U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

Nice history lesson.

Now please explain to us why an un-elected, politically appointed
group of judiciary officials, politically appointed for life, have been
given the right to make laws based on a belief in an "evolving constitution"

That would be an interpretation of the constitution that is subject to the
whims of modern social and political thought and movements, and not
based on the ideas or intent of the original founders of the constitution.

And then call that constitutional. Originally Posted by bojulay

More whiney BS. First off, either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't. The court ruled as per its job (laid out clearly in the Articles of the Constitution) that the law applies to everyone equally. Second: all this bullshit about "unelected judges" was perfectly fine when it comes to decisions you agree with-- where was this crying when the Citizens United (or Bush v. Gore) ruling was handed down? So spare me the whiney wannabe Constitutional Scholar act just because you have sour grapes about the law applying equally to everyone. I get that it's controversial because not everyone is culturally okay with it, but marriage in the context of the ruling is the legal matter. You don't have to like it when people of two ethnic backgrounds marry either (I have a feeling that attitude is still prevalent here in TX), but that doesn't make their legal right to marry change. This is the same story.

Remember: they said the courts allowing blacks and whites to marry was "unconstitutional" as well, and SCOTUS rulings from the 50's onward on Civil Rights issues are where the whole "nullification" political language stems from. I get that there are people who don't like the ruling-- there are plenty of court rulings I don't like either-- but complaining about the SCOTUS doing their job as explicitly laid out in the core legal document of the land (the Constitution) then calling it unconstitutional is the pinnacle of hilarity. Defining and clarifying the interpretation of the law is literally what the judicial branch is there to do (and why it is separate from the legislative and executive).

So that's less a history lesson you need and more one of freshman level civics.

Further to the point: you should be happy the court ruled as it did, even if you openly hate Teh Gays with all your might. You see, had the court ruled against the couples in question then that would have given states free license to choose all manner of reasons to deny people the right to marry by law (or have their marriage recognized). Did you just move to a state where the majority of the people are of different political ideals? Well, had SCOTUS ruled differently the majority in that state would have been within their rights to deny recognition of your marriage or your right to marry (or even adopt or inherit or other things along those lines) for that reason. Believe it or not, SCOTUS saved you from your worst kind of nanny-state nightmare with their decision and you're all butthurt over it.

That is actually a trick question.
You can't, because it's not. Originally Posted by bojulay

Wrong. That's what our tripartite system (executive, legislative, and judicial branches) is explicitly directed to do according to the roles set in the Constitution. Have you ever actually read the thing? Not just the Amendments, the entire thing?

A republic is governed by the law (the constitution) and it has been
given over to a group of politically motivated, unaccountable, politically
appointed officials. To have their own agenda biased interpretations established
as law. Originally Posted by bojulay

You seem to have no idea how little you seem to understand about civics. Holy freaking hell you can start here for a simple explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separa...s_Constitution (don't worry it lists the actual Articles in the Constitution that you can go check for yourself)

Jeez you folks with your made up notions of how the government works...

Basically the same thing as a theocracy, and totalitarian at it's heart. Originally Posted by bojulay

Well, what you seem to be demanding be in place is a theocracy (which I agree is totalitarian). That's why I say you should be thanking SCOTUS.

I love the direction this conversation is taking, though. It just goes to show how little those arguing "the Constitution" actually give a shit about the actual document and really just want their own version of government that agrees only with them. This always happens when one side or the other wins a controversial case and the loser is all butthurt. I remember when the Gore fans (I voted Bush) got all whiney about the Constitution as well. Just like I said to them back then: get over it. This is the court doing the job it literally exists to perform.

They CAN refuse. But then they will be sued and lose. Most offices are already complying, the rest will come around in a week or two. A few folks -- like the gal in Arkansas who resigned today -- will make a spectacle of themselves. But somebody will be glad to take their job and issue certificates quicker than a cat can live its ass. Three weeks to a month, no one remembers it was ever a problem.

More whiney BS. First off, either the law applies to everyone equally or it doesn't.

So, the law applies to everyone equally?? then
that everyone should include mother marrying son, father marrying
daughter, sister marrying brother, grandson marrying grandmother,
etc. Also father marrying sister, daughter, son, and niece, can't
leave the bisexual, incestuous, polygamist out.
You seem very limited and willing to discriminate against these
people. What have they done to you?? They just want their rights
under the constitution

There are groups that lobby for just that, and
others that can't even be mentioned per the rules of this site.


Second: all this bullshit about "unelected judges" was perfectly fine when it comes to decisions you agree with.

You have poor reading comprehension, that
idea is exactly what I am against.

but complaining about the SCOTUS doing their job as explicitly laid out in the core legal document of the land (the Constitution) then calling it unconstitutional is the pinnacle of hilarity.

It was later added to the constitution and did
not gain it's real power until after Marshal 1801.
Please point out where the founding fathers described or believed
in an evolving constitution subject to the whims of political and
social agendas of un-elected officials, I would love to read that.



Further to the point: you should be happy the court ruled as it did, even if you openly hate Teh Gays with all your might. You see, had the court ruled against the couples in question then that would have given states free license to choose all manner of reasons to deny people the right to marry by law (or have their marriage recognized). Did you just move to a state where the majority of the people are of different political ideals? Well, had SCOTUS ruled differently the majority in that state would have been within their rights to deny recognition of your marriage or your right to marry (or even adopt or inherit or other things along those lines) for that reason. Believe it or not, SCOTUS saved you from your worst kind of nanny-state nightmare with their decision and you're all butthurt over it.

You are daft, it in no way would have been a
ruling against what was already established, please supply proof of
your ridiculous claim.



Wrong. That's what our tripartite system (executive, legislative, and judicial branches) is explicitly directed to do according to the roles set in the Constitution. Have you ever actually read the thing? Not just the Amendments, the entire thing?

Please supply evidence for the founders of the
constitution promoting the idea of an evolving constitution.



Well, what you seem to be demanding be in place is a theocracy (which I agree is totalitarian). That's why I say you should be thanking SCOTUS. Originally Posted by jdkees

You are trying here to project your liberal
desire to have a totalitarian overlord onto me

A totalitarian system has un-elected officials
determining and establishing laws.

I in no way believe the founders of the
constitution ever intended for a group of un-elected officials
(SCOTUS) to wield such power over the body of laws that
govern our country (the constitution)

You are trying here to project your liberal
desire to have a totalitarian overlord onto me Originally Posted by bojulay

You have a warped sense of reality. I'm not a liberal. But that's not good enough for what is obviously a case of the paranoia you're applying to fit your argument.

A totalitarian system has un-elected officials
determining and establishing laws. Originally Posted by bojulay

No, that's now what a totalitarian system means. You're just grabbing BS words from your ass and throwing them around. Besides, what the SCOTUS did has jack shit to do with what you're talking about. They didn't create the law, they provided the definitive answer at to how it is applied (in this case universally). Because that's their job laid out in the country's founding document.

I in no way believe the founders of the
constitution ever intended for a group of un-elected officials
(SCOTUS) to wield such power over the body of laws that
govern our country (the constitution) Originally Posted by bojulay

I don't care what you believe BECAUSE THEY WROTE IT DOWN FOR EVERYONE TO READ!

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


In the bolded text above, which is directly from Article III of the Constitution of the United States, I underlined the exact verbiage that is applicable specifically to this case in question. "—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States," is EXACTLY what this case entailed, and is specifically what the Constitution lays at the hands of the Judiciary as the responsible arbitrator.

If you had even the slightest bit of civic understanding, you would know that this power isn't absolute or unchecked. The Senate and Congress could indeed provide a change in the core law (which would likely involve an Amendment at this point) to override the SCOTUS ruling. However, until such time that our legislators create such a statute, the ruling stands. There's also the possibility for another case or an appeal to make its way all the way up the chain to the judges again, but the probability is pretty low in this particular issue.

But all of that's beside the point. The fact is that you folks don't give a shit about the rule of the law or the Constitution as it stands as a functional document. All you're doing is using the words "constitution" and "republic" and "unelected" without actually discussing them in a way that applies to the real world. You're just angry that your theocratic wet dream failed.

Answer me this, without the bullshit conservative/liberal whiney crap or the laughably imaginary government that's not based on reality that you keep insisting is in place:

What is your actual reason for being disappointed with the case?

Is it because it offends your religious sensibilities? Who fucking cares? Every citizen of this country isn't bound to live by your or my or anyone else's religious beliefs. Besides, the First Amendment explicitly disallows the government from choosing any religion over any other (even if, in places like Texas, that's applied only in theory and not practice). The fact is that your religion has jack shit to do with the law because this is not a theocracy.

Is it because you want to play the "Christian nation" game? Again, the First Amendment doesn't allow that to be a serious consideration when it comes to granting rights. In other words, unless you want a theocracy (which you claim to not want), then you need to supply something better than a religious argument.

Is it because two guys having buttsex offends you? Well, that's nowhere even in the time zone of being relevant, but rest assured that you don't have to have buttsex with anyone. Thus your delicate sensibilities (and butthole) can remain intact.

Please don't start with the "definition" game with marriage, lest I break out the history books again. Hell, even if we just stuck to Western (white, Christian) culture there are plenty of examples of "redefined" marriage and it's always come at the hands of governance and with the purpose of managing legal status. In just the past 200 years in the United States marriage has gone through a few changes in legal status (Loving v. VA as a case in point), so again any protestations are demonstrably irrelevant.

You don't get to impose your religious beliefs on others, and so far literally zero cases have been able to present a single argument that is based on anything that doesn't either originate from "my religion says so" or "ew gays are icky". To have a legal standing that holds up to any kind of scrutiny, there needs to be an argument that is based in reality and has some kind of precedent that's relevant to the law of the land. No one, not ever, in any attempt that I've ever seen, has been able to produce an argument against homosexuals marrying that doesn't require religious dominion (theocracy) or the "ew gays are icky" assertion.

You're welcome to try, though. It would be a fine break from the regurgitated talk radio talking points.

THN... what it does do is create the never ending subsequent legal actions to follow. Polygamy is probably next, then some sort of animal marriage.

Also, lawsuits against churches not wanting to reside over these marriages.

If the govt would leave us alone this shit wouldnt happen. Originally Posted by mediavolume

If redneck state governments would stop stomping on the Constitutional rights and protections of some of its citizens, there would be no need for government intervention.

Polygamy may be next, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be considered. The Christian and Muslim versions of polygamy – old men abusing young girls – has left a bad impression. But polygamy between consenting adults is another one of those things that doesn't affect anyone who is not involved, so I hope it will one day get its day in the Supreme Court.

Churches will never be forced to marry any couple they don't want to. The Constitution guarantees that. Churches were never forced to marry racial minorities or interracial couples. There is no reason to believe that this would change for same sex couples.

You can spot the retards when the topic of 'animal marriage' is used as an argument. Marriage requires consent and animals can't consent. Neither can toasters.

Secularism is a religion, properly understood.

It is the perfect marriage between church and state,
because few realize that fact. Totalitarian in spirit
as well. Originally Posted by bojulay

No, secularism protected by the state is the foundation of a democracy. The country you live in is the best example.

Like any good liberal you totally missed the point of my argument
which had nothing to do with religion. Why does every liberal seem
to try and relate everything to religion if someone disagrees with them??

It was about a group of UN-ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS wielding
the power they have over the constitution and the laws in this country,
and promoting the idea of a constitution and laws that are subject to the
evolving whims of contemporary political and social mores.

There is little to no accountability under such a system, it is isolationist,
centralizing, and totalitarian.

It is eliminating of the democratic system.

My argument is about the overreaching authority of an isolated
group of UN-ELECTED government officials in relation to the
constitution, which is a document concerned first and foremost
with the limiting of government power and control.

You are trying to spin it into something else, but I'll be darn,
I'm not letting you.

Nice history lesson.

Now please explain to us why an un-elected, politically appointed
group of judiciary officials, politically appointed for life, have been
given the right to make laws based on a belief in an "evolving constitution"

That would be an interpretation of the constitution that is subject to the
whims of modern social and political thought and movements, and not
based on the ideas or intent of the original founders of the constitution.

And then call that constitutional.

That is actually a trick question.
You can't, because it's not.

A republic is governed by the law (the constitution) and it has been
given over to a group of politically motivated, unaccountable, politically
appointed officials. To have their own agenda biased interpretations established
as law.

Basically the same thing as a theocracy, and totalitarian at it's heart. Originally Posted by bojulay

I think you need to find a new reference source, because your post is rubbish.

1. The SCOTUS Justices are nominated by the elected President, and approved by the elected Congress. Just like the AG, the leadership of the FAA, FCC, etc.. If you don't like the results, vote differently. If you don't like the results of the selection process, too bad. This is how it works in our democracy. You are free to move to any other country you wish.

2. The latest ruling that everyone is so excited about did not change a single law in any way. All it did was confirm that that marriage - and the 14th Amendment - applied to everyone. The 14th Amendment guarantees that all citizens have equal rights and protections.

3. The 14th Amendment is relevant because marriage provides citizens with rights and protections from both state and federal agencies. The issue could not be left to the States to decide because the Federal government also provides rights and protections for married couples (e.g., IRS tax benefits).

Your ramblings about theocracies are irrelevant. This ruling had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with equal application of the Constitution.

No, secularism protected by the state is the foundation of a democracy. The country you live in is the best example. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Secularism takes it's place right along side of every other religion.

Like any good liberal you totally missed the point of my argument
which had nothing to do with religion. Why does every liberal seem
to try and relate everything to religion if someone disagrees with them??

It was about a group of UN-ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS wielding
the power they have over the constitution and the laws in this country,
and promoting the idea of a constitution and laws that are subject to the
evolving whims of contemporary political and social mores.

There is little to no accountability under such a system, it is isolationist,
centralizing, and totalitarian.

It is eliminating of the democratic system. Originally Posted by bojulay

I am not a liberal. Why do you assume that every educated person that disagrees with you is a liberal?

I think you need to find a new reference source, because your post is rubbish.

1. The SCOTUS Justices are nominated by the elected President, and approved by the elected Congress. Just like the AG, the leadership of the FAA, FCC, etc.. If you don't like the results, vote differently. If you don't like the results of the selection process, too bad. This is how it works in our democracy. You are free to move to any other country you wish.

2. The latest ruling that everyone is so excited about did not change a single law in any way. All it did was confirm that that marriage - and the 14th Amendment - applied to everyone. The 14th Amendment guarantees that all citizens have equal rights and protections.

3. The 14th Amendment is relevant because marriage provides citizens with rights and protections from both state and federal agencies. The issue could not be left to the States to decide because the Federal government also provides rights and protections for married couples (e.g., IRS tax benefits).

Your ramblings about theocracies are irrelevant. This ruling had nothing to do with religion. It had everything to do with equal application of the Constitution. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Like I said, un-elected and holding their position for life.
Translation...little to no accountability.

Like any good liberal you totally missed the point of my argument
which had nothing to do with religion. Why does every liberal seem
to try and relate everything to religion if someone disagrees with them??

It was about a group of UN-ELECTED JUDICIARY OFFICIALS wielding
the power they have over the constitution and the laws in this country,
and promoting the idea of a constitution and laws that are subject to the
evolving whims of contemporary political and social mores.

There is little to no accountability under such a system, it is isolationist,
centralizing, and totalitarian.

It is eliminating of the democratic system. Originally Posted by bojulay

i am not a liberal, and I did not miss your point, which is rubbish.

There is a process to appoint Supreme Court Justices - are you familiar with it?

The people we elect submit the nominees.

Supreme Court Justices should not be elected directly. They would become politicians. If you think otherwise, you really don't understand how our government works.

I am not a liberal. Why do you assume that every educated person that disagrees with you is a liberal? Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Wasn't directed at you, you are like some child that wondered into the
middle of a movie.

i am not a liberal, and I did not miss your point, which is rubbish.

There is a process to appoint Supreme Court Justices - are you familiar with it?

The people we elect submit the nominees.

Supreme Court Justices should not be elected directly. They would become politicians. If you think otherwise, you really don't understand how our government works. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

If you don't know they are completely political then you really are lost.