Supreme Court affirms right to gay marriage
The Supreme Court has found a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down bans in 14 states and handing a historic victory to the gay rights movement that would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago.
The Supreme Court has found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, striking down bans in 14 states and handing a historic victory to the gay rights movement that would have been unthinkable just 10 years ago.
Anybody near me who wants to get married I'd be happy to marry you! (I've legally done it once already!)
How you doin mate! Haven't seen you in a long time!
Doing awesome.
Welcome to the civilized world america 🙂 [/snarky]
Just want to say that it doesn't affect me in any way (gay marriage), and as such I don't particularly care either way. I'm not gay, so it's not giving something denied me before, nor am I religious, so it's not stepping on my sacred ground. However I still think it's in the realm of the States responsibilities to decide.
This is just another example of the folks in Washington overstepping their bounds, and usurping the authority of the individual States, and it won't stop till the States start to push back. They better start doing it soon. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to get their authority back. It never turns out well when the national government of a country starts concentrating all power in their hands. It's kinda why the Founding Fathers set our system up the way they did.
So by that measure women should still not be able to vote +West Kagle? You know that in individual states women could vote before they were nationally able to do so. So by your logic, there should still be states where women can't vote and black men are only worth a fraction of a white man?
+Paul Spoerry
So your telling me that there are states today that would deny women the right to vote? ….and the same for blacks?
The voting issue is much different in any case as it involves national level items (i.e. presidential elections). They were also decided by amending the constitution. A process that the central government in Washington could not do unilaterally. The states had to ok the action by a 2/3 majority.
They want to make it national law? That's fine, I have no issue with that in the least. Then they need to alter the national law, which requires taking the process I just mentioned.
He is saying that state restrictions on gay marriage today is no different from past restrictions of rights on gender or race.
Saying "oh, those states wouldn't do that today" isn't really relevant to the point. In 50 years time hopefully there wont be any states that would voluntarily restrict homosexual rights either. But its not 50 years later, its now, and there's people that need this law now.
Marriage effects thousands of other laws – not elections, as in happens – but plenty of other things;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
Maybe if it did effect elections the process to make it universal for all Americans would be harder.
But as it does not.
–
Finally, things should generally be permissive by default. Laws should be there not to allow things, but to stop things if they cause some measure of harm beyond acceptable limits.
Gay marriage causes no harm whatsoever, and improves the quality of life for many people.
Forcing states to accept this only solidifies freedoms for people that should have already been there already, and only restricts the right to discriminate pointlessly.
+Thomas Wrobel
No………those things in the past are different than this one, and I explained why. Read the part in my post where I talked about how the past issues were resolved as opposed to how this one was.
You see, you are just like the rest of progressive America. It's all about instant gratification. " ….But its not 50 years later, its now, and there's people that need this law now." Screw the proper procedure, I want this, and I want it now! It sounds like a 3 year old in the candy store.
There is no need for 50 years to pass. Just do the right thing and change the Constitution. Our system was designed to allow for that. The power mongers in Washington seem to have forgotten that (or have simply thumbed their collective noises at the very frame work of our system).
Dude you know there are states that would try that? How about the ones flying a stupid flag that wasn't even for the Confederacy?!
Respectfully +West Kagle whenever it's something people don't like they say we should change the Constitution, until someone something they don't agree with or someone says we should because those laws don't fit or should be clarified (like the 2nd) and everybody is all like "hold up don't just go willy nilly with the Constitution." (also… I know plenty of older homosexuals who would argue they've waited decades and that saying they just wanted instant gratification would be offensive)
That's also not how 'change' actually happens. Blacks had the right to vote under the 15th Amendment, but if it was all said and done there then why did we need The Voting Rights Act (signed in by President Johnson in 1965 to actually make it so? Because just changing the Constitution wasn't enough.
+Paul Spoerry
There is absolutely no way to get around it. There is absolutely no arguing against it (like the progressives love to say, the 'science' is settled, or in this case the law). If you want to change the national law, you have to change the document outlining that national law.
Yes, it is the same with the 2nd. You want to take away folks guns (or limit and restrict them in any way) you again, need to change the document containing the national law. Of course that's only if you want to make it national law, the states can, and have, altered gun rights within their borders.
I think you know me. I have no beef with gay marriage. It's not hurting me, and I don't have a dog in the fight. My issue is the way they are going about it. The ends do not justify the means.
The act of 1965 wasn't needed. The federal government had the right and the authority to go after non complying states and local governments, under the 15th amendment. The 1965 act was redundant. I'm big on states rights, but when the Constitution has been changed (which required the states to ok it) that's when the federal government actually has the ground to stand on and wield it's big stick.
"also… I know plenty of older homosexuals who would argue they've waited decades and that saying they just wanted instant gratification would be offensive" If they find me offensive, I suggest they quite finding me. I really hate the 'I'm offended, I'm offended' stuff. What I find offensive, pathologically offended people.
Sorry………maybe it's the Prussian in me, but I'm all about procedure. I'm almost annoyingly anal about it.
………well maybe not almost.
There was no national law prohibiting marriage equality so I'm not sure where we're going with this.
+Paul Spoerry
They are making it national law.