Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

[strigori]

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

 

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice

[Dbqgolfer]

 

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

 

Correct, marriage existed centuries before my religion existed, and was between one man, one woman centuries before my religion existed. The foundation I was talking about was marriage, not my religion. Our constitution did not preclude marriage being defined as between one man, one woman, as it was defined that way from the foundation of the country. Obviously you and I disagree on the merits of gay marriage, and I'm sure we won't change each others mind. My only point in my response to the OP is that this is not a waste of the Supreme Courts time.

[Dbqgolfer]

 

 

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice

 

Actually, we should have 8 more justices just like Scalia.

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice

Actually, we should have 8 more justices just like Scalia.

lol.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

 

 

Looking at the redefinition of one of the foundations of our society by judges with no basis in the original intent of the constitution, when there is disagreement in the federal appellate courts, seems like a pretty good use of the Supreme courts time to me. But, I have no desire to argue to point, just felt like someone should say it.

You have no idea what a 'foundation of our society' actually is. Your religion is not the basis for society. Our Constitution forbids using your religion as a basis of law. Our Constitution requires at all people are treated equally. Marriage existed centuries before your religion was invented. It does not belong to you, and the real world is tired of outdated mythology setting rules in the modern world.

This! And this is exactly why Scalia shouldn't be a justice

Actually, we should have 8 more justices just like Scalia.

lol.

2nd lol

[irafreak]

Yes by all means let's continue to allow a handful of lawyers to rule against the majority. Forget about what they are voting about...replace it with something you disagree with and you'll see the arrogance of these power drunk bums. We're getting closer and closer to a monarchy or dictatorship. Of course I'm just overreacting...

[Abdullah the Butcher]

So polygamists won a cohabitation lawsuit in Utah, if that gets appealed up to the supreme court can they legalize polygamy next? Gay and Straight polygamy.

[Dbqgolfer]

Well, if you follow the reasoning of T_O_Bull, Knapplc, Zoogies, tschu, Landlord of Memorial Stadium, and Dr. Mantis Toboggan, not only can they, but the constitution requires it. In fact, if you use their reasoning, almost all laws would be overturned, as every law "discriminates" against the people who want to act contrary to said law.

[zoogs]

So polygamists won a cohabitation lawsuit in Utah, if that gets appealed up to the supreme court can they legalize polygamy next? Gay and Straight polygamy.

And then the animals.

 

Well, if you follow the reasoning of T_O_Bull, Knapplc, Zoogies, tschu, Landlord of Memorial Stadium, and Dr. Mantis Toboggan, not only can they, but the constitution requires it. In fact, if you use their reasoning, almost all laws would be overturned, as every law "discriminates" against the people who want to act contrary to said law.

And finally, the lawbreakers!

 

[ZRod]

Is there anything inherently wrong with polygamy, or is that a religious thing too?

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

So polygamists won a cohabitation lawsuit in Utah, if that gets appealed up to the supreme court can they legalize polygamy next? Gay and Straight polygamy.

And then the animals.

Well, if you follow the reasoning of T_O_Bull, Knapplc, Zoogies, tschu, Landlord of Memorial Stadium, and Dr. Mantis Toboggan, not only can they, but the constitution requires it. In fact, if you use their reasoning, almost all laws would be overturned, as every law "discriminates" against the people who want to act contrary to said law.

And finally, the lawbreakers!

I knew you would go there, I was seriously asking, as Zrod said, what is inherently wrong with polygamy?

[Whistlebritches]

So polygamists won a cohabitation lawsuit in Utah, if that gets appealed up to the supreme court can they legalize polygamy next? Gay and Straight polygamy.

It may not be a popular opinion but I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as we're talking about consenting adults and not some dumb Warren Jeffs marrying 12 year old girls scenario.

[zoogs]

Well, that's an interesting question. I don't really know. I haven't thought about it before. People have open relationships, though, married or not -- I'm sure some, probably a very small number, can make it work that way. Maybe a century from now that really will be the issue of the day. It's not inconceivable that the family structure will continue to evolve (as it has through history) -- why let the government stand in the way?

 

And marriage, plenty of people do this very wrong. It'd probably be pertinent to look at data for children growing up in single-parent homes (or at least, from divorce) and also how many of those there are. Or, just the number of destructive family environments overall.

 

So, to play devil's advocate, what's really wrong with it? For at least the next few decades, though, I don't expect it to be a viable issue. Instead, we'll continue to have divorces, unofficial open relationships, (possibly?) concerning numbers of children growing up in single-parent homes, etc, etc. A more or less comfortable status quo.

 

Is it the best? I dunno.

[strigori]

Wow. Somehow the word "equal" does not seem to compute for some of you. How about before you go and run your mouths about "majority" or bitching about judges YOU READ THE F'ING CONSTITUTION. You know, that document you love to tout when you think you are right, and start babbling about 'majority' and 'dictatorships' when you get blocked from installing a theocracy.

 

The First.

 

 

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty cut and dry. You can not use your favorite work of fiction , The Bible, as a guideline for any law. Period end of discussion.

 

The 14th.

 

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This states that all laws MUST treat all citizens equally. Meaning you can not assign a qualifier to a group of people and set laws. Thus you can not limit marriage by sex. But you can limit it by numbers.

 

If you dislike these foundations of our society, I welcome you to move to Russia, which really seems to meet more of the religious rightwing's sensibilities these days.

 

 

And while I'm at it, the whole 'tradition' surrounding marriage is strictly about inheritance laws in patriarchal societies. Which is every civilization at this point. That's it. It was a structure put in place so people could be sure their wealth, or more importantly titles, passed. This is also why adultery tended a death sentence for women, and little repercussions for men. Now the religions have done a fine job of hijacking this and turning it into a 'sacrament' thus controlling the people, by controlling how property and wealth could move.