Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[Katganistan]

I'm going to screenshot your post, then post it if it actually does happen, which would not surprise me tbh

Do you understand how our Constitutional Republic works?

Clearly not. Along with many hysterical types who scream about activist judges, states rights, and other associated nonsense.

[NeoColumbia]

Do you understand how our Constitutional Republic works?

Clearly not. Along with many hysterical types who scream about activist judges, states rights, and other associated nonsense.

So if you don't agree with certain peoples "rights" then their nonsense?
Good to know.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Clearly not. Along with many hysterical types who scream about activist judges, states rights, and other associated nonsense.

So if you don't agree with certain peoples "rights" then their nonsense?
Good to know.

What? I feel like that is a horrid strawman but I frankly don't even know what you're on about.

[The Conez Imperium]

So people can choose to be Gay? Funny how it not being a choice used to be justification for why it wasn't wrong ,now that its mainstream people conveniently drop that lie.
Homosexual sex is wrong and those who choose to engage it it are wrong.

Homosexual marriage does not equate to homosexual sex. What an extrapolation of assumptions...

The bans on Same-sex marriage, in my opinion, are unconstitutional

Based on what? Obviously the founding fathers, the ones that wrote the constitution didn't think so, Thomas Jefferson thought that Homosexuals should be castrated.

Doesn't the American constitution grant that all citizens are born equal, have access to the same stuff? How are citizens equal if some are granted marriage and others are not?

[Katganistan]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

[The Alexanderians]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Actually marriage is seen as less and less important as time goes on and their a lot more supporters towards defining it as purely a cultural or religious thing. So it's less of a fundamental right as opposed to a cultural one. it's still a right however and they should have it regardless.

[The United Territories of Providence]

The LGBT community has been fighting this fight for decades, and they may finally see some progress.

I like the part where they got homosexuality declassified as a mental illness by protesting the APA incessantly rather than actually you know, use science.

Now we are at a a point today where people are claiming mental illnesses don't exist at all, nope it's just nuerodiversity! That's "progress" i guess:roll:

There's no guarantee the courts will rule in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, but we've got to hope. No American should feel like a second class citizen in their own country, especially when they've done nothing wrong and just happened to be born homosexual or decided to be homosexual.

So people can choose to be Gay? Funny how it not being a choice used to be justification for why it wasn't wrong ,now that its mainstream people conveniatly drop that lie.
Homosexual sex is wrong and those who choose to engage it it are wrong.

The bans on Same-sex marriage, in my opinion, are unconstitutional,

Based on what? Obviously the founding fathers, the ones that wrote the constitution didn't think so, Thomas Jefferson thought that Homosexuals should be castrated.

Even if you don't understand homosexuals, that does not mean they're inherently evil or the way they live is unnatural.

It is unnatural unless your definitionf for natural is "anything that occurs in nature", by that definition rape,necrophilia, incest and all other sorts of terrible things are also "natural". Most acts of Homosexuality in Nature involving males occur out of a display of dominance, more akin to prison rape than romance.

Some law makers, and millions of Americans disagree.

Civil rights for all except those who disagree, that the point of this law right? Overturning what the people decided should be the law in their own states?

But these were the same people arguing that interracial marriage would lead to the breakdown of American society, yet here we are 50 years later....our country lead by the product of interracial relations.

Yes look at our rising economy, racial harmony, adequate employment and infastructure.
I bet you live in nice mostly white community don't you?

I believe that if the court rules in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, the LGBT community will be making it's first real inroads to equality. Because marriage isn't the real issue, it's just emblematic of a larger problem. The problem being that it's still an acceptable position to hold that gay people shouldn't be allowed in some businesses, shouldn't be hired by some companies, and shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

So it's NOT actually about marriage?
Didn't the first Gay married couple actually get divorced recently?

Should Same-Sex Marriages be legalized Nationwide, why or why not?

No, because their no point and this will end with more priests being force to perform ceremonies they find immoral or face legal reprocussions, how's that for civil rights

You're going to be left on the wrong side of history. I'm not going to argue with you because you're not rational,but know that regardless of your opinion....this country will eventually do what's right. I'm going to address something, I'm black and I live about 20 minutes from Ferguson and I honestly don't know what you're supposing with your crack about the state of our country.You're wrong, and I find you repugnant.I'm certainly in no position to decide what's American and what's not. But your attitude doesn't embrace the American spirit of Equality and Justice, I don't know if you're a troll or what but I can only hope that one day you'll understand why what you believe is so fucked up. Until that day though, I implore you to look further into the issues.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Jut so you don't forget, CD, I'm still waiting on a response to this.

Read the Loving decision yourself rather than relying on LGBT reinterpretations of it.

I think they should apply the same reasoning as behind Roe v. Wade: nobody's fucking business except the involved parties and their practitioners.

Applying its abortion precedent, the Supreme Court would be ruling against LGBT plaintiffs. The Supreme Court has said that a woman has a right to determine on her own whether or not to obtain an abortion, but she does not have the right to demand government support for her decision. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), finding that women, although they should be able to procure abortions, have no right to demand government support for abortion in the form of financial resources.

If the Supreme Court takes the path you suggest, the government must allow gays and lesbians to act on their sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas), but it has no obligation to endorse homosexuality in the form of civil marriage and its accompanying benefits.

In addition, the abortion case law holds "that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn." Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 870 (1992). Given that the Supreme Court applies rational basis review to sexual orientation cases, all the state has to do is prove that it has a legitimate interest in promoting heterosexual monogamy. In other words, if the Court treats abortion and homosexuality the same, then it will uphold traditional marriage laws as legitimate.

Bullshit. No straight married couple is obligated to have children, and your stance ignores the fact that many same sex couples DO have kids.

Your post ignores the legal test. The state does not have to offer a compelling or even a substantial justification for its position. All it has to prove is a rational connection. Being heterosexual and having children are significantly correlated. The connection is rational.

I find it hilarious that you find the Loving v Virginia case as a ground that the case dealt with marriage as an essential because of procreation.

[Greed and Death]

It is in line with American ideals. Why do you think we were against the Soviets in the Cold War?

Because they wanted same sex marriage?

Don't be absurd.

They were anti-religion and leftist.

God, where did you learn history?!? What's with kids these days?!?!?!?

No Child Left Behind.

[Christian Democrats]

But denying someone a marriage license it different than denying someone the right to vote.

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

[Katganistan]

I'm just curious, Texas and Louisiana both have the right to leave the union in their constitutions. There have been grumblings by some far right wing groups (including what's left of the KKK) that both states should. I wonder if they'll get any louder if this passes.

*snorts* Good luck with that. How are you all going to fund interstates, schools and all the rest? Louisiana is one of those states that gets more federal money out of the government than it collects in tax revenues.


Were it legal, which it is not, Texas actually COULD make a go of it financially, but Texas and Lousiana would both face the same problem: the US military should the US decide not to let them go.

Or do you think you keep all the benefits of the military bases in your state, and all the materiel and men attached to them?

Even were they allowed to go, How do you ship your goods for sale? All by air? Expensive. By water? Surely not easily through the border crossings that would exist on all sides of you, especially since both states would probably be considered hostile, having left the union.

It's a silly, illegal idea that's not at all well thought through.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

You keep using the words "fundamental to our survival"

I don't think that means what you think it means.

[Mavorpen]

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Is interracial marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

[Geilinor]

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

The Supreme Court can build upon the precedent and extend it.

[Lost heros]

The LGBT community has been fighting this fight for decades, and they may finally see some progress.

I like the part where they got homosexuality declassified as a mental illness by protesting the APA incessantly rather than actually you know, use science.

Now we are at a a point today where people are claiming mental illnesses don't exist at all, nope it's just nuerodiversity! That's "progress" i guess:roll:

Sources por favor.

There's no guarantee the courts will rule in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, but we've got to hope. No American should feel like a second class citizen in their own country, especially when they've done nothing wrong and just happened to be born homosexual or decided to be homosexual.

So people can choose to be Gay? Funny how it not being a choice used to be justification for why it wasn't wrong ,now that its mainstream people conveniatly drop that lie.
Homosexual sex is wrong and those who choose to engage it it are wrong.

I will admit the OP messed up with his wording on that end. But still no, we have shown that sexuality is not a choice.
Why is homosexual sex wrong?

The bans on Same-sex marriage, in my opinion, are unconstitutional,

Based on what? Obviously the founding fathers, the ones that wrote the constitution didn't think so, Thomas Jefferson thought that Homosexuals should be castrated.

The founding fathers also owned slaves and fought a war so they didn't have to pay taxes. They're also dead, so why should we care what they thought.

It's unconstitutional because it restricts our 9th amendment.

Even if you don't understand homosexuals, that does not mean they're inherently evil or the way they live is unnatural.

It is unnatural unless your definitionf for natural is "anything that occurs in nature", by that definition rape,necrophilia, incest and all other sorts of terrible things are also "natural". Most acts of Homosexuality in Nature involving males occur out of a display of dominance, more akin to prison rape than romance.

If you recognize that nature isn't pure and good, why do you care what is natural and what isn't?

Some law makers, and millions of Americans disagree.

Civil rights for all except those who disagree, that the point of this law right? Overturning what the people decided should be the law in their own states?

Laws that are based by tyranny by majority in state governments should be overturned by the federal government. State sovereignty is good and all until you start messing with other people's rights.

But these were the same people arguing that interracial marriage would lead to the breakdown of American society, yet here we are 50 years later....our country lead by the product of interracial relations.

Yes look at our rising economy, racial harmony, adequate employment and infastructure.
I bet you live in nice mostly white community don't you?

No one said race relations were perfect. That doesn't change the fact that things are improving since the 1950s.

I believe that if the court rules in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, the LGBT community will be making it's first real inroads to equality. Because marriage isn't the real issue, it's just emblematic of a larger problem. The problem being that it's still an acceptable position to hold that gay people shouldn't be allowed in some businesses, shouldn't be hired by some companies, and shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

So it's NOT actually about marriage?
Didn't the first Gay married couple actually get divorced recently?

This has to do with people being treated equally regardless of sexuality, which does include marriage rights.

And so?

Should Same-Sex Marriages be legalized Nationwide, why or why not?

No, because their no point and this will end with more priests being force to perform ceremonies they find immoral or face legal reprocussions, how's that for civil rights

You don't know what marriage is do you?

[Tsaraine]

Whichever way this goes, it's a little sad that it won't have a name as good as Loving v. Virginia.

[Christian Democrats]

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Is interracial marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

The Supreme Court can build upon the precedent and extend it.

That's the point. The Supreme Court would have to change its precedent to reach a pro-gay conclusion. The case law does not support a decision against the states.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I have hope that the Court will reject SSM. This is due to 5 conservative justices and 4 liberal ones.

Why would you want other people to be unjustly discriminated against?

It is not discrimination at all.

It is in line with American ideals. Why do you think we were against the Soviets in the Cold War?

Because they wanted same sex marriage?

Don't be absurd.

They were anti-religion and leftist.

God, where did you learn history?!? What's with kids these days?!?!?!?

I learned it from my history teacher and internet sources.

[Alien Space Bats]

After all, don't many of these same "gays are sinful!" type scream for LESS government intervention in their lives?

When they carp about "big government", what they mean is support for the welfare state. What they want is not only a smaller and more local government, but one that focuses on enforcing their moral values on society, while doing nothing for the poor and nothing to stop businessmen from doing whatever they please to whomever they wish without restriction. Welfare bad, business regulation bad, banning homosexuality and forcing women into their tradition sex roles good. See how that works?

[Katganistan]

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Actually marriage is seen as less and less important as time goes on and their a lot more supporters towards defining it as purely a cultural or religious thing. So it's less of a fundamental right as opposed to a cultural one. it's still a right however and they should have it regardless.

Source that nonsense, please. Marriage is secularly a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves.

[Katganistan]

God, where did you learn history?!? What's with kids these days?!?!?!?

No Child Left Behind.

Fux News.

[Mavorpen]

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species.

You didn't answer my question. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.

No, they do not. Interracial relationships do not fall under it. Interracial relationships are not required for the species to exist and survive. And you know that. And that's why you don't want to answer a simple question.

[Novorobo]

As badly as they fucked up on Citizens United, I don't trust them for a second on this.

They knew exactly what they were doing; the more money changing hands among the powerful, the higher the incentive for politicians to cater to their donors instead of constituents, and in turn, the less influence the public has over who gets appointed to the bench.

This, however, presents no plausible incentive for them to oppose this. Other than maybe personal glory, but I doubt most of them are conservative enough to want to be remembered fondly by the opponents of gay marriage, who are dwindling in number anyway, instead of by everyone else.

Also, anyone else think Stephen Fry choosing now to get married might have a bit to do with this? Is that worth its own thread?

[Lost heros]

Is interracial marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.

The Supreme Court can build upon the precedent and extend it.

That's the point. The Supreme Court would have to change its precedent to reach a pro-gay conclusion. The case law does not support a decision against the states.

What does survival have to do with human rights exactly?
Also it is not crazy for the supreme court to change precedent. Plessy vs. Ferguson was changed.

[Katganistan]

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

Folderol. You're applying a religious meaning to the word in a secular society, that has BEEN a secular society since its creation.

Do you not understand the First Amendment? Or the Treaty of Tripoli?