JOVE23
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,458
- Liked Posts:
- 0
[quote name="LordKOTL"]One could argue that marriage is a liberty.[/quote]
:lol:
:lol:
Gay Marriage Ruling in Federal Court
- Thread starter noon
- Start date
Guest
Guest
[quote name="JOVE23"]
:lol:[/quote]
You could also argue it's Cruel and Unusual Punishment!
:lol:[/quote]
You could also argue it's Cruel and Unusual Punishment!
JOVE23
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,458
- Liked Posts:
- 0
[quote name="R K"]
You could also argue it's Cruel and Unusual Punishment![/quote]
BAN MARRIAGE! It's the essence of compromise.
You could also argue it's Cruel and Unusual Punishment![/quote]
BAN MARRIAGE! It's the essence of compromise.
sth
New member
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,851
- Liked Posts:
- 0
- Location:
- Billings, Montana
You know what will happen if gay marriage is allowed....Nothing! Nothing will happen you won't even notice. No straight people will be hurt I mean unless they are secretly gay and their boyfriend or girlfriend marries someone else.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
[quote name="R K"]
The Constitution has NOTHING to do with Marriage. Not one thing. It does not nor did it ever cover it.
Marriage is up to the States to decide. In Eruns Scenario now you bring in CIVIL LIBERTIES, which IS in fact covered by Civil Rights Act.[/quote]
Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that the Constitution can't be used to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry. The Constitution doesn't mention computers or the Internet at all. Can the states decide to limit access to that if the voters decide?
It's a federal matter when it comes to allowing/disallowing things like tax breaks and portability of rights from one state to another.
I guess you could allow the states to decide, but then you would have gay states and straight states.
Hmmmm....No precedence of problems with that scenario.
The Constitution has NOTHING to do with Marriage. Not one thing. It does not nor did it ever cover it.
Marriage is up to the States to decide. In Eruns Scenario now you bring in CIVIL LIBERTIES, which IS in fact covered by Civil Rights Act.[/quote]
Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that the Constitution can't be used to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry. The Constitution doesn't mention computers or the Internet at all. Can the states decide to limit access to that if the voters decide?
It's a federal matter when it comes to allowing/disallowing things like tax breaks and portability of rights from one state to another.
I guess you could allow the states to decide, but then you would have gay states and straight states.
Hmmmm....No precedence of problems with that scenario.
Guest
Guest
[quote name="puckjim"]
Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that the Constitution can't be used to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry. The Constitution doesn't mention computers or the Internet at all. Can the states decide to limit access to that if the voters decide?
It's a federal matter when it comes to allowing/disallowing things like tax breaks and portability of rights from one state to another.
I guess you could allow the states to decide, but then you would have gay states and straight states.
Hmmmm....No precedence of problems with that scenario.[/quote]
Yes, Jim it does. Maybe read the Federalist Papers and tell me what it says about "Marriage" in there. It doesn't. There was no intent to interpret. It's a States Right to control it UNLESS it violates something Consititional. Which in my opinion nothing was ever intended.
Sorry. Now if you bring Eruns scenario into it then you have a case because it now crosses the boundry of CIVIL RIGHTS!
You can't just ADD to the Constitution what YOU think should be in it. It was NEVER implied, intended, thus NOTHING to interpret.
You HAVE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE.
IF and when this ever gets to the Supreme Court. On basis they hear about 90-100 cases per year of the some 8-10,000 petitions they recieve, they will then BOUNCE it right back to the States. You answered your own question.
You can NOT interpret something that doesn't exist.
And as for your scenario YES the State can enact ANY Law it deems fit. Then that law will be challenged. In this case it will be thrown right back to the States. I would be surprised if they linked this to any personal liberty through the Constitution.
Marriage is NOT a Constitutinal right. PERIOD!
Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that the Constitution can't be used to protect the rights of homosexuals to marry. The Constitution doesn't mention computers or the Internet at all. Can the states decide to limit access to that if the voters decide?
It's a federal matter when it comes to allowing/disallowing things like tax breaks and portability of rights from one state to another.
I guess you could allow the states to decide, but then you would have gay states and straight states.
Hmmmm....No precedence of problems with that scenario.[/quote]
Yes, Jim it does. Maybe read the Federalist Papers and tell me what it says about "Marriage" in there. It doesn't. There was no intent to interpret. It's a States Right to control it UNLESS it violates something Consititional. Which in my opinion nothing was ever intended.
Sorry. Now if you bring Eruns scenario into it then you have a case because it now crosses the boundry of CIVIL RIGHTS!
You can't just ADD to the Constitution what YOU think should be in it. It was NEVER implied, intended, thus NOTHING to interpret.
You HAVE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE.
IF and when this ever gets to the Supreme Court. On basis they hear about 90-100 cases per year of the some 8-10,000 petitions they recieve, they will then BOUNCE it right back to the States. You answered your own question.
You can NOT interpret something that doesn't exist.
And as for your scenario YES the State can enact ANY Law it deems fit. Then that law will be challenged. In this case it will be thrown right back to the States. I would be surprised if they linked this to any personal liberty through the Constitution.
Marriage is NOT a Constitutinal right. PERIOD!
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
[quote name="E Runs"]
So it would be ok if say, Alabama voters were asked and decided that blacks couldn't get married?[/quote]
Or Brown vs Board of Education. Just because the majority wants to discriminate, doesn't make it legal.
So it would be ok if say, Alabama voters were asked and decided that blacks couldn't get married?[/quote]
Or Brown vs Board of Education. Just because the majority wants to discriminate, doesn't make it legal.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
[quote name="R K"]
Yes, Jim it does. Maybe read the Federalist Papers and tell me what it says about "Marriage" in there. It doesn't. There was no intent to interpret. It's a States Right to control it UNLESS it violates something Consititional. Which in my opinion nothing was ever intended.
Sorry. Now if you bring Eruns scenario into it then you have a case because it now crosses the boundry of CIVIL RIGHTS!
You can't just ADD to the Constitution what YOU think should be in it. It was NEVER implied, intended, thus NOTHING to interpret.
You HAVE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE.
IF and when this ever gets to the Supreme Court. On basis they hear about 90-100 cases per year of the some 8-10,000 petitions they recieve, they will then BOUNCE it right back to the States. You answered your own question.
You can NOT interpret something that doesn't exist.[/quote]
Then the states are allowed to regulate what people see on the Internet? Can the states decide what type of cream that I use in my coffee? It's not in the Constitution, so I guess the people can decide that as well.
Yes, Jim it does. Maybe read the Federalist Papers and tell me what it says about "Marriage" in there. It doesn't. There was no intent to interpret. It's a States Right to control it UNLESS it violates something Consititional. Which in my opinion nothing was ever intended.
Sorry. Now if you bring Eruns scenario into it then you have a case because it now crosses the boundry of CIVIL RIGHTS!
You can't just ADD to the Constitution what YOU think should be in it. It was NEVER implied, intended, thus NOTHING to interpret.
You HAVE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE.
IF and when this ever gets to the Supreme Court. On basis they hear about 90-100 cases per year of the some 8-10,000 petitions they recieve, they will then BOUNCE it right back to the States. You answered your own question.
You can NOT interpret something that doesn't exist.[/quote]
Then the states are allowed to regulate what people see on the Internet? Can the states decide what type of cream that I use in my coffee? It's not in the Constitution, so I guess the people can decide that as well.
Guest
Guest
[quote name="puckjim"]
Then the states are allowed to regulate what people see on the Internet? Can the states decide what type of cream that I use in my coffee? It's not in the Constitution, so I guess the people can decide that as well.[/quote]
States can do what ever they want. What part of that don't you understand. At that point then those are challenged.
You are going off on a tangent here but yes NONE of that is covered in the Constition as we know it, as the Founding Fathers knew it, and in general.
There was a rather long discussion on this last night with a legal panel discussing what would, IF the Court would even hear the case, happen. Every expert said it would be remanded back to the State Court to decide.
You can't interpret something that isn't there. I suppose you could then add an Amendment or Act, but I wouldn't hold by breath. Congress can't even get simple tasks complete.
MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! PERIOD!! ANY MARRIAGE!
Then the states are allowed to regulate what people see on the Internet? Can the states decide what type of cream that I use in my coffee? It's not in the Constitution, so I guess the people can decide that as well.[/quote]
States can do what ever they want. What part of that don't you understand. At that point then those are challenged.
You are going off on a tangent here but yes NONE of that is covered in the Constition as we know it, as the Founding Fathers knew it, and in general.
There was a rather long discussion on this last night with a legal panel discussing what would, IF the Court would even hear the case, happen. Every expert said it would be remanded back to the State Court to decide.
You can't interpret something that isn't there. I suppose you could then add an Amendment or Act, but I wouldn't hold by breath. Congress can't even get simple tasks complete.
MARRIAGE IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!! PERIOD!! ANY MARRIAGE!
- Joined:
- Dec 10, 2014
- Posts:
- 7,876
- Liked Posts:
- 1,107
- Location:
- Anacortes, WA via Glenview, IL
The Court in Loving v. Virginia, the interracial marriage case, held that:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
[quote name="R K"]
Yes, Jim it does. Maybe read the Federalist Papers and tell me what it says about "Marriage" in there. It doesn't. There was no intent to interpret. It's a States Right to control it UNLESS it violates something Consititional. Which in my opinion nothing was ever intended.
Sorry. Now if you bring Eruns scenario into it then you have a case because it now crosses the boundry of CIVIL RIGHTS!
You can't just ADD to the Constitution what YOU think should be in it. It was NEVER implied, intended, thus NOTHING to interpret.
You HAVE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE.
IF and when this ever gets to the Supreme Court. On basis they hear about 90-100 cases per year of the some 8-10,000 petitions they recieve, they will then BOUNCE it right back to the States. You answered your own question.
You can NOT interpret something that doesn't exist.
And as for your scenario YES the State can enact ANY Law it deems fit. Then that law will be challenged. In this case it will be thrown right back to the States. I would be surprised if they linked this to any personal liberty through the Constitution.
Marriage is NOT a Constitutinal right. PERIOD![/quote]
What does it say about god given unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Oh yeah all people are created equal and entitled to them
Since the courts have already determined that marriage is a liberty pursuant to the pursuit of happiness on multiple occassions in multiple circumstances, these rulings now apply to these cases. You can not discriminate against a group of people seeking marriage based on gender or sexual preference without violating their constitutional rights.
Yes, Jim it does. Maybe read the Federalist Papers and tell me what it says about "Marriage" in there. It doesn't. There was no intent to interpret. It's a States Right to control it UNLESS it violates something Consititional. Which in my opinion nothing was ever intended.
Sorry. Now if you bring Eruns scenario into it then you have a case because it now crosses the boundry of CIVIL RIGHTS!
You can't just ADD to the Constitution what YOU think should be in it. It was NEVER implied, intended, thus NOTHING to interpret.
You HAVE TO ALLOW THE STATES TO DECIDE.
IF and when this ever gets to the Supreme Court. On basis they hear about 90-100 cases per year of the some 8-10,000 petitions they recieve, they will then BOUNCE it right back to the States. You answered your own question.
You can NOT interpret something that doesn't exist.
And as for your scenario YES the State can enact ANY Law it deems fit. Then that law will be challenged. In this case it will be thrown right back to the States. I would be surprised if they linked this to any personal liberty through the Constitution.
Marriage is NOT a Constitutinal right. PERIOD![/quote]
What does it say about god given unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Oh yeah all people are created equal and entitled to them
Since the courts have already determined that marriage is a liberty pursuant to the pursuit of happiness on multiple occassions in multiple circumstances, these rulings now apply to these cases. You can not discriminate against a group of people seeking marriage based on gender or sexual preference without violating their constitutional rights.
JOVE23
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 2,458
- Liked Posts:
- 0
[quote name="winos5"]Since the courts have already determined that marriage is a liberty pursuant to the pursuit of happiness on multiple occassions in multiple circumstances, these rulings now apply to these cases.[/quote]
And THIS is why the justice system is doomed.
And THIS is why the justice system is doomed.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
The right to have an abortion is also not addressed directly in the Constitution. Yet, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the right to chose.
The Supreme Court will most assuredly take up this case. With decisions such as health care, child custody and support, property rights, etc, at stake, it is the most important legal and civil rights decision of my lifetime.
The Supreme Court will most assuredly take up this case. With decisions such as health care, child custody and support, property rights, etc, at stake, it is the most important legal and civil rights decision of my lifetime.
Guest
Guest
The right to have an abortion could be attributed to several specific things in the Constitution.
Privacy, Persons, ect ect.
Again Marriage is not a Constitutional right.
I was waiting for you to throw that out there though. When you get a degree in Constitutional Law let me know.
Privacy, Persons, ect ect.
Again Marriage is not a Constitutional right.
I was waiting for you to throw that out there though. When you get a degree in Constitutional Law let me know.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
[quote name="JOVE23"]
And THIS is why the justice system is doomed.[/quote]
Our justice system is doomed because it is defending the rights of citizens that are being discriminated against?
Your 700 club/Glenn Beck/ Rush Limbaugh colored glasses are distorting the facts in this case.
And THIS is why the justice system is doomed.[/quote]
Our justice system is doomed because it is defending the rights of citizens that are being discriminated against?
Your 700 club/Glenn Beck/ Rush Limbaugh colored glasses are distorting the facts in this case.
Guest
Guest
[quote name="winos5"]
What does it say about god given unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Oh yeah all people are created equal and entitled to them
Since the courts have already determined that marriage is a liberty pursuant to the pursuit of happiness on multiple occassions in multiple circumstances, these rulings now apply to these cases. You can not discriminate against a group of people seeking marriage based on gender or sexual preference without violating their constitutional rights.[/quote]
You could come to that conclusion but where Marriage is concerned the Court will not.
Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. Funny though the Bill of Rights was an actual after thought by the Framers. I would love to see Madison or any of the rest right now. They'd probably shoot themselves in the head.
What does it say about god given unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Oh yeah all people are created equal and entitled to them
Since the courts have already determined that marriage is a liberty pursuant to the pursuit of happiness on multiple occassions in multiple circumstances, these rulings now apply to these cases. You can not discriminate against a group of people seeking marriage based on gender or sexual preference without violating their constitutional rights.[/quote]
You could come to that conclusion but where Marriage is concerned the Court will not.
Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. Funny though the Bill of Rights was an actual after thought by the Framers. I would love to see Madison or any of the rest right now. They'd probably shoot themselves in the head.
- Joined:
- Oct 19, 2013
- Posts:
- 7,956
- Liked Posts:
- 829
- Location:
- Wish You Were Here
[quote name="R K"]
You could come to that conclusion but where Marriage is concerned the Court will not.
Read the brief, it already has on numerous occassions.
Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. Funny though the Bill of Rights was an actual after thought by the Framers. I would love to see Madison or any of the rest right now. They'd probably shoot themselves in the head.[/quote]
You could come to that conclusion but where Marriage is concerned the Court will not.
Read the brief, it already has on numerous occassions.
Marriage is not a Constitutional Right. Funny though the Bill of Rights was an actual after thought by the Framers. I would love to see Madison or any of the rest right now. They'd probably shoot themselves in the head.[/quote]
Guest
Guest
[quote name="winos5"]
Our justice system is doomed because it is defending the rights of citizens that are being discriminated against?
Your 700 club/Glenn Beck/ Rush Limbaugh colored glasses are distorting the facts in this case.[/quote]
Bullshit because each of those has an agenda.
Our justice system is doomed because it is defending the rights of citizens that are being discriminated against?
Your 700 club/Glenn Beck/ Rush Limbaugh colored glasses are distorting the facts in this case.[/quote]
Bullshit because each of those has an agenda.
- Joined:
- May 14, 2010
- Posts:
- 1,460
- Liked Posts:
- 38
- Location:
- Section 325 - Row 12
My favorite teams
[quote name="R K"]The right to have an abortion could be attributed to several specific things in the Constitution.
Privacy, Persons, ect ect.
Again Marriage is not a Constitutional right.
I was waiting for you to throw that out there though. When you get a degree in Constitutional Law let me know.[/quote]
You really don't need to have a law degree. The courts have ruled on marriage rights before. It's completely proper that they do it here.
Privacy, Persons, ect ect.
Again Marriage is not a Constitutional right.
I was waiting for you to throw that out there though. When you get a degree in Constitutional Law let me know.[/quote]
You really don't need to have a law degree. The courts have ruled on marriage rights before. It's completely proper that they do it here.
Guest
Guest
[quote name="puckjim"]
You really don't need to have a law degree. The courts have ruled on marriage rights before. It's completely proper that they do it here.[/quote]
The Supreme Court has? Really? When? It's not proper they do it here. I completely disagree.
State Rights.
And I didn't say a Law Degree Jim. I said a Degree in Constitutional Law. They are two separate things.
You really don't need to have a law degree. The courts have ruled on marriage rights before. It's completely proper that they do it here.[/quote]
The Supreme Court has? Really? When? It's not proper they do it here. I completely disagree.
State Rights.
And I didn't say a Law Degree Jim. I said a Degree in Constitutional Law. They are two separate things.