Gay Marriage At Scotus: One Wedding Ring Thread To Rule Them All...

[GingerRed]

Not sure how to say it without being demeaning but your relationship ( I am guessing it is homosexual) is leading you to no other place other than outer darkness.

 

Dude......you know what, you are getting downright mean!.  No one has the right to judge but God Himself.  Your comments to Daniel and California Boy are rude and uncalled for!  You should stick to the Topic or leave the conversation. 

[Mormonmaniac]

I do not hate gays. I am not homophobic or anything . I do get tiired of one gay thrread after another on these forums and it seems likes its always the samme folks trying to push the same agenda over and over and over again. I have gay neighbors whom I gget along great with. They mind their own, I mind my own, occasionally we speak to each other and its all normal. I think the reason I get along so well with them is that they are not constantly trying to push their agenda in everyones faces. You look at the majority of threads lately and its either gay marriage or gay wedding cake bakers. Perhaps its just a trend but I seee it as the gay agenda being completely unrelenting to gain acceptance for their immoral behavior.

[thesometimesaint]

If the Tenth Amendment doesn't mean anything anymore, let's have the people who believe that go on record, demonstrate some political courage, and call for its repeal.

 

It's a little more complicated than that

SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment

[thesometimesaint]

I do not hate gays. I am not homophobic or anything . I do get tiired of one gay thrread after another on these forums and it seems likes its always the samme folks trying to push the same agenda over and over and over again. I have gay neighbors whom I gget along great with. They mind their own, I mind my own, occasionally we speak to each other and its all normal. I think the reason I get along so well with them is that they are not constantly trying to push their agenda in everyones faces. You look at the majority of threads lately and its either gay marriage or gay wedding cake bakers. Perhaps its just a trend but I seee it as the gay agenda being completely unrelenting to gain acceptance for their immoral behavior.

 

Those darn blacks pushing their black agenda of equal rights under the law. How intolerant of them.

[The Nehor]

If the Tenth Amendment doesn't mean anything anymore, let's have the people who believe that go on record, demonstrate some political courage, and call for its repeal.

The Tenth amendment never really meant much at all from its inception on. It was just a sop to federalism in the early days and was believed to add nothing to the constitution and just restates basic constitutional limits.

Edited April 14, 2015 by The Nehor

[sjdawg]

Homosexuals are not part of God's plans Everything either leads to families or takes away from them. Homosexuality takes away from families. Its rather plain to see.

Gay marriage is legal in Canada.  I haven't noticed the country fall apart.   My heterosexual marriage hasn't changed as a result of the legalization.   Churches have not been forced to perform marriages if they don't wish to.    I fail to see how legalizing a relationship between two consenting adults impacts me at all.   

[sjdawg]

I honestly believe that homosexuality is a learned trait by experiences in ones past.

What would those "experiences" be?

[Kenngo1969]

It's a little more complicated than that

SEE http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment

I love it when you try to teach me law!  It makes me all warm and tingly inside!

[Kenngo1969]

The Tenth amendment never really meant much at all from its inception on. It was just a sop to federalism in the early days and was believed to add nothing to the constitution and just restates basic constitutional limits.

Ohhh!  Two of you are trying to teach me law now!  I feel speshul!

[Analytics]

I figured I'd start this today because today, an amicus brief was filed by several churches, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Here is a portion:

The brief is also signed by Assemblies Of God, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Wesleyan Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Church Of God, the National Association of Evangelicals, and a dozen others.

The full brief can be read here:

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/14-556_Major_Religious_Organizations.pdf?hc_location=ufi

 

What a strange argument.  Their basic strategy is to redefine "freedom of religion" so that they won't have to redefine "marriage."

 

If this strategy was used 125 years ago, a consortium of churches would have united and said, "Monogamy is a deep religious tradition that is held by many faiths.  If polygamy is allowed in America, those of us that are against it will look intolerant, and that will hurt our feelings and make us look bad to others.  That in turn is detrimental to our religious freedom.

 

"So in the name of religious freedom, don't let Mormons practice polygamy!"

Edited April 14, 2015 by Analytics

[Gray]

If the Tenth Amendment doesn't mean anything anymore, let's have the people who believe that go on record, demonstrate some political courage, and call for its repeal.

 

I'm not sure how that's relevant - could you expand on that? 

 

Certainly the 14th amendment would seem to support the right of gay couples to marry if they choose. 

[thesometimesaint]

I love it when you try to teach me law!  It makes me all warm and tingly inside!

 

That's just your foot going to sleep.

 

An overly strict interpretation takes us back to the Articles of Confederation. An overly loose interpretation destroys state sovereignty. So what's your solution counselor?

[Kenngo1969]

That's just your foot going to sleep.

 

An overly strict interpretation takes us back to the Articles of Confederation. An overly loose interpretation destroys state sovereignty. So what's your solution counselor?

I'm not licensed.  Don't call me counselor.  I suppose the question where the appropriate balance lies forever can be debated. (This board is proof of that, yet this isn't even a blawg:  legal issues are only tangential to the overwhelming majority of discussions here.)  There's one problem with the view of those who hold that the Tenth Amendment simply reiterates limits already extant on the national government from elsewhere in the Constitution: one principle of legal interpretation holds that a provision of law (including of the Constitution) should be read to be given some effect rather than being read to be superfluous or being read to be denied any effect.  Perhaps it is easier simply to defer to the national government on Tenth Amendment federalism questions: courts have certainly done more than enough of that in the last hundred years or so; but that doesn't make it right.  You're fond of telling me what courts have said, but if that were all there is to the law, law school curriculum (along with the length of the course of study) could be reduced by about 84 percent.

 

P.S.: And you needn't worry about courts being overly strict in their interpretation.  You haven't needed to worry about that for about a hundred years or so. 

Edited April 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not sure how that's relevant - could you expand on that? 

 

Certainly the 14th amendment would seem to support the right of gay couples to marry if they choose. 

And virtually every court that has considered questions of federalism vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment in the last hundred years has agreed with you.  Congratulations!  As long as none of your sacred cows are the ones being butchered and barbecued, I suppose you have no reason to worry.  And as I told thesometimesaint, a principle of legal interpretation holds that legal provisions (including constitutional provisions) should be read to be given effect rather than being read to be denied effect.  (For the record, courts' treatment gay marriage is simply a symptom of that problem, it's not the sum total of the problem itself.)

Edited April 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[williamsmith]

Nobody is wanting to deny gays the right to being "unioned".

However they don't have the right to "co-opt" an institution and definititon/word that has belonged to heterosexuals and religion since the dawn of man.

That is the exact sort of "bigotry" falsely claimed against the religious and conservative.

 

The gay and their supporters are infringing on the rights of others in order to try and get their rights.

That is both unsound law, and intolerance.  Good law doesn't infringe on the rights of others to give rights to another group especially a minority one.

 

New and different things require new definitions and words.

Is there no "genius" gay person who can create this new word and definition to define their new thing, and it become sacred to them?

Or are all gays so entrenched in bigotry, intolerance, and most so entitlement, that they simply cannot think outside of their box?

 

It is a sad day for this country and world.  First there was the bad and Unconstitutional law creating the IRS, the Federalized legalized theft of property beyond basic reasonable taxation, then their was the bad and immoral law creating state santioned murder of the innocent child (when it's part of the states first duty to protect the innocent and citizenry), now the state is going to legalize the co-opting of the sacred institution of Marriage, an institution that was made sacred by religion and the heterosexual.

 

Any of you who are reasoned gays or gay supporters out there, should be absolutely appauled by the actions of your brethren, and should be fighting on the side of religion and heterosexual against this blantat intolerance and fascism, and should be guiding your bretheren toward a better path, creating your own institution of union.  If you claim to be the "tolerant" ones, then you would do this out of respect for the rights of others.  But you do not, because you are not reasoned, and are only entitled.

Edited April 14, 2015 by williamsmith

[ALarson]

The gay and their supporters are infringing on the rights of others in order to try and get their rights.

People are always saying things like this in opposition of allowing gays to marry, but then give no specifics.

 

Please tell me how a gay couple having the right to marry, infringes on my rights?

[Senator]

 

Nobody is wanting to deny gays the right to being "unioned".

However they don't have the right to "co-opt" an institution and definititon/word that has belonged to heterosexuals and religion since the dawn of man.

That is the exact sort of "bigotry" falsely claimed against the religious and conservative.

 

The gay and their supporters are infringing on the rights of others in order to try and get their rights.

That is both unsound law, and intolerance.  Good law doesn't infringe on the rights of others to give rights to another group especially a minority one.

 

New and different things require new definitions and words.

Is there no "genius" gay person who can create this new word and definition to define their new thing, and it become sacred to them?

Or are all gays so entrenched in bigotry, intolerance, and most so entitlement, that they simply cannot think outside of their box?

 

It is a sad day for this country and world.  First there was the bad and Unconstitutional law creating the IRS, the Federalized legalized theft of property beyond basic reasonable taxation, then their was the bad and immoral law creating state santioned murder of the innocent child (when it's part of the states first duty to protect the innocent and citizenry), now the state is going to legalize the co-opting of the sacred institution of Marriage, an institution that was made sacred by religion and the heterosexual.

 

Any of you who are reasoned gays or gay supporters out there, should be absolutely appauled by the actions of your brethren, and should be fighting on the side of religion and heterosexual against this blantat intolerance and fascism, and should be guiding your bretheren toward a better path, creating your own institution of union.  If you claim to be the "tolerant" ones, then you would do this out of respect for the rights of others.  But you do not, because you are not reasoned, and are only entitled.

 

I vote williamsmith for the Council on Human Affairs and Outreach

Edited April 14, 2015 by Senator

[thesometimesaint]

I'm not licensed.  Don't call me counselor.  I suppose the debate about where the appropriate balance lies forever can be debated. (This board is proof of that, yet this isn't even a blawg:  legal issues are only tangential to the overwhelming majority of discussions here.)  There's one problem with the view of those who hold that the Tenth Amendment simply reiterates limits already extant on the national government from elsewhere in the Constitution: one principle of legal interpretation holds that a provision of law (including of the Constitution) should be read to be given some effect rather than being read to be superfluous or being read to be denied any effect.  Perhaps it is easier simply to defer to the national government on Tenth Amendment federalism questions: courts have certainly done more than enough of that in the last hundred years or so; but that doesn't make it right.  You're fond of telling me what courts have said, but if that were all there is to the law, law school curriculum (along with the length of the course of study) could be reduced by about 84 percent.  

 

I'm not a counselor at law either. My career interests lie elsewhere.

 

I wouldn't say that the 10th is unnecessary or irrelevant in today's society. I pay taxes to my city, county, and state government as well as my federal government. I want a say in all of them.

 

It probably would be easier to just give up on local representative government. But I have no desire to do so. I just think that Federal law trumps State law every time when there is a conflict between them.

 

I understand the purpose of law school is to help student to pas the bar exam. In my state there is no requirement to have gone to school to pass it, just that you do have pass it to be a state recognized lawyer.

 

So how do we balance the two competing and complimentary sets of law while maintaining both? The only way I see that as possible is through court decisions, and we all know what a mess the courts have made of that. Plessy v Ferguson anyone? 

Edited April 14, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

Nobody is wanting to deny gays the right to being "unioned".

However they don't have the right to "co-opt" an institution and definititon/word that has belonged to heterosexuals and religion since the dawn of man.

That is the exact sort of "bigotry" falsely claimed against the religious and conservative.

 

 

There are many more atheists/secular people getting married than there are gay people getting married. Would you support limiting marriage to religious people only?

 

I'm not an expert on the history of marriage, but I suspect the idea of legal marriage is relatively modern. The old testament model for marriage seems to be more along the lines of common law marriage.

[Gray]

And virtually every court that has considered questions of federalism vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment in the last hundred years has agreed with you.  Congratulations!  As long as none of your sacred cows are the ones being butchered and barbecued, I suppose you have no reason to worry.  And as I told thesometimesaint, a principle of legal interpretation holds that legal provisions (including constitutional provisions) should be read to be given effect rather than being read to be denied effect.  (For the record, courts' treatment gay marriage is simply a symptom of that problem, it's not the sum total of the problem itself.)

 

Even if I were opposed to gay marriage, my sacred cows would be intact and healthy, as no one is forcing me to enter into a gay marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

There are many more atheists/secular people getting married than there are gay people getting married. Would you support limiting marriage to religious people only?

 

I'm not an expert on the history of marriage, but I suspect the idea of legal marriage is relatively modern. The old testament model for marriage seems to be more along the lines of common law marriage.

 

I'm no expert either. Depends on what your definition of modern is. We, in the US, get our marriage laws from the ancient Romans, and English Common Law. But I'm not convinced that either/both should be what our modern day laws are.

[Kenngo1969]

Even if I were opposed to gay marriage, my sacred cows would be intact and healthy, as no one is forcing me to enter into a gay marriage.

OK.  What if you were a clergyman,  what if gay marriage were against the tenets of your faith, and what if you wished to remain faithful to the tenets of that faith, but the government said, "Nope.  Sorry.  The only place and time where religious scruples are relevant is within the walls of your own church on your holy day"?  

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not a counselor at law either. My career interests lie elsewhere.

 

I wouldn't say that the 10th is unnecessary or irrelevant in today's society. I pay taxes to my city, county, and state government as well as my federal government. I want a say in all of them.

 

It probably would be easier to just give up on local representative government. But I have no desire to do so. I just think that Federal law trumps State law every time when there is a conflict between them. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

 

OK.  You're welcome to think that, but neither the Supremacy Clause nor the Tenth Amendment say that.

[williamsmith]

There are many more atheists/secular people getting married than there are gay people getting married. Would you support limiting marriage to religious people only?

 

I'm not an expert on the history of marriage, but I suspect the idea of legal marriage is relatively modern. The old testament model for marriage seems to be more along the lines of common law marriage.

 

As I had stated already, marriage as a definition apply's and has always applied to the marriage of the heterosexual (man & woman), it is a sacred institution and definition, whether religion was involved or not.

Again, I also said that nobody is denying gays right to be unioned being free adults.  Thus obviously I'm not supporting "limiting" anything.  We are simply asking for respect for our own defintinitions and words, and for the gay person to create their own for their completely NEW thing, which has also been done since the dawn of man, new things come along, new words and definitions are created.

 

Marriage has been marriage no matter how "legalized" with some government that has gotten involved in it.

Again, nobody's denying gays right to be unioned however they want, through the state, their own religious beliefs, etc.

We are simply asking them to stop co-opting the word "Marriage", which has always meant between man and woman.

Again, they are a new thing, thus if they were fair, reasonable and tolerant, they would create new words and definitions for their thing.

[Gray]

OK.  What if you were a clergyman,  what if gay marriage were against the tenets of your faith, and what if you wished to remain faithful to the tenets of that faith, but the government said, "Nope.  Sorry.  The only place and time where religious scruples are relevant is within the walls of your own church on your holy day"?  

 

Well, if it were that important to me, I guess I'd only be marrying people within the walls of my own church, and not offering that service to the general public.