibility so both parties know the union is valid, and to act as an instrument of record of the union. Otherwise the legal standing of the marriage cannot be quite so easily verified as it relates to inheritance and medical authorization (among other things)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
.

I am interested to know your thought on the requirement for a marriage license as it is analogous to the licensing of firearms.
It is my contention the requirement of a government permission slip to execute this new found right is instituted for the sole purpose of entering into contract with said government.

More simply stated, if it is really a "right" why would anyone need the permission of a government agency to execute said right?

~Whitney

People do not need a license to get married, they need a license for a government sanctioned marriage. Some states recognize a long standing relationship as a legal marriage without the license.

The problem is most insurance, and married filing jointly require a government sanctioned marriage. This is why I think most gay couples have fought so hard for this.

Edited to acknowledge noname beat me to it.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Articles of Amendment

Before y'all get too deeply entrenched in your positions, don't forget the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
And? That says "the people" not "the People"
However, given the tone of today's opinion, I wouldn't class the two things together as a "fundamental human right" and wouldn't equate the "dignity afforded by marriage" to the carry of a passing technological innovation (firearms)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Before y'all get too deeply entrenched in your positions, don't forget the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

+1 the true location of the right to self defense.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
It is one of those not enumerated rights, just like the right to self defense. NOTE that no where in the constitution is the right to self defense in plain language, because IMO it is so basically clear that it does not need to be written. There are no doubts about it, just like there are no doubts about one's personal choice of a mate for life.

SCOTUS has grossly misrepresented the 2A, but on this one they are correct.

Before y'all get too deeply entrenched in your positions, don't forget the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I was just thinking about this the other day. Doesn't the enumeration of the 9th make all rights enumerated?

Some people take the listing of a few rights as a power granted for the government to infringe on other rights.......a very incorrect reading of the COTUS.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I was just thinking about this the other day. Doesn't the enumeration of the 9th make all rights enumerated?

Some people take the listing of a few rights as a power granted for the government to infringe on other rights.......a very incorrect reading of the COTUS.

There's nine people who take the enumeration of a few rights as a power for them to determine what those few enumerated rights mean so they can infringe on them, too.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I have no issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with the government potentially trying to force people who are against it to marry same sex couples. The government should be neutral and only care about a civil union, not the sex or number of the parties involved.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
I have no issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with the government potentially trying to force people who are against it to marry same sex couples. The government should be neutral and only care about a civil union, not the sex or number of the parties involved.

no one is forcing straight people to get married to gay people, have NO idea what you're thinking. Don't drink the kool-aid.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
meh. I have a hard time celebrating the legality of buying permission from the government to be married.
When I see a headline speaking of the removal of disadvantages or advantages inflicted by the government based on marital coupling I'll break out the celebration ham.

Excluding gays from the government benefits granted exclusively to marriage licensees was not the problem.
The benefits are the problem.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I have no issue with gay marriage. I have an issue with the government potentially trying to force people who are against it to marry same sex couples. The government should be neutral and only care about a civil union, not the sex or number of the parties involved.

The government cannot force ministers who are not government employed to marry same sex couples. The only people it covers is those who work for the government.
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
The Texas Governor seems to think employees of the government should be able to not do their jobs because they are bigots. Really. And yes, I do believe that the state as an employer should require employees to check their superstition and prejudice at the door when they conflict with the duty of government.
--
I think one problem is the ambiguity of the delegation to the states or the people (and which powers go to which.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top