Supreme court screws us over (some more)
- Thread starter Mafesto
- Start date
No matter what your opinion on the queer issue,
the bigger travesty here is the power being stolen from the individual states and taken over by a group of out of touch, leftist, elderly fools who have a lifetime guarantee of a free ride.
Messed up system.
the bigger travesty here is the power being stolen from the individual states and taken over by a group of out of touch, leftist, elderly fools who have a lifetime guarantee of a free ride.
Messed up system.
I
inspector01
Well-known member
Remember how snowmobilers hate being told when and where they can ride by people who know nothing about them, and aren't affected by the decisions? Well it's kinda like that, except it affects everything and everyday of their lives, not just their weekend hobby. Id love to hear how gay marriage is harming you and should be illegal though? Maybe stirring up some feelings you weren't ready to address again?
If you're suprised by the Feds pushing their power over states rights, well clearly you've missed most of US history.
If you're suprised by the Feds pushing their power over states rights, well clearly you've missed most of US history.
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
next is people marry animals.LOL
Re-read my post...
"the bigger travesty here is the power being stolen from the individual states"
But, as long as you asked,
I could care less who anyone decides to do the nasty with.
But this decision is just yet another step towards integrating alternative lifestyles into our mainstream culture.
The problem I have with that is our children are now being taught that this is normal. That it is just another choice for them to make in life.
Well, it is NOT normal. And I would prefer that our children were still taught that it is not acceptable public behavior.
Now don't label me a hater.
A friend of mine came out a few years ago & we are still good friends.
I wish for him to be happy.
The nice thing is, he is not going to be caught with any inappropriate public displays of affection.
Well there was this young girl and a donkey in Tijuana that really seemed to.........well, that's a whole nuther discussion.
Marriage was created and defined by God, The SCOTUS has no authority or jurisdiction to redefine it as was pointed out in 1972!
The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled the “gay marriage” debate. In its 1972 Baker v. Nelson decision, the high court found that there is no “federal question” surrounding the definition of marriage. That is to say, there is no constitutional “equal protection” right (or any other right for that matter) to so-called “same-sex marriage.”
This, my friends, was the law of the land. Now activist judges have decided that the constitution is no longer applicable! Words no longer have a meaning and may be redefined to fit any activists whim.
It’s an idea no less silly than a giant pink bunny hiding eggs behind trees. It’s an oxymoron. It’s contradiction-in-terminis. It’s like pointing to your lawn and saying, “What a beautiful green sky.”
Oh, sure, there are thousands of people hopping around pretending to be, perhaps even believing themselves to be, “married” to someone of the same sex. Still, and while nice folks they may be, these nice folks labor under an unfortunate fairytale.
Fairytales are for children.
The “gay marriage” fairytale hurts children.
Here’s what marriage is. Marriage is the God-ordained, lifelong, covenantal union between man and wife, designed to provide men, women and children optimal stability and overall well-being. Marriage is that biologically, spiritually and morally centered institution calculated to ensure responsible procreation and perpetuate the human race. Marriage, real marriage, represents the fundamental cornerstone of any healthy society (any society that hopes to survive, at least).
Here’s what marriage is not:
Anything else.
I
inspector01
Well-known member
Did you choose who you were attracted to? I doubt it, so why would someone else have to do that? Haven't you ever met a kid that you know is gay from a young age? You think they decided by 5 to become stereotypically gay? It isn't a choice, it has been happening for century's (just generally kept hush hush), and it happens with animals too. Just because you don't feel a certain way, or understand it, doesn't mean no one else does.
Tattoos, plastic surgery, hair dye are not "normal," do you have a tough time explaining that to your kids? Should they be illegal? Or do you just act like a reasonable adult and tell them that "different people prefer different things, and if you don't like it, you ignore it, it doesn't affect you."
I
inspector01
Well-known member
You may recall a little thing called freedom of religion, wherefor the church is separate from the state. So your God of choice doesn't determine laws or definitions, and neither does my god or anyone else's. As it should be.
This is just another example of why there needs to be separation between church and state. Too bad there is no such thing in this country anymore and doubt there ever really was. Like abortion, this issue should never have been made into a political football. However people with strict religious convictions made them both into one. I could care less what you believe in Baha'i, Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism. or the countless off shoots of these created by people who did not like certain aspects of their teaching and went off to create their own belief system and called it a new religion. I also don't care who you sleep with because it doesn't effect me in the least. The one thing i do car about is that every person in this country have the same rights with the person standing next to them regardless of the fact of their personal opinions might differ. All of this rhetoric is based on personal opinions that have religious overtones/undertone the state what "Normal" is and what the definition what "Moral" is. I hate to break it to you but you don't have the right to say you opinion is the right one and must be upheld as law of the land. That is just being narrow minded. it come down to evolution. if species don't evolve they die this also include belief structures which obviously effect personal opinions.
Son, you keep missing the whole point of the thread!
For the third phukkin time......
"the bigger travesty here is the power being stolen from the individual states"
If SD as a state decides to acknowledge gay marriage, I will accept that.
But it is unconstitutional for the US Supreme Court Judges to decide that for the individual states.
That is my point.
That is why I am all worked up.
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
wonder if snowest will offer a gay married pride badge.
First of all there is no statement in the constitution calling for separation of church and state, read It. Secondly you can not revise history simply by not liking it the definition of marriage goes To Genesis and was created by God. If you do not wish to believe in God that is your right But you have no right to define my right of belief any more than I would force you to believe as I do.
If you want to get into a discussion as to religion in this country we will need a whole new Post . Putting religion aside lets keep the argument on constitutionality. I have already noted :
The U.S. Supreme Court has already settled the “gay marriage” debate. In its 1972 Baker v. Nelson decision, the high court found that there is no “federal question” surrounding the definition of marriage. That is to say, there is no constitutional “equal protection” right (or any other right for that matter) to so-called “same-sex marriage.”
Also a couple of other cases:
The Supreme Court has, in other cases, likewise upheld the critical nature of natural man-woman marriage.
• Marriage is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
• “An institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (1888).
You apparently fail to realize the real issue here which is jurisdiction as the court has previously ruled states have independent jurisdiction which is superior within the states.
“. . . The great innovation of this design was that ‘our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other’” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.” (P. 920)
Scalia quotes President James Madison, “father” of the Constitution: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist, No. 39 at 245.
Again and again, Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty:
The “supremacy clause” is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated once and for all, that the only thing “supreme” is the Constitution itself. Where by the powers, the Sheriff reigns supreme above the president
So as you can see the issue is the rule of Law, in Ob care the court ruled the rule of law is dead and words do not mean what the law says and in this case it has stated the Common Law is dead and the constitution has no meaning or effect only the whims of the judges at the time are the law, we no longer have law in the United States!
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
..
I'm for it, but they will soon wonder why they wanted it!
Less rules=better life
With all the strike outs I get with the alcoholic tattoo crazy women trying to act like the independent man makes me wonder if I shouldn't just be trying to pick up men!
Greg giraldo said it best
https://youtu.be/6kr6R-BRKy0 https://youtu.be/UFgsJxf7bDc
Less rules=better life
With all the strike outs I get with the alcoholic tattoo crazy women trying to act like the independent man makes me wonder if I shouldn't just be trying to pick up men!
Greg giraldo said it best
https://youtu.be/6kr6R-BRKy0 https://youtu.be/UFgsJxf7bDc
Last edited:
How about this hypocrisy, this same courts ruling June 2013 on DOMA. The exact same judges!
WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
“regulation of domestic relations” is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,
The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of mar¬riage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594.(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).
Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state ¬law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956),
The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280
U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful—such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State.
WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.
“regulation of domestic relations” is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393,
The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of mar¬riage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594.(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”).
Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state ¬law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956),
The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280
U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary (most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful—such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State.
Swampwater I got to hand it to you. You definitely know how to use google or whatever internet search engine you use to find all these quotes that you then use word for word to make it look like you have your hand on the pulse of society and appear very knowledgeable on the subject at hand. You sight court case after court case using blanket statements to try to prove your point. All of which come from Very Very conservative web sites that have a very narrow belief system and have very narrow objectives. This is perfectly fine with me if that is what you believe. Just don't be surprised if other people don't hold those same out dated beliefs
I have to hand it to Mafesto too becasue he used the old bait and switch to start this thread. he states and i quote word for word from the internet here
"So the supreme court has decided that your state does not have the right uphold morals. They have ruled that gay marriage must be legalized in all states".
Once everyone latched onto the words "Morals & Gay Marraige" he comes back and says Wait just a minute guys!!! i was not talking about "Morals or Gay marriage" I was talking about court jurisdiction. Nicely done my friend nicely done
I have to hand it to Mafesto too becasue he used the old bait and switch to start this thread. he states and i quote word for word from the internet here
"So the supreme court has decided that your state does not have the right uphold morals. They have ruled that gay marriage must be legalized in all states".
Once everyone latched onto the words "Morals & Gay Marraige" he comes back and says Wait just a minute guys!!! i was not talking about "Morals or Gay marriage" I was talking about court jurisdiction. Nicely done my friend nicely done
Similar threads
