I don't want to take their rights, let them get married, don't force others who don't support the act to conform to what they want. The Bible says nothing about gay rights, it says homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9), big difference. I can use the Bible in the defense against homosexual actions (not gay rights), I just did!
I find it extremely unsettling that 5 people that were not elected can shape the future of our country, and their word is final. That is not how this system was designed to work. In fact they were never given the power of Judicial review, it's just a process that they took upon themselves at some point in history. Another example of our government working outside of the parameters of their own Constitution. To me the issue has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with a government that continually oversteps their constitutional authority. Today is gay marriage, tomorrow it may be something else that impacts your life in a negative way.
I said before, I don't know enough about it. But I do agree, if what you say is true (and I have no reason to not believe you, just to lazy to research lol) then I do say its 100% wrong that they can make that call. I feel they made the right call, but not sure it was their call in the first place. And I hope that attention gets put on that to reduce the risk of it happening to something that is a real issue in this country like gun control or immigration.
Well there is precedent for this. Just look at Loving vs Virginia in 1969. Although I guess you can say you disagree with that as well. You can justify the ruling with the 14th Amendment if one is to believe that marriage is a fundamental right, which I'm not sure I agree with that, but I'll never be against a government granting its citizens more freedom.
This was the first couple to be issued same sex marriage license in my Parish. I don't know if these guys are destroying stereotypes or confirming them
I'm not really arguing against liberty. My point is that the Supreme Court is exercising judicial review, which is not a function of the Supreme Court as laid out in the constitution. They derived their powers of judicial review by their own ruling. Marbury vs. Madison. 5 human being, none of which were elected, have the power to make decisions that can be far reaching and final. Lets not kid ourselves by believing this is about freedom, because they have been able to live their lives freely. This is about government benefits. I'm not even against them getting those benefits, I'm just calling it what it is. The goal here was to have access to the benefits of a married couple, period.
Solid point, so why were they denied those benefits before? The states right act is old, not one state lost any rights, none. This is about religion and a belief in a book that was written 3000 years ago and rewritten so many times by man it's crazy, and 100% talk about how you follow the good book, but 100% of you talk a good game, talk is cheap. I include myself in that 100%. No one will ever convince me a God of love, could ever hate on anyone. The man works out of pure love and forgiveness, sometimes I think we forget that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Based on that, I may have to rethink my attitude. I suspect that, for those two, marrying each other would be their only option. Which one do you think would look best in the white dress?
My argument is void of any religious believes, mine is a strictly constitutional approach to the situation. The question is not about them being denied rights or not being denied rights, it's about whether or not the Supreme Court should actually have to power to make such a ruling. In my mind, they should not. That includes any type of Judicial Review, not just this particular situation. As far as Gay marriage and why they were denied those benefits in the past. Well, that's probably because homosexuality has only became en vogue in the last 10 years. There had never really been any traction for changing the laws until the recent past. People just accepted the fact that a man marries a woman. As far as States Rights, well we are just going to have to disagree on that one. When the Feds overstep their constitutional authority, every state in the union loses the ability to legislate as they see fit. We have to either decide that, as a nation, the constitution means something and is the supreme law of the land, or that it isn't. I certainly don't believe the latter is a safe move for our freedom.
http://cal-catholic.com/?p=19218 I've also see the same stat parroted on several talking head panels, presented as both a positive and a negative anecdote.
The counter argument is that the States were overstepping their constitutional authority by denying equal protection of the laws by the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.
Ok. So nowhere in that article does it say that 30% of the students are gay because they were raised by gay parents. It just says that 28% of the students at a liberal arts school in San Francisco identify as LGBT. It doesn't say how many of those 28% were raised by straight or gay parents.
If the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, then this would be an invalid argument because every citizen of age is afforded the right to get married. Until now, the definition of marriage was(as it should be) left to each state to decide. There are other instance where a person cannot marry who'm they choose. Many state prohibit "cousin" marriages, marriages between people who have common grandparents. Most of us would look unfavorable upon that happening, but how would it be considered fair and decent for homosexuals to marry, while not allowing these "cousin" marriages?
Right. And there definition was unlawful according to the 14th Amendment. Right. I have no issues with cousin marriages. Let them marry. *I have already discussed the issues with other (closer) incestual relationships earlier in this thread
The incest and interspecies debate is a complete invalid argument. There are so many other issues involved with them, like proper consent, health, and safety issues just to name a few. Its a completely different case and debate. It has nothing to do with 2 of age, sane minded, consenting, US citizens getting married, who happen to have the same junk. And, as said before, I don't see why cousins shouldn't be able to marry, as long as they cant have kids. But again, it has nothing to do with this topic and an invalid argument for this case.
