One Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Sure. As long as the Constitution is interpreted Scalia-style, it's OK with you.

No. Constitution style.

 

[MrFedEx]

No. Constitution style.

Scalia time travels back to 1776 to "interpret" the Constitution as if he were a Founding Father. He isn't, but he is insane. Obama is a Constitutional lawyer, so my guess is that he knows a bit more about it than you do. Again, if things go your way, it's OK.

This country is changing...for the better. You're under the steamroller of progress already.

 

[Sportello]

When were the people allowed to vote on this issue ?
NEVER .
The elitists on Beacon Hill decided to not allow it .
So history will show that a judge made it legal , not an act of the people .

That's my beef about this whole thing .

So your beef is that they did the right thing before it was fashionable?

 

[Packmule]

Polygamy was not legalized, nor was a legal path to it. Incest and pederasty were not given an inside track, either.


Why is a free college education a bad thing?

Not yet. Just watch. The same legal wrangling that was used here will soon be considered a precedent for everything else.

 

[Sportello]

Not yet. Just watch. The same legal wrangling that was used here will soon be considered a precedent for everything else.

Dear ironic user name, thank you.

 

[soberups]

The governors of each state should just ignore SCOTUS's ruling on gay marriage. It is unconstitutional and can't be enforced. It's a state issue and SCOTUS, 5 of them anyway, are activist cronies that have an agenda to turn this country into some sort of sick liberal utopia.

This is the same Supreme Court that just affirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and forced Washington DC and Chicago to stop banning their residents from owning guns. Are the Heller and McDonald rulings also part of their "sick liberal agenda?" Your arguments for gay marriage being a "state issue" are the same ones the anti-gunners were using to justify their gun bans. You cant have it both ways.

 

[tourists24]

Did I mention the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution? What does that have to do with a gay marriage thread?

Get a grip.

I meant when it comes to marriage. Why or how legally is 2 people the magic number? The definition was a man and woman but is no longer the case.

 

[oldngray]

This is the same Supreme Court that just affirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and forced Washington DC and Chicago to stop banning their residents from owning guns. Are the Heller and McDonald rulings also part of their "sick liberal agenda?" Your arguments for gay marriage being a "state issue" are the same ones the anti-gunners were using to justify their gun bans. You cant have it both ways.

Part of the problem with that argument is guns are addressed in the Constitution (2nd Amendment) while marriage is a states rights issue.

 

[soberups]

Country? It would never get that far. I'd move to a different state though. Because unlike liberals I don't have a sense of entitlement that precludes me from being able to see the fallacy in me expecting an entire state to accommodate me.

How does allowing 2 people to marry constitute "accommodation"?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Scalia time travels back to 1776 to "interpret" the Constitution as if he were a Founding Father. He isn't, but he is insane. Obama is a Constitutional lawyer, so my guess is that he knows a bit more about it than you do. Again, if things go your way, it's OK.

This country is changing...for the better. You're under the steamroller of progress already.

Scalia is doing EXACTLY what was meant to happen. It doesn't matter if its 1798 or 2145. The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be the law of the land and wasn't supposed to be open to interpretation. Obama is not, WAS NOT, a Constitutional lawyer. And his actions, much like most liberals, clearly determines that he either doesn't care what the Constitution actually says or just doesn't understand it.

 

[Packmule]

Dear ironic user name, thank you.

Huh? Explain.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

How does allowing 2 people to marry constitute "accommodation"?

It doesn't. But a state changing it's laws for me and/or a small majority even though that state's population overwhelmingly rejected (per The Constitution, 10th Amendment) what I want is an accommodation.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

This is the same Supreme Court that just affirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and forced Washington DC and Chicago to stop banning their residents from owning guns. Are the Heller and McDonald rulings also part of their "sick liberal agenda?" Your arguments for gay marriage being a "state issue" are the same ones the anti-gunners were using to justify their gun bans. You cant have it both ways.

You are waaaay off on your comparison. SCOTUS was actually right on the mark with The Second Amendment because The Second Amendment's right to bear arms is a guaranteed right per The Constitution, therefore, covers all states (which is why the ant-gunners were wrong). Gay marriage, or any type of marriage for that matter, is definitely not (not even mentioned) guaranteed in The Constitution, therefore, falls under The Tenth Amendment.

 

[Sportello]

Huh? Explain.

Once again, I thank you.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Part of the problem with that argument is guns are addressed in the Constitution (2nd Amendment) while marriage is a states rights issue.

It'd be nice if people stopped trying to use the "state's rights" platform to push their religious beliefs on others.
It shouldn't be a federal or state issue. The government has no business being involved in marriage period.

 

[soberups]

You are waaaay off on your comparison. SCOTUS was actually right on the mark with The Second Amendment because The Second Amendment's right to bear arms is a guaranteed right per The Constitution, therefore, covers all states (which is why the ant-gunners were wrong). Gay marriage, or any type of marriage for that matter, is definitely not (not even mentioned) guaranteed in The Constitution, therefore, falls under The Tenth Amendment.

The 14th Amendment gurantees equal protection under the law for all citizens, not just straight ones.

And answer me this: as a gun owner and 2nd Amendment proponent, don't you think your Concealed Carry license should be valid in all 50 states, under the Full Faith and Credit article in the Constitution? If so, then shouldn't marriage licenses also be recognized in all 50 states? Or do you think states should be able to pick and choose which rights they choose to honor and which ones they don't?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

It'd be nice if people stopped trying to use the "state's rights" platform to push their religious beliefs on others.
It shouldn't be a federal or state issue. The government has no business being involved in marriage period.

They aren't pushing their religious beliefs on anyone. If anything they are protecting theirs. But you're right on the mark about the government having no business being involved in marriage period. Or most anything else for that matter. Anything they touch turns to shiiite.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

They aren't pushing their religious beliefs on anyone. If anything they are protecting theirs. But you're right on the mark about the government having no business being involved in marriage period. Or most anything else for that matter. Anything they touch turns to shiiite.

You realize if the government wasn't involved in marriage at all, gay marriage would have been legal all along right?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

The 14th Amendment gurantees equal protection under the law for all citizens, not just straight ones.

In the case of gay marriage....protection from what?

And answer me this: as a gun owner and 2nd Amendment proponent, don't you think your Concealed Carry license should be valid in all 50 states, under the Full Faith and Credit article in the Constitution? If so, then shouldn't marriage licenses also be recognized in all 50 states? Or do you think states should be able to pick and choose which rights they choose to honor and which ones they don't?

Yes, concealed carry should be recognized in all states for the very same reason I mentioned already. Because it falls under The Second Amendment that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

Marriage licenses are recognized in all 50 states because marriage is legal in all 50 states per The Tenth Amendment. Not because marriage is a Constitutional right. The Tenth Amendment ensures that each state can determine what isn't covered in The Constitution is covered by their own legislation. That's why a state wouldn't (I should say SHOULDN'T) be wrong for not recognizing a gay couple's marriage that came from out of state should their laws differ.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

You realize if the government wasn't involved in marriage at all, gay marriage would have been legal all along right?

Not unless you mean on a state by state basis. There are more than a handful of states that don't allow it. Government works best when it's limited in size and scope and sticks to it's role that is spelled out in The Constitution. If they left states alone many would probably give in and allow gay marriage. I don't approve of gay marriage myself but I definitely approve of letting states decide per The Tenth Amendment instead of the Fed forcing it upon them all with one big Constitution twisting brush stroke.