Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dawnia said:
That we can agree on. There were many good points. I thought both lawyers did well in answering the questions. I think the judges were having fun messing with the one lawyer over his answer that a state could deny to recognize all marriages from another state. I got a giggle out of that exchange.
Click to expand...
I thought everyone did an excellent job. It isn’t an easy decision from a constitutional / legal point of view.
 
Monkey1976 said:
That is an interesting point: No religion - or non-religious philosophical system - disputes the validity of a male/female marriage. Claiming that two males or two females can be “married” is something supported by only a few religions or non-religious philosophical systems. If the laws force recognition of such pairings as “marriages”, how is that not a promotion of certain religions/philosophical systems above others?
Click to expand...
I submit the idea that 2 same-gendered persons are able to marry is clearly a religious view. The concept is indistinguishable from views the state already considers religious. It’s actually “more” religious because there isn’t even a natural argument for it. Biology obviously says its not compatible.
 
SeannyM said:
Thirdly, many of us are religious, so religion is not an obstacle for us, our biggest obstacle is those who would have us live in a theocracy of their making, with no respect for the religious freedom of others who don’t believe the same as them.
Click to expand...
Opposition to same sex “marriage” is not exclusively theocratic. Indeed, there have been several natural arguments against it. And no, natural law, is not a religious position but a philosophical one. Just because the majority of those opposed to gay “marriage” are religious does not mean that opposition is necessarily religious.
 
If they Supreme Court imposes homosexual marriage I wonder if this will be the final catalyst to move states into calling for a Constitutional convention?
 
estesbob said:
If they Supreme Court imposes homosexual marriage I wonder if this will be the final catalyst to move states into calling for a Constitutional convention?
Click to expand...
How would this happen for this issue? To ban same-sex marriage by this process, the state legislatures of two thirds of the states would have to request that Congress call a national convention and then that convention would have to adopt an amendment to ban same-sex marriage by a two thirds vote and then this amendment once passed by the convention would have to be ratified by three fourths (38) of the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions in three fourths (38) of the states. There is no way that two thirds of the state legislatures would call for a convention or that three fourths of them would vote to ratify an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
 
Thorolfr said:
How would this happen for this issue? To ban same-sex marriage by this process, the state legislatures of two thirds of the states would have to request that Congress call a national convention and then that convention would have to adopt an amendment to ban same-sex marriage by a two thirds vote and then this amendment once passed by the convention would have to be ratified by three fourths (38) of the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions in three fourths (38) of the states. There is no way that two thirds of the state legislatures would call for a convention or that three fourths of them would vote to ratify an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
They already have over 30 states on board. And it’s not just a same-sex marriage issue. There is also intense anger over abortion and the ACA . I personally think a constitutional convention would be a huge mistake but I also know that there is a lot of anger built up in this country over the imposition of laws and policies by judicial and executive fiat
 
Thorolfr said:
How would this happen for this issue? To ban same-sex marriage by this process, the state legislatures of two thirds of the states would have to request that Congress call a national convention and then that convention would have to adopt an amendment to ban same-sex marriage by a two thirds vote and then this amendment once passed by the convention would have to be ratified by three fourths (38) of the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions in three fourths (38) of the states. There is no way that two thirds of the state legislatures would call for a convention or that three fourths of them would vote to ratify an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the process that ought to be followed by supporters of same sex marriage if they wish to insert SSM into the Constitution, since it is not now and has never been there. To add SSM to the Constitution, the amendment process should be used. The Court has no authority to add amendments of its own volition.
 
JimG said:
This is exactly the process that ought to be followed by supporters of same sex marriage if they wish to insert SSM into the Constitution, since it is not now and has never been there. To add SSM to the Constitution, the amendment process should be used. The Court has no authority to add amendments of its own volition.
Click to expand...
No one needs an amendment to establish same-sex marriage nationwide. That’s what Article IV and the 14th Amendment are for.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
No one needs an amendment to establish same-sex marriage nationwide. That’s what Article IV and the 14th Amendment are for.
Click to expand...
Yes, was it Representative John Bingham who argued in 1863 that the Amendment was needed to ensure access to abortion and to same sex marriage? Maybe not. It does seem strange that there was not much controversy over the fact that the amendment would legalize same sex marriage. Surely it was obvious to the authors.
 
SeannyM said:
How can you possibly claim to know what we want? This entire post is disgustingly hateful and plain wrong. First, there is a very strong desire amongst many gays to marry for the same reasons straight people want to marry. Secondly, there is no gay “lifestyle,” the gay community is just as diverse as the rest of society. Thirdly, many of us are religious, so religion is not an obstacle for us, our biggest obstacle is those who would have us live in a theocracy of their making, with no respect for the religious freedom of others who don’t believe the same as them. And lastly, it is deeply hateful and hurtful to imply that an entire group of people are driven by an urge to rape at will… Which is what you seem to state in your last paragraph there.
Click to expand...
Good post. I think though the biggest obstacle you mentioned and having no respect for others who don’t believe the same as they do, is not an obstacle limited to the gay community or with regard to marriage equality. But rather transcends to other issues as well.
 
MODERATOR WARNING

Please charitably discuss the issues and not other members
 
estesbob said:
If they Supreme Court imposes homosexual marriage I wonder if this will be the final catalyst to move states into calling for a Constitutional convention?
Click to expand...
I was discussing with a friend who knows a fair amount about the constitution why there has not been many changes to the document. He was confounded by how we could be so timid towards “touching” the document even though it was designed to be adjusted to meet the needs of the day with consideration as to how those decisions would impact the future. I was taught it is a “living document” that was designed not to be static.

I was wondering if the issues we are having now are in part due to our fear of tampering with the document though it was not designed to be a dead icon or relic?

Someone said this week on tv (snarkely), “God doesn’t live in the Supreme Court, the laws do.”. I contend that living laws cannot live if they are derived from a “dead” document. If that document is vacumn sealed then what in reality are the Justices supposedly doing?
 
elsker said:
I was discussing with a friend who knows a fair amount about the constitution why there has not been many changes to the document. He was confounded by how we could be so timid towards “touching” the document even though it was designed to be adjusted to meet the needs of the day with consideration as to how those decisions would impact the future. I was taught it is a “living document” that was designed not to be static.

I was wondering if the issues we are having now are in part due to our fear of tampering with the document though it was not designed to be a dead icon or relic?

Someone said this week on tv (snarkely), “God doesn’t live in the Supreme Court, the laws do.”. I contend that living laws cannot live if they are derived from a “dead” document. If that document is vacumn sealed then what in reality are the Justices supposedly doing?
Click to expand...
According to Wikipedia (source link no longer works) there are over 200 proposed amendments every 2 year term. That seems like a lot to me. It is not that noone wants to change the Constitution. It that noone can agree on how it should be changed. Hence the reason we only have 27 Amendments.
 
Dawnia said:
According to Wikipedia (source link no longer works) there are over 200 proposed amendments every 2 year term. That seems like a lot to me. It is not that noone wants to change the Constitution. It that noone can agree on how it should be changed. Hence the reason we only have 27 Amendments.
Click to expand...
27 Amendments for a country of millions, a country whose age is 300 years is mind blowingly slim considering how much has changed in this country. You wouldn’t want it to have 100’s of amendments but you’d think the Constitution would reflect some of the passage of time!
 
SeannyM said:
How can you possibly claim to know what we want? This entire post is disgustingly hateful and plain wrong. First, there is a very strong desire amongst many gays to marry for the same reasons straight people want to marry. Secondly, there is no gay “lifestyle,” the gay community is just as diverse as the rest of society. Thirdly, many of us are religious, so religion is not an obstacle for us, our biggest obstacle is those who would have us live in a theocracy of their making, with no respect for the religious freedom of others who don’t believe the same as them. And lastly, it is deeply hateful and hurtful to imply that an entire group of people are driven by an urge to rape at will… Which is what you seem to state in your last paragraph there.
Click to expand...
Peace to you. In your first sentence you group all those who are “gay”( a word sadly taken over by the gay culture you say does not exist,) as WE. What is the meaning of culture to you? If you look into the group called COURAGE which consists of those who are attracted to the same sex but live a chaste life, you will read as well as see interviews which do show a gay culture out there.
Anyone who has a friend or family member who chooses not to remain chaste will explain the gay culture out there. Do all gay people belong to such a way of life? Surly no. But there is a militant gay culture out there. The secular media is in full swing with that culture. It is absolutely scandalous for me to see any pictures of gay people sexually involved through the media,internet and magazines. ie holding hands, kissing or in wedding garments at a service. Talk about abusing children, our media does it daily by showing these disordered acts to our youth and young children.
I have no hate for anyone who is living in sin-- we are all sinners! All need the gift of God to change hearts. I hate the evil act of murder but do I hate the murder-- no. I hate when people lie but to I hate the person who does not tell the truth. No-- I’m called to be merciful and to forgive those who hurt me but I do not have to say murder is right or active homosexual living is right or marrying someone of the same gender is right. No one hates the active homosexual but we might hate what some of those who are promoting this lifestyle are doing to our Christian - Judeo culture and our society which lives by family life – Sodom and Gomorrah is considered light compared to what Jesus says will happen in the future to those who disregard the laws of God. keeping you in prayer and no one hates you. If they do then they are not pleasing to God.
 
elsker said:
I was discussing with a friend who knows a fair amount about the constitution why there has not been many changes to the document. He was confounded by how we could be so timid towards “touching” the document even though it was designed to be adjusted to meet the needs of the day with consideration as to how those decisions would impact the future. I was taught it is a “living document” that was designed not to be static.

I was wondering if the issues we are having now are in part due to our fear of tampering with the document though it was not designed to be a dead icon or relic?

Someone said this week on tv (snarkely), “God doesn’t live in the Supreme Court, the laws do.”. I contend that living laws cannot live if they are derived from a “dead” document. If that document is vacumn sealed then what in reality are the Justices supposedly doing?
Click to expand...
Problem is this “living” document is changed by nine political appointees .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top