L
Laurent_LUG
Guest
Suppose what if the next president declares this law back illegal/unlawful
- Status
K
KSU
Guest
Thank you, Laurent LUG. But now you made my head hurt
L
Laurent_LUG
Guest
usually when when hit someone , i’ll use a sledgehammer 
Anyway , i’m glad i could help you
Back-Topic:
We people are strange different creatures & different toughts
Anyway , i’m glad i could help you
Back-Topic:
We people are strange different creatures & different toughts
K
KSU
Guest
Option A: The new president could ask the Republican congress to pass a law declaring (1) the court’s decision null and void because it usurped congressional, state and constitutional authority; and (2) that all federal court jurisdiction over the matter is revoked.Suppose what if the next president declares this law back illegal/unlawful
Option B: He could pull an Obama. That is, he could simply issue an Executive order to the same effect.
Option B, of course, is a joke, just like its namesake.
J
JimG
Guest
It is astonishing to me that anyone takes the idea of same sex “marriage” seriously. The fact that supreme court judges do so confirms that the culture has really lost its sanity. It’s as if one were to declare that geocentrism is an idea whose time has come, (and surprisingly, some people do take geocentrism seriously.)
To suggest that persons of the same sex are capable of marriage would simply be laughed off the table 20 years ago. That an intrinsically non-marital paring can be marital is a contradiction. It’s a sign of a civilization descending into chaos.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
That is just it. Human sexuality is more than a mere social convention. Marriage is more than a mere social convention. The legal premise that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equivalent and interchangeable is an example of willful rejection of reality. Taking the foundational relationship that makes marriage possible and declaring that it is the same thing as a same-sex relationship is an injustice because it is a lie.
When you play bridge and there are four suits of thirteen cards each and spades is higher than hearts is higher than diamonds is higher than clubs, that is a social convention. Refraining from wearing white shoes between Labor Day and Memorial Day is a social convention. A two-party system with an executive, legislative, and judicial branches is a social convention.
Marriage is not. It is one thing to decide whether or not civil law is going to choose to recognize marriage as something the government ought to regulate, but it is quite another to invent a entirely new social convention and call it marriage.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Sure. Though people of various sexualities could already engage in sex without legal penalty before this union (though that hasn’t always been the case in USA history). There was another Supreme Court ruling over that.
It’s a social convention, along with the rules and laws written around it. They’ve different over time and geography. This is a different time with different rules. Various people have additional views about marriage. For example, some people see love as an integral part of marriage. But not every one does. So the views are non-uniform In the USA there are laws in property inheritance, confidentiality rights, eligibility for health and other benefits, and more that are associated with marriage status.
It’s not entirely new. In the general case what need is there to be able to distinguish between whether some one is married to someone of the opposite sex of same sex? If I hear that Jim is married other than curiosity is there a problem that comes with not knowing if Jim is married to Alice or Mike?
F
Finite
Guest
It’s legal. End of story. This isn’t going to be a Roe v Wade situation. The court will never again address the issue of SSM. And in a couple of years, hardly anyone will even think about it anymore.
Because the sky isn’t falling. Some couples who have been together 10, 20, even 40 years can get married now. Some have been together two months and will do the same (just like a lot of kids do).
My life hasn’t personally changed. Neither has most anyone else’s, save the gay and lesbians who want to get married.
The end.
Because the sky isn’t falling. Some couples who have been together 10, 20, even 40 years can get married now. Some have been together two months and will do the same (just like a lot of kids do).
My life hasn’t personally changed. Neither has most anyone else’s, save the gay and lesbians who want to get married.
The end.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
You wish!
A lot of people felt the way you do when Prohibition became the law of the land. A lot of people were very disappointed when it was repealed. Remember, a “right” granted by a government can be taken away by that government.
Sociologists, economists, behavioral scientists and political scientists have no idea what the cultural effects SSM will have on our society. The judges, especially, have no clue or concern.
The last major change in the institution of marriage occurred centuries ago. That was the gradual end of arranged marriages. This took a few centuries and was not forced on us by law.
R
Rau
Guest
I though the job of the Supreme Court in this matter was to tell the citizens what terms were already present in their constitution on the subject at hand, not to say what “should be”.
If the Supreme Court are thought to be wrong, or the people are shocked to find support for SSM in their constitution, then the people should be advocating for constitutional change. Of course, the latter is difficult, no matter the issue.
One wonders whether a 5:4 decision on a matter such as this, resolved not on fact or law but some view of “what should be”, should instead have been taken to the people as a referendum question at the next election.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Good point Rau…
The U.S. Constitution does not mention marriage at all. Yet on two occasions a slim majority of the Supreme Court has interpreted an Amendment in a way that grants marriage “rights” to homosexuals.
While a law that overrides this decision or an outright repeal would be difficult and take time…the stage is set for a collision of “rights” when religious rights vs. gay rights occur.
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t know if legislation can resolve the issue if the constitution is held to already be definitive. I assume it cannot. The surest resolution, as with the insane interpretation of the right to bear arms, is to make the constitution say what you want it to say.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Only the congress has the power to make the Constitution say something we want. Not the Supreme Court. Judges seem forget this and we then have unelected activists creating legislation. This is not really the thread to get into a Constitutional discussion.
Let’s just stand by and wait for the first case of gay rights vs. religious rights to hit the Supreme Court.
R
Rau
Guest
Then you have a novel legal system! Judges strike down laws that seek to contradict or oppose the constitution. The Constitution prevails. Laws may be revised to achieve same or similar outcomes without offending the constitution, and in that case they may stand. But laws do not determine of change the constitution. The people do that, directly.
J
JimG
Guest
Ultimately, same sex ‘marriage’ will be roundly rejected, most likely with the ‘children’ of same sex couples leading the charge against it. I anticipate that acquisition of children by same sex couples will become something akin to human trafficking. There will be a backlash.
R
Rau
Guest
That’s right. It is thus the people who have the say, not the legislature. However, the latter (or it may be the executive, depending on the country) need to bring the question to the people, which they hate to do, given it lessons their own authority, and God forbid the people would come to like having a say on a wider range of matters…!
R
Rau
Guest
No, quite the reverse! I point out that our politicians like democracy too, so long as the people “know their place”. These days, the technology is available to refer political impasses (economically) to the people regularly, but the politicians dread the idea of surrendering to the people in this way.
V
Vatican2Rocks
Guest
Why do you agitate homosexuals to adopt children? it is uncharitable and incorrect to claim that a marriage is not a marriage without children. there are some people who cannot have children and are validly married. abraham and sarah were very old and did not have children except finally 1.
this demand for children is rooted in old testament scripture because women were low status unless they were baby making machines. leah the homely unloved sister rubbed it in rachel’s face the beautiful loved one that rachel couldn’t get pregnant and had several kids with jacob the swindler. the evil twin sister was only too happy that she died in childbirth on baby #2 after she spent many years taunting the loved sister rachel. leah is truly an evil witch. i feel bad for rachel. betrayed and taunted by her ugly sister and the man she loves who wasn’t anything to write home about. leah and her father laban were nasty pieces of work and jacob was equal to the task, he cheated and swindled his own father and brother…remember? those 10 brothers deserved to have joseph rub it in their faces that they would bow down to him as he later became king and saved their ungrateful necks from starvation.
what about people who get married in later life and are unable to have children due to age, is the church going to forbid them from getting married due to old age? i don’t think so.
it is uncharitable and unwise to make it an issue with homosexuals that their marriages are not valid due to the fact that they cannot biologically produce children together. stop rubbing it in their face, you are only making matters worse. just accept the fact that childless marriages are valid. it is ok that they can’t have children. its no big deal.
- Status