federal gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[ModestGamer]

This already is the way things basically work.

In particular first cousin marriages are legal in about 20 states, while 30 others ban it. The US goes by which states recognize cousin marriages as legal with regards to determining federal benefits. (Its possible there are a few differences, but basically in both cases state law and whether the marriages is recognized as legally valid is the key to determining federal policy.)

If she is really hot. You would do it. You can admit it. your thinking about your really really hot first cousing who makes sexual gestures at you in that cock teasing way.

Go fuck her.

 

[DanDaManJC]

What rights did we already have?

you could start by reading some of John Locke's treatise on govt. (1 and 2)

 

[MJinZ]

you could start by reading some of John Locke's treatise on govt. (1 and 2)

In the wild, there are no rights. None.

Only with fellow humans, do we conceive of rights as it relates to each other. And that, what we call a society, of which we enact rules of conduct with branches of government.

 

[MJinZ]

I think Gay couples who are married should not have to pay Federal Income tax and other federal burdens, to be fair.

I mean, if they are not entitled to Federal Benefits, why make them pay the Federal Burdens?

 

[ModestGamer]

I think Gay couples who are married should not have to pay Federal Income tax and other federal burdens, to be fair.

I mean, if they are not entitled to Federal Benefits, why make them pay the Federal Burdens?

Why they should pay the single rate is what they should pay.

People with 6 children should pay more.

 

[Craig234]

I love when the "states' rightsers" show their true colors when they disagree with something that states do. This, Oregon's assisted suicide law, etc...

Good times!

Or counting their own votes, Bush v. Gore and the 'states' rights' Supremes.

I guessed this was not a judge appointed by W, and I was right.

Equality 1, bigotry 0 on this ruling.

Great to see. This very likely couldn't have happened most of our country's history.

There's still the need to recognize the *right* to marriage for gays under the federal constitution, a ruling expected from a federal judge in CA in December IIRC.

 

[Craig234]

Thank goodness we still have 5 sane judges on supreme court so they can smack this back down.

You're a bigot.

 

[ModestGamer]

You're a bigot.

human generally don't like anything different. I think hatred of homosexuals is a baser instinct built on a rejection of nonpropgating wiring. IE we are supposed to propogate. homosexuality works againsst that.

 

[mrjminer]

I don't care as long as they don't stick it in me.

 

[Craig234]

human generally don't like anything different. I think hatred of homosexuals is a baser instinct built on a rejection of nonpropgating wiring. IE we are supposed to propogate. homosexuality works againsst that.

To the extent you mean that bigotry is a common thing, ya. For example, albinos have sometimes faced bad bigotry, among others.

Peace-loving religious followers - on paper - have at times wanted to kill each other over details in dogma - European Catholics and Protestants, Muslim Sunni and Shia.

But no, it's not about ability to propagate. That's an excuse. You don't see the same treatment of people who are infertile; gays who have kids aren't free of discrimination.

 

[dmcowen674]

federal gay marriage ban unconstitutional

This paves the way for Obama to really piss off nearly every Religious Republican in ways previously unimaginable should he get the Defense of Man-Woman Only Marriage Act re-pealed.

:thumbsup:

 

[werepossum]

As far as states' rights go I'm OK with it.

Problem is, that's not what it's about. If you'd have noticed the federal government's position, their complaint is the state thereby mandating who is eligible for FEDERAL benefits.

Fern

Excellent point. I would much prefer that all these benefits were controlled and dispensed by the states and that minimum basic human rights were established at the federal level. Instead we have just the opposite. The actual poverty line is incredibly different between California or Massachusetts and Tennessee or Arkansas, yet people in all fifty states (fifty-nine if you're Obama) and associated territories are Americans. Our system has become inverted.

Still, good ruling. The federal government has no business mandating what the states may not do unless there is a Constitutional power granted to it. (Except I suppose under Wickard this falls under the commerce clause! LOL)

 

[werepossum]

You do understand that the Constitution does not grant rights. It only outlines some of the rights you already had and says the government cannot infringe on them.

Another excellent point which cannot be repeated too often. If man grants rights, then man is free to remove those rights.

 

[QuantumPion]

bet this isn't what the states righters were thinking of, is it?

This is exactly what "states righters" thought should happen. Gay marriage should be a states rights issue. Now there is the issue of one state honoring or not honoring another state's marriage to contend with, but the federal government has no more right to ban gay marriage than they do to ban alcohol without a constitutional amendment.

FYI, libertarian/economic conservatives have little in common with the religious right, other than having a common "enemy" of liberalism.

 

[Atreus21]

I have a question about the disagreement with legislating morality.

If legislating morality is wrong (which is in itself something of a contradiction in terms), then on what basis do you support the illegality of murder? Even if you only say that murder is illegal because it's bad for society, isn't that a moral statement? To claim that something is intrinsically good or bad?

Isn't the ability to impose law predicated on some claim to moral authority? And aren't revolutions against that authority grounded in disgust of the LACK of moral authority?

 

[nick1985]

I'm a state's righter, and I agree with this ruling

 

[daishi5]

You do understand that states may not grant less rights then the constitution ?

This is not quite accurate, only some of the rights protected by the constitution are protected against state infringement. Those rights are "incorporated" through the 14th. But, it is a confused muddled mess, most of the 1-8th amendment rights are protected, the second just recently added to the list. Just a year ago, only rights in amendments 1,3-8 were protected. Not only that, they are protected under a due process requirement, if some state could somehow claim they can remove a right from you and not deny you due process, they can deny you a constitutional right.

If you want your head to hurt, read the opinion on the recent supreme court ruling on the second amendment. I think it was Mcdonald vs the city of Chicago. The 14th is a very abused amendment that needs to be put back in its proper place.

 

[Cotswolds]

As a believer in states' rights I find this ruling to be good. I also agree with the earlier stated position that marriage shouldn't be a licensable activity anyway. The government should have absolutely no power to permit or deny permit to two people who want to live and love together.

 

[ModestGamer]

This is not quite accurate, only some of the rights protected by the constitution are protected against state infringement. Those rights are "incorporated" through the 14th. But, it is a confused muddled mess, most of the 1-8th amendment rights are protected, the second just recently added to the list. Just a year ago, only rights in amendments 1,3-8 were protected. Not only that, they are protected under a due process requirement, if some state could somehow claim they can remove a right from you and not deny you due process, they can deny you a constitutional right.

If you want your head to hurt, read the opinion on the recent supreme court ruling on the second amendment. I think it was Mcdonald vs the city of Chicago. The 14th is a very abused amendment that needs to be put back in its proper place.

Just becuase the court rules it does not mean that it doesn't fly in the face of reason.

The Bill of rights IS THE LAW OF THE LAND and they are guarenteed minimums.

The states tehmselves "when 37 of them were created by the federal goverment" basically all agreed to abide by the bill of rights.

what is sad is that we have allowed of legal documents "the ones protecting our freedoms" to become to perverted.

 

[ModestGamer]

As a believer in states' rights I find this ruling to be good. I also agree with the earlier stated position that marriage shouldn't be a licensable activity anyway. The government should have absolutely no power to permit or deny permit to two people who want to live and love together.

states don't really have any rights. Never did. That was why Jefferson was so concerned about. I wiegh the dilema a bit differently.

show me where alot of the states have ever been on the side of the citizen in a issue of states rights.

 

[LumbergTech]

I have a question about the disagreement with legislating morality.

If legislating morality is wrong (which is in itself something of a contradiction in terms), then on what basis do you support the illegality of murder? Even if you only say that murder is illegal because it's bad for society, isn't that a moral statement? To claim that something is intrinsically good or bad?

Isn't the ability to impose law predicated on some claim to moral authority? And aren't revolutions against that authority grounded in disgust of the LACK of moral authority?

the sophist strikes again

you would bring up murder in a gay marriage thread

 

[CallMeJoe]

I have a question about the disagreement with legislating morality.
If legislating morality is wrong (which is in itself something of a contradiction in terms), then on what basis do you support the illegality of murder? Even if you only say that murder is illegal because it's bad for society, isn't that a moral statement? To claim that something is intrinsically good or bad?
Isn't the ability to impose law predicated on some claim to moral authority? And aren't revolutions against that authority grounded in disgust of the LACK of moral authority?

Murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc., are actions that cause appreciable harm to another. Morality laws (gambling, prostitution, drug use, sodomy, etc.) seek to ban behavior that harms only willing participants.

 

[epidemis]

To the extent you mean that bigotry is a common thing, ya. For example, albinos have sometimes faced bad bigotry, among others.

Peace-loving religious followers - on paper - have at times wanted to kill each other over details in dogma - European Catholics and Protestants, Muslim Sunni and Shia.

But no, it's not about ability to propagate. That's an excuse. You don't see the same treatment of people who are infertile; gays who have kids aren't free of discrimination.

Well... the fact is, infertility is not a choice, homosexuality might not be either, but chosing not to propagate is a choice.

Therefore it doesnt make sense to hate on the infertile, it won't make the group more succesful, but hating on the homosexual might

 

[epidemis]

As a believer in states' rights I find this ruling to be good. I also agree with the earlier stated position that marriage shouldn't be a licensable activity anyway. The government should have absolutely no power to permit or deny permit to two people who want to live and love together.

This has nothing to do with state right, but more to do the with libbi-commie supreme court that rule with pink agendas

 

[epidemis]

Murder, robbery, rape, assault, etc., are actions that cause appreciable harm to another. Morality laws (gambling, prostitution, drug use, sodomy, etc.) seek to ban behavior that harms only willing participants.

That's just perpetrate harm by proxy.