The Supremes are on a roll
#21
Posted 2015-June-30, 00:08
1) in favor of gay marriage
2) the law is vague or nonexistent
granted we do not want to be called a bigot per posters----------
==========================================
based on these posts many posters seem to say
vote on what we say or you are a bigot
#22
Posted 2015-June-30, 00:39
mike777, on 2015-June-30, 00:08, said:
1) in favor of gay marriage
2) the law is vague or nonexistent
granted we do not want to be called a bigot per posters----------
==========================================
based on these posts many posters seem to say
vote on what we say or you are a bigot
Just put a rainbow on your FB profile photo and then everyone will know you aren't a bigot.
#25
Posted 2015-June-30, 05:50
#26
Posted 2015-June-30, 06:34
#27
Posted 2015-June-30, 07:13
mike777, on 2015-June-30, 00:08, said:
1) in favor of gay marriage
2) the law is vague or nonexistent
granted we do not want to be called a bigot per posters----------
==========================================
based on these posts many posters seem to say
vote on what we say or you are a bigot
I know that I am going to regret this, but in what way is the Obergefell v. Hodges decision either vague or nonexistent?
The ruling clearly exists.
There is nothing vague about it: The 13 states that didn't recognize the right to same sex marriage don't get to do so any more.
I suspect that you were making an inarticulate claim that
1. You agree that there should be a right to same sex marriage
2. You disagree with the way Obergefell v. Hodges was decided
3. You don't wish to be considered a bigot
FWIW, I don't believe that you are necessarily a bigot.
#28
Posted 2015-June-30, 09:58
Obviously the 6 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this, so they were not undermining the Constitution, just updating its interpretation. The Constitution was deliberately written in general terms, to allow it to apply as society changed, and it's SCOTUS's job and duty to determine how it applies to contemporary life.
#29
Posted 2015-June-30, 10:48
barmar, on 2015-June-30, 09:58, said:
Obviously the 6 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this, so they were not undermining the Constitution, just updating its interpretation. The Constitution was deliberately written in general terms, to allow it to apply as society changed, and it's SCOTUS's job and duty to determine how it applies to contemporary life.
You are either misunderstanding the 10th Amendment or falling sway to right-wing misrepresentation of same as the Constitution does not have to expressly grant a right to a particular group in order for the Federal government to use its powers, which are implied, to grant that right. I submit that to misrepresent and distort the historical and judicial understanding of the Constitution in order to justify excluding a particular group from exercising its rights is indeed bigotry at its most heinous.
#30
Posted 2015-June-30, 11:14
barmar, on 2015-June-30, 09:58, said:
Obviously the 6 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this, so they were not undermining the Constitution, just updating its interpretation. The Constitution was deliberately written in general terms, to allow it to apply as society changed, and it's SCOTUS's job and duty to determine how it applies to contemporary life.
So where is it written in the Constitution that there is a right to heterosexual marriage? Interracial marriage?
Sure, if it were left to the states, heterosexual marriage would still be permitted everywhere. But interracial marriage? Not necessarily.
#31
Posted 2015-June-30, 12:06
Winstonm, on 2015-June-30, 10:48, said:
If I'm misunderstanding it, then it seems that Roberts is under the same misconception, so I feel like I'm in good company.
Or do you think he's misprepresenting it in order to justify his dissent, rather than the other way around?
#32
Posted 2015-June-30, 13:24
barmar, on 2015-June-30, 12:06, said:
Or do you think he's misprepresenting it in order to justify his dissent, rather than the other way around?
I think that even extremely smart people, unless diligent about honest self-searching, can be surprised by their own biases. I do not think this is purposeful or inherently "evil", but a bias toward belief system that invades cognition.
#33
Posted 2015-June-30, 16:30
barmar, on 2015-June-30, 09:58, said:
I think that this may be the case.
Quote
Obviously the
And maybe this is the case. Anyway it's done and dusted, and to be honest I would rather just be pleased about the decision than worry about whether it was strictly correct constitutionally!
#34
Posted 2015-June-30, 16:51
I have no idea why they wanted this right. After all they did not have to explain to their better half why they don't want to marry without hurt feelings.
"It is not allowed by law" was a good excuse....Now they are screwed just like the rest of us!
I believe they will later learn by experience that there was nothing about it to celebrate!
I never had any problem with them or with what they choose but as they say" Watch what you wishing for, it may come true!" And it did. Congrats I guess.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#35
Posted 2015-June-30, 18:04
In this country inheritance tax is 40% but 0% if you are inheriting from your spouse.
Now, maybe nobody should have to subsidise anyone else; but as long as some people get to ride the marriage gravy train, everyone should be allowed on.
#36
Posted 2015-June-30, 18:13
#37
Posted 2015-July-01, 01:43
Vampyr, on 2015-June-30, 18:04, said:
In this country inheritance tax is 40% but 0% if you are inheriting from your spouse.
Now, maybe nobody should have to subsidise anyone else; but as long as some people get to ride the marriage gravy train, everyone should be allowed on.
I don't know which one is more insulting. To be called "stupid" or your assumption that I do not know all these about marriage or that I am capable of saying what I said in a serious manner. But instead of getting into bitchfest, I will try to reply to your points about gays and the rights that they seem to have gained;
It may be one of their motivation at the beginning to gain benefits. And people accepted this. Gays were ready to be given all these benefits by almost everyone, including the ones who are against "same sex marriage". They were mostly against it being called "marriage" They just wanted it to be called something else than "marriage" (I am not one of them though), such as pdship etc. Hell...there are some people who are against this so much that if it was up to them, they would agree to give even more benefits to gays as long as they find another name. So gays did not gain any benefit that was available ONLY by marriage. They could have gotten it in so many different names that they can give to their relation.They wanted it because they wanted to call it "marriage" and they wanted to marry just like all other adults who are willing to live their life together and call it a family. Any other name would be discrimination and I agree with them. So this is more or less an official recognition and political gain for gays. They believed it had to be spelled out right officially. And they got it. This is how I see it.
What I wrote in previous reply was an attempt to make a joke as Diana said.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#38
Posted 2015-July-01, 08:53
barmar, on 2015-June-30, 12:06, said:
Or do you think he's misprepresenting it in order to justify his dissent, rather than the other way around?
Btw, the U.S. Constitution does not mention the word "marriage" so I guess by that thinking we are all single.
#39
Posted 2015-July-01, 09:02
#40
Posted 2015-July-01, 09:43
MrAce, on 2015-July-01, 01:43, said:
OK, sorry.