Michigan case could spell end of same...

Michigan case could spell end of same-sex bans in 37 states

There are 12 comments on the www.freep.com story from Jul 14, 2013, titled Michigan case could spell end of same-sex bans in 37 states. In it, www.freep.com reports that:

Last month, when he and four of his colleagues struck down a federal law that denied legal recognition of same-sex marriages, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy insisted their decision would have no impact on states that prohibit such unions.

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

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#1 Jul 14, 2013
Scalia's right.

The FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM is that if you ask a person if the word "equal" is a simple word that is easy to define, almost everyone you ask will say "Yes".

When asked that question most people are probably thinking a long the lines that "12 inches is EQUAL to 1 foot", and "16 ounces is EQUAL to 1 pound" etc. That's pretty east because we have defined those things mathematically.

And MOST Americans would say that "EVERYONE is entitled to EQUAL rights". But millions of Americans cannot agree on what "Equal Rights" means.

And even if some people can come to a conclusion, thru logic and reason, about "Equal Rights", the sad TRUTH is that because of custom, religion, and many other reasons, deep down, many Americans, despite what they SAY, really do NOT believe in the concept of "Equal Rights".

And remember that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, "equal protection of the law" DID NOT EXIST. It was PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to treat different people UNEQUALLY under the law.

And even LONG AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified whereby the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEED "equal protection of the laws", SCOTUS AFFIRMED UNEQUAL protection of the laws in the imfamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case.

So one of the continuing arguments throughout ALL of American history, has been: "What exactly does "Equal Rights" mean ?"

That is obviously an argument that will not ever end.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#3 Jul 14, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
Scalia's right.
The FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM is that if you ask a person if the word "equal" is a simple word that is easy to define, almost everyone you ask will say "Yes".
When asked that question most people are probably thinking a long the lines that "12 inches is EQUAL to 1 foot", and "16 ounces is EQUAL to 1 pound" etc. That's pretty east because we have defined those things mathematically.
And MOST Americans would say that "EVERYONE is entitled to EQUAL rights". But millions of Americans cannot agree on what "Equal Rights" means.
And even if some people can come to a conclusion, thru logic and reason, about "Equal Rights", the sad TRUTH is that because of custom, religion, and many other reasons, deep down, many Americans, despite what they SAY, really do NOT believe in the concept of "Equal Rights".
And remember that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, "equal protection of the law" DID NOT EXIST. It was PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to treat different people UNEQUALLY under the law.
And even LONG AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified whereby the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEED "equal protection of the laws", SCOTUS AFFIRMED UNEQUAL protection of the laws in the imfamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case.
So one of the continuing arguments throughout ALL of American history, has been: "What exactly does "Equal Rights" mean ?"
That is obviously an argument that will not ever end.
As much as I am loathe to admit it I think he is too. Looks like Scalia understand what is REALLY in the Supremacy Clause of Article 6. bUt I know you already knew that too.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#4 Jul 14, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>As much as I am loathe to admit it I think he is too. Looks like Scalia understand what is REALLY in the Supremacy Clause of Article 6. bUt I know you already knew that too.
Scalia just doesn't want to see marriage equality because he's a conservative Roman Catholic, and I do not believe that he can always separate that from his judicial reasoning and decisions.

(EXACTLY WHY Roman Catholics should NOT be allowed on SCOTUS !)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#5 Jul 14, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
Scalia's right.
The FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM is that if you ask a person if the word "equal" is a simple word that is easy to define, almost everyone you ask will say "Yes".
When asked that question most people are probably thinking a long the lines that "12 inches is EQUAL to 1 foot", and "16 ounces is EQUAL to 1 pound" etc. That's pretty east because we have defined those things mathematically.
And MOST Americans would say that "EVERYONE is entitled to EQUAL rights". But millions of Americans cannot agree on what "Equal Rights" means.
And even if some people can come to a conclusion, thru logic and reason, about "Equal Rights", the sad TRUTH is that because of custom, religion, and many other reasons, deep down, many Americans, despite what they SAY, really do NOT believe in the concept of "Equal Rights".
And remember that prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, "equal protection of the law" DID NOT EXIST. It was PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to treat different people UNEQUALLY under the law.
And even LONG AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified whereby the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEED "equal protection of the laws", SCOTUS AFFIRMED UNEQUAL protection of the laws in the imfamous Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) case.
So one of the continuing arguments throughout ALL of American history, has been: "What exactly does "Equal Rights" mean ?"
That is obviously an argument that will not ever end.
excellent Post! I MEAN IT! PLUS You just explained what I've been trying to get across about the word "ALL". Hey If it's OK I want to tell you what happened to me this morning. I had to work becuase the Time Share was booked solid and we had so much laundry to do we couldn't finish yesterday.

So I get up, pick up my cigarettes at the bodega nera the bus stop. Then I realize I have 2 ones and a pocket full of twenties.
Bus fare is $3.00 for me.
So after trying 2 places I go to the 24 hour landromat to change a 20 in the coin machine. It was crowed and as I was leaving (in a hurry beciase they bus was due) I pushed past severla people saying "Pardom me Ma'm, Pardon me sir. The lasy guy I try to pass whirls around and says If I coul F**KING move I would but this guys is in my way. I can't F'n move in two directions.

Since I was in a hurry I left but as I'mm walking across the parking lot it hits me. They changed the definition of masrriage here in Florida a few years back. I didn't know that "Pardon Me' Was on the same list!

I'm from the Midwest and was raised to say excuse me. Pardon me was the polite way to say, "I'm acting rude but forgive me please".

I had no idea it now means "Get the F**K out of the way you a$$hole dinosaur"!

As much as Kennedy would like to live in the land of rose colored glasses, he was way out of touch on that statement he wortte.

Scalia sees the writing on the walls.

Like I said Great Post. I'm impressed!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6 Jul 14, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia just doesn't want to see marriage equality because he's a conservative Roman Catholic, and I do not believe that he can always separate that from his judicial reasoning and decisions.
(EXACTLY WHY Roman Catholics should NOT be allowed on SCOTUS !)
Oh he basically admits that publicly. I don't think banning them is the solution. I think a better goal is to get the public to understand that in the Supremacy Clause it CLEARLY States no religious test should be used to qualify ANYONE who holds public office. That and to get people to see that a person's religious views are perfectly fine as long as they are NOT the sole factor in deciding a case.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying we have different views on that part.

“"The 14th Amendment Works"”

Since: Jul 13

Livermore California

#7 Jul 15, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia just doesn't want to see marriage equality because he's a conservative Roman Catholic, and I do not believe that he can always separate that from his judicial reasoning and decisions.
(EXACTLY WHY Roman Catholics should NOT be allowed on SCOTUS !)
Then he should have stepped away from the case himself like Sotomayor did! The guy is a flaming bigot in the worst possible way! The only good thing is that at his age he doesn't have long on the bench! Lets hope he leaves in the next couple of years so that your buddy Obama can replace him with someone who is fair and unbiased!
Give It Time

Tempe, AZ

#8 Jul 15, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he should have stepped away from the case himself like Sotomayor did! The guy is a flaming bigot in the worst possible way! The only good thing is that at his age he doesn't have long on the bench! Lets hope he leaves in the next couple of years so that your buddy Obama can replace him with someone who is fair and unbiased!
You got that right,at least Sotomayor has some honor,unlike that creep Scalia!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#9 Jul 15, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he should have stepped away from the case himself like Sotomayor did! The guy is a flaming bigot in the worst possible way! The only good thing is that at his age he doesn't have long on the bench! Lets hope he leaves in the next couple of years so that your buddy Obama can replace him with someone who is fair and unbiased!
He could be on the bench for another 20 years or more.

(Nominate me to SCOTUS, and I will rule with an Iron Scepter, but ALWAYS be Fair. And Balanced.:))

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#11 Jul 15, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Scalia just doesn't want to see marriage equality because he's a conservative Roman Catholic, and I do not believe that he can always separate that from his judicial reasoning and decisions.
(EXACTLY WHY Roman Catholics should NOT be allowed on SCOTUS !)
Not just Roman Catholics, and not just the SCOTUS. Anyone who believes their religious texts were written or dictated by a supreme being or that their religious beliefs should have primacy over the Constitution should be disqualified from public office.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#12 Jul 15, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just Roman Catholics, and not just the SCOTUS. Anyone who believes their religious texts were written or dictated by a supreme being or that their religious beliefs should have primacy over the Constitution should be disqualified from public office.
I agree, and I'm a church-going Christian.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#13 Jul 15, 2013
-Bill Of Rights- wrote:
<quoted text>
Then he should have stepped away from the case himself like Sotomayor did! The guy is a flaming bigot in the worst possible way! The only good thing is that at his age he doesn't have long on the bench! Lets hope he leaves in the next couple of years so that your buddy Obama can replace him with someone who is fair and unbiased!
You got A's in political science and think Obama will be President after 2016?

Interesting.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Jul 15, 2013
Wolfgang E B wrote:
<quoted text>
Not just Roman Catholics, and not just the SCOTUS. Anyone who believes their religious texts were written or dictated by a supreme being or that their religious beliefs should have primacy over the Constitution should be disqualified from public office.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Article 6
U.S. Constitution.
Last paragraph.

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.

Michigan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Michigan sued after gay couples are rejected fo... 4 hr bohart 32
News Al Capone's West Michigan ties: Fact or fun-fic... (Jan '06) Sep 17 Bambi 828
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) Sep 2 Tm Cln 8,714
has anyone heard about a ethics investigation Aug 23 use the money in usa 1
michael anderson Aug 23 joe 1
so how are those michigan babes doing.. owowow.... Aug '17 username posted 1
News LGBT group asks Michigan commission for legal p... Aug '17 Peter 8
More from around the web