Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

[zoogs]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the constitution forbids gay marriage, I'm arguing that it doesn't demand it.

Well, I think there is some debate about the best way for this to go about. One idea would be to have an amendment. Our last president was as I recall a fan of an amendment to the opposite effect. Another possibility is to challenge laws as unconstitutional, which hopefully the Supreme Court holds up (there was a case two summers ago, right?)

In any case, those two things weren't somehow missing from the Constitution, but ultimately that's what they had to do (and may yet, in this case).

As carl points out, between our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I don't know how any scenario disenfranchising women or permitting slaves was ever considered lawful. So it goes here.

 

[BigRedBuster]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the constitution forbids gay marriage, I'm arguing that it doesn't demand it.

Well, I think there is some debate about the best way for this to go about. One idea would be to have an amendment. Our last president was as I recall a fan of an amendment to the opposite effect. Another possibility is to challenge laws as unconstitutional, which hopefully the Supreme Court holds up (there was a case two summers ago, right?)

In any case, those two things weren't somehow missing from the Constitution, but ultimately that's what they had to do (and may yet, in this case).

As carl points out, between our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I don't know how any scenario disenfranchising women or permitting slaves was ever considered lawful. So it goes here.

Which is one of the main things that made me really start questioning if I wanted to have anything to do with the Republican party.

What I realized is that they are too stupid to realize what the constitution is for. It's for protecting the freedom of the people from the government and other groups of people. It's not there to allow the government or a majority to limit the freedom of people.

 

[zoogs]

Beautifully said, BRB!

 

[NUance]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

Do you think that the Constitution would allow a law that only permitted people of the same race to marry?

Sure, the original Constitution did not include any such race based prohibition on marriage. But it included other provisions that we today find similarly abhorrent--e.g., the 3/5 compromise counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of taxation allocating representatives. And we passed the 14th Amendment to do away with the 3/5 compromise.

I believe Dbqgolfer is simply saying that gay marriage is not a right delineated by the Constitution. So we should pass a Constitutional amendment making gay marriage an inalienable right.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Based on the 2013 NHIS data [collected in 2013 from 34,557 adults aged 18 and over], 96.6% of adults identified as straight, 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian, and 0.7% identified as bisexual. The remaining 1.1% of adults identified as “something else[]” [0.2%,] stated “I don’t know the answer[]” [0.4%] or refused to provide an answer [0.6%].

With such a small group I don't think the gay community would garner enough support for an amendment. Although the general public opinion of gay marriage had been increasing lately.

 

[zoogs]

A key distinction I'd make is that the Constitution does not create and bestow rights, it protects rights which naturally exist. This can be illustrated by the language of the 19th amendment:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

The 9th amendment makes clear that the government does not provide rights, and therefore indeed we are not limited merely to the rights that are expressly listed:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

An amendment here would certainly be ironclad, but it should not be necessary. Although, yes, the U.S. did start with the 3/5 compromise, women's suffrage had to go through the amendment process, and even the civil rights movement was only half a century ago.

For instance, the 14th amendment, 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.

As maybe a good counter-example, legal segregation was ended by Brown vs Board of Education, not by amendment.

 

[carlfense]

No

Why not?

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

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.

Keep posting

 

[LumberJackSker]

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

 

[Dbqgolfer]

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross.

With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

And doesn't that prove my point about how the constitution has traditionally been interpreted (originalism). An amendment to the constitution was required to be sure that slavery never happened again, and an amendment was required to ensure that women would always have the right to vote. If those things weren't inherently found in the constitution, I'm not sure how you can argue that gay marriage is.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing that the constitution forbids gay marriage, I'm arguing that it doesn't demand it.

Well, I think there is some debate about the best way for this to go about. One idea would be to have an amendment. Our last president was as I recall a fan of an amendment to the opposite effect. Another possibility is to challenge laws as unconstitutional, which hopefully the Supreme Court holds up (there was a case two summers ago, right?)

In any case, those two things weren't somehow missing from the Constitution, but ultimately that's what they had to do (and may yet, in this case).

As carl points out, between our Constitution and Bill of Rights, I don't know how any scenario disenfranchising women or permitting slaves was ever considered lawful. So it goes here.

Which is one of the main things that made me really start questioning if I wanted to have anything to do with the Republican party.

What I realized is that they are too stupid to realize what the constitution is for. It's for protecting the freedom of the people from the government and other groups of people. It's not there to allow the government or a majority to limit the freedom of people.

When I read the intelligent discourse on what is ostensibly a board for Nebraska sports fans, I'm surprised and disappointed by how the state ends up voting.

If Republicans were pragmatists and long-term thinkers, as conservatives should be, I might vote for them.

They're not, and I don't.

 

[sd'sker]

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross.

With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family.

rude and presumptuous. no reason to believe he was responding to you. seemed to be just his/hers stream of conscious thought on the subject at large.

 

[LumberJackSker]

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross.
With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family.

rude and presumptuous. no reason to believe he was responding to you. seemed to be just his/hers stream of conscious thought on the subject at large.

this person gets it

 

[ZRod]

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

That book doesn't count, what did Jesus say on the matter.

 

[Dbqgolfer]

The fact that this issue has to be debated is pathetic. Just because your faith says doesn't like a group of people doesn't mean you get to discriminate against them through laws. Because of deuteronomy 15:12-15 does that give us the right to own slaves? Nope. So just because you think gay people are gross doesn't mean you can with hold rights from them. That is wrong, end of story.

Thanks for the conversation guys and gals. I was done posting in this thread until I saw this. This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I think reading it, may have actually made me dumber. Which I sure some of you didn't think was possible. No where in this conversation did I quote my faith, scripture or say that gay people were gross.
With that, may God bless you all. And for those who don't like that, may the great flying spaghetti monster rain meatballs upon you and your family.

rude and presumptuous. no reason to believe he was responding to you. seemed to be just his/hers stream of conscious thought on the subject at large.

this person gets it

My apologies. I thought your post was directed at me, but as I go back and read through the thread, I had no reason to believe that. Sorry.