Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back T...

Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back To States

There are 115 comments on the National Public Radio story from Jun 26, 2013, titled Same-Sex-Marriage Fight Shifts Back To States. In it, National Public Radio reports that:

The dual victories the Supreme Court handed to gay-marriage supporters Wednesday seemed to temporarily shift the focus of the fight from Washington to the states.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Public Radio.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#65 Jun 30, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your legal education didn't include anything about the 14th amendment I see.
Because you are right that these are "state issues", but you utterly fail to understand where those lines are drawn regarding the Federal Constitution.
You seem to think then that the states can pass whatever law they like on the subject, and that has not been true for 150 years or so.
Do try and keep up.
Oh, and Obama is not anywhere near as confused as you, but thanks again for trying to divert attention away from your ignorance of the law with a swipe at the POTUS, who has fuck all to do with any of this.
I can see you feel superior to us commoners, however, the constitution say, those powers not granted to the federal government is there by granted to the states. If This Bill is constitutional, then the Arizona immigration bill is also legal.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#66 Jun 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Here's a fun fact: Marriage wasn't a required sacrament for couples in the Catholic Church until the middle of the 16th Century. Marriage was according to local law and custom and the ONLY thing you needed from the Church was their blessing to fornicate with your betrothed. Marriage was a strictly optional blessing that most did not take the Church up on their offer. Church marriages didn't allow for divorce, civil marriages did. Guess which most chose? The Church making marriage a required sacrament is one of the many issues which sparked the Protestant Reformation. Many of the early Protestant Churches wouldn't even offer a rite of marriage for years and even decades or longer, all strictly civil. Our Puritan forefathers REQUIRED civil marriages in their colony, even for non-Puritans.
Here is a fun fact Marriage is between a man and a women and Nature as well as history agrees. Call your joining what you want, but it's not marriage any more than marrying your pet goat.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#67 Jun 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>No undue celebrations sweetie, I am a realist. Their ruling in the Prop 8 case did not do nearly what it should have and we will now have to take on these unconstitutional amendments one at a time. Next one to the Supremes will be the death of them all though. Full equality in marriage is coming whether you or the "will of the people" want it or not, five years at most and it will be done.
Oh my, which amendments are unconstitutional, and which one will change the definition of marriage or nature.....none.
conservative crapola

Kutztown, PA

#68 Jun 30, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for the actions by Obama that you've been claiming violated the Constitution.

crickets..........

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#69 Jun 30, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
Here is a fun fact Marriage is between a man and a women and Nature as well as history agrees. Call your joining what you want, but it's not marriage any more than marrying your pet goat.
Um buttercup, Nature also gives us same sex pairs and history tells us off and on of same sex marriages that were happily accepted. If you don't want to call it a marriage, that's your problem, not mine, as long as the law does, you really don't matter.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#70 Jun 30, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
Oh my, which amendments are unconstitutional, and which one will change the definition of marriage or nature.....none.
Each and every amendment which prohibits the recognition of same sex marriages and only same sex marriages without addressing other prohibited forms. You only have yourselves to blame, you created the suspect classification, not us. The Supremes opinion addressed Protect Marriage's lack of standing, Walker's opinion, once again, pretty much the last words said on the amendment's lack of constitutionality. The ones in the 9th Circuit get toasted first, the rest have had a real tempting target painted on them. Five years at most, comity if not full equality.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#71 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>I can see you feel superior to us commoners, however, the constitution say, those powers not granted to the federal government is there by granted to the states. If This Bill is constitutional, then the Arizona immigration bill is also legal.
Who is "us?"

Most everyone else seems to get it except you.

Now your going off on yet another tangent about an unrelated case.

ADHD?

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#72 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Um buttercup, Nature also gives us same sex pairs and history tells us off and on of same sex marriages that were happily accepted. If you don't want to call it a marriage, that's your problem, not mine, as long as the law does, you really don't matter.
I admire your attempt to be relevent, however since the gays are 2% of the population, you can be sure your idea of marriage and ours seems to favor our definiton..........and natures.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#73 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Each and every amendment which prohibits the recognition of same sex marriages and only same sex marriages without addressing other prohibited forms. You only have yourselves to blame, you created the suspect classification, not us. The Supremes opinion addressed Protect Marriage's lack of standing, Walker's opinion, once again, pretty much the last words said on the amendment's lack of constitutionality. The ones in the 9th Circuit get toasted first, the rest have had a real tempting target painted on them. Five years at most, comity if not full equality.
Gosh pookie, that is not to precise, but there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage because when it was written gays were never considered eligible for marriage, only shacking up.
conservative crapola

Allentown, PA

#74 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear part-time constitution invoker,

The Constitution's equal protection clause is for 100% of the people. trible thumpers be damned. hahahahahahahah

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#75 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
Gosh pookie, that is not to precise, but there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage because when it was written gays were never considered eligible for marriage, only shacking up.
Dumpling, I'm not sure that you are aware of this, but marriage isn't mentioned period, it's just assumed to be a fundamental right, that need not have been spelled out for the clueless amongst us. Whether you like it or not, restrictions against same sex marriage simply do not meet the standard that the Court has held for the last five decades protecting the individual's right to marry from unwarranted governmental interference. You and your ilk lost even before this struggle began, all we're doing now is mopping up the deliberately obtuse.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#76 Jul 1, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear part-time constitution invoker,
The Constitution's equal protection clause is for 100% of the people. trible thumpers be damned. hahahahahahahah
So then Affirmitive Action and Hate Crimes are unconstitutional because they were not for everyone under the equal protection clause. The constitution does nothing more that put the Definition of Marriage under State control and laws.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#77 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Dumpling, I'm not sure that you are aware of this, but marriage isn't mentioned period, it's just assumed to be a fundamental right, that need not have been spelled out for the clueless amongst us. Whether you like it or not, restrictions against same sex marriage simply do not meet the standard that the Court has held for the last five decades protecting the individual's right to marry from unwarranted governmental interference. You and your ilk lost even before this struggle began, all we're doing now is mopping up the deliberately obtuse.
Well pattycake, it is spelled out under state law. Federal law has nothing to do with marriage. It does however seem to have the right to judicate above the constitution.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#78 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
I admire your attempt to be relevent, however since the gays are 2% of the population, you can be sure your idea of marriage and ours seems to favor our definiton..........and natures.
Guess what hon, even your low-ball estimate of our presence in the population puts us demographically ahead of interracial couples and those who want to marry their prison pen-pal or a dead-beat parent. Try again. As to nature's "definition" of marriage, nature does give us same sex pairs in a number of species, some of which have been known to pair for life. Don't you just hate it when nature itself is against you?

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#79 Jul 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Guess what hon, even your low-ball estimate of our presence in the population puts us demographically ahead of interracial couples and those who want to marry their prison pen-pal or a dead-beat parent. Try again. As to nature's "definition" of marriage, nature does give us same sex pairs in a number of species, some of which have been known to pair for life. Don't you just hate it when nature itself is against you?
Maybe some facts would impress me. Got any?
conservative crapola

Zionhill, PA

#80 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
you were impressed by herman couldn't.'nuf said.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#81 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Well pattycake, it is spelled out under state law. Federal law has nothing to do with marriage. It does however seem to have the right to judicate above the constitution.
Then why are there Federal cases interpreting state marriage laws, living Loving v. Virginia?

You do not understand how our appellate court jurisdiction works.

You do not understand how the 14th amendment makes state marriage laws subject to constitutional review.

You do not understand the law.

You are just a ranting bigot.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#82 Jul 1, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why are there Federal cases interpreting state marriage laws, living Loving v. Virginia?
You do not understand how our appellate court jurisdiction works.
You do not understand how the 14th amendment makes state marriage laws subject to constitutional review.
You do not understand the law.
You are just a ranting bigot.
Because it's like Roe vs. Wade. It also was a state issue, but the only way the libs can win it to surpass the constitition with liberal votes and judication and by pass congress, the constitution and state law.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#83 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
Maybe some facts would impress me. Got any?
"The number of interracial marriages has steadily continued to increase since the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia, but also continues to represent an absolute minority among the total number of wed couples. According to the United States Census Bureau, the number of interrracially married couples has increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 651,000 in 1980, to 964,000 in 1990, to 1,464,000 in 2000 and to 2,340,000 in 2008; accounting for 0.7%, 1.3%, 1.8%, 2.6% and 3.9% of the total number of married couples in those years, respectively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marr...
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/t...

I would imagine that the total numbers of those who have benefited from our right to marry being recognized in Turner v Safley (just about any convicted felon doing time of your dreams) and Zablocki v Redhail (they're behind on their child support, so what), at even less than those who follow the trail blazed by the Lovings.

The Census bureau estimated that approximately 100,000 same sex couples had entered into a legally recognized relationship in 2008 (marriage, CU's and DP's), but also released a survey showing 150,000 in a marriage the same year, so the exact number isn't clear. In 2008, same sex marriage was only available in Massachusetts and five countries outside the US.
conservative crapola

Zionhill, PA

#84 Jul 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
kleenex.com

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min WasteWater 13,079
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 7 min Ismail 737
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 31 min GayleWood 37,347
Great Gays 33 min Gay Admirer 2
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 36 min country 948
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 37 min Dallas 385
The NE Jade Twosday Thread 44 min Lenny 2
More from around the web