Homosexual marriage is legal

Homosexual marriage is legal

There are 2468 comments on the www.examiner.com story from Jun 27, 2013, titled Homosexual marriage is legal. In it, www.examiner.com reports that:

In a 5-4 decision, which, did not surprise anyone, the Supreme Court demonstrated once again that the federal high court is willing to impose by judicial edict what the voters of the individual States in the majority of States have refused to do: allow the marriage of homosexuals ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.examiner.com.

First Prev
of 124
Next Last

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2784 Sep 26, 2013
If gay marriage is to become the law of the land, the correct way would be either by an amendment to the Constitution or by the individual states enacting laws or passing referendums. If Amendment XIV could grant the right of gay marriage, why did it not give the women the right to vote or grant them absolute equality with men? It appears it had a much narrower application than what many claim today.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2785 Sep 26, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep us informed on how that pipe-dream works out for you....
Actually, Wondering, the author of the post you commented on< is correct. We should be seeing many more 9-0 decisions and much fewer 5-4 decisions split along idealogical fault lines. Personally, politically I am an independent sometimes agreeing with the political right and sometimes with the political left and usually with neither.

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#2786 Sep 26, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I suggest you ask your history teacher friend about the SCOTUS ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943.
From the majority opinion:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
I would rather go back even further to the 1860s when the amendment was written and ask them if they ever intended it to be interpreted as it is today.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2787 Sep 27, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>When the Constitution was first Ratified, there were a good many things that by our standards today would have been discriminatory that were perfectly constitutional back then.
Yes, and just like slavery, women as chattel, denying women the vote, preventing the Chinese from owning property, and a host of other nasty things, when they were finally help up to the light, they were ultimately found to be unconstitutional. Irrational discrimination always is, even if it takes time.

That's the brilliance of our system.

When discrimination against gay folks finds it way to court, past all the irrational hatred and fears, it doesn't hold up, either, since there is no state interest for such discrimination.

None at all.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2788 Sep 27, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
If gay marriage is to become the law of the land, the correct way would be either by an amendment to the Constitution or by the individual states enacting laws or passing referendums. If Amendment XIV could grant the right of gay marriage, why did it not give the women the right to vote or grant them absolute equality with men? It appears it had a much narrower application than what many claim today.
Any way that unconstitutional laws are overturned is the right way There is no wrong way to stop harming millions of people.

If it takes the SC do do that - and it looks like it will - then that's the right route.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2789 Sep 27, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I would rather go back even further to the 1860s when the amendment was written and ask them if they ever intended it to be interpreted as it is today.
The founding fathers and the leaders who wrote the various ammendments were wise enough to understand that the world would change, weren't they?

Do we still support slavery just because our founding fathers did? Should women not vote because women back in 1860 could not?

If the founding fathers and all leaders since then wanted every law in the country to be viewed through their culture and their eyes - never changing and never growing to meet the needs of a vital country, then why didn't Americans create a static system to do just that?

There were clever enough to have done it, if that was their goal.

I think they were smarter than that.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2790 Sep 27, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>I would rather go back even further to the 1860s when the amendment was written and ask them if they ever intended it to be interpreted as it is today.
I suspect they would have disagreed with each other about the details, as they did back in the days when they wrote the bill of rights. That is why they focused on basic principals, rather than attempting to freeze society as they experienced it at the time. They planned on advancement and improvement.

"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson, July 12, 1816

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2791 Sep 30, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Oops, the last quote was from Windsor.
Here is more:
"The question is whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as alike, the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the same class the State seeks to protect."
"DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects.
Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound.
The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment" (Windsor)
SCOTUS also ruled on voting on a person's Constitutional rights wasn't Constitutional in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943 case.

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
- Majority opinion

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 124
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 6 min June VanDerMark 13,022
News Tanzania to publish 'list of gay people' 25 min Gotcha 2
News Tupelo mother, son featured on LGBT video 46 min Imprtnrd 15
News Suffolk bishop says rejection of controversial ... 47 min Rainbow Kid 1
News Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 1 hr PayupSucka 43
News Duke freshman says Jesus forbids him from readi... (Aug '15) 1 hr blue devil 70
News Scott Lively Calls On Trump To Ban Gays From In... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Just Think 24,713
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 hr River Tam 44,894
More from around the web