Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[HoughMade]

Your liberty to cast your vote in a state election for an elected government that has the sovereignty to decide policy without federal bullying.

Every time the feds usurp more power from the states, your liberties shrink.

Representative republic? That's great in theory, but it's not how you get things done.

 

[Eight]

Representative republic? That's great in theory, but it's not how you get things done.

Perhaps that is why it is the best form of government. Government seems to have done more than enough.

 

[Mark 1911]

This is a terrible failure on the part of the SCOTUS, worst since Roe v Wade. Another example of activist judges rewriting the law to be what they want it to be rather than interpret the law as it is written. Marriage laws are the realm of the individual states, in this case the SCOTUS bypassed the states like a bulldozer out of control

 

[rambone]

The ends do not justify the means

If the Federal government made a sweeping ruling to outlaw ______, we would say that the feds were trying to micromanage the country and overpowering the people's representatives in the states. (Fill in the blank with some social issue: drugs, abortion, marriage, business practices, etc.)

For this reason, I do not think it is a good outcome. The fight for social liberties should be occurring at the local level. Social policy should be completely outside the purview of the Federal government. (See Article 1, Section 8 for the proper role of the Federal government.)

The ends do not justify the means.

Instead of winning hearts and minds on social issues -- locally -- the activists have used the Federal government to trample over numerous elected state legislatures who have set policy on the issue.

Once we turn over all social decisions to the federal government, what is the point of having states at all? We'll just let the central government make national policy on every issue. It doesn't matter what the people's representatives want, the Feds are going to strongarm an outcome one way or another, that everyone must abide by.

Drugs, illegal everywhere.
Abortion, legal everywhere.
And so on.

Thus, the role of State legislator is becoming a ceremonial position. The voters have a weaker voice. The once representative republic takes a another step toward central decision making.

 

[KG1]

It's no longer left up to state governments or the voters or even churches to decide what defines marriage. It's up to the effected minority that demands recognition and acceptance. Marriage is no longer a religious institution between a man and a woman. It is now a Constitutionally recognized right that pertains to everyone.

 

[DragonGunner]

"Our Constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams Oct. 11, 1798


I think our Constitution died long ago, most likely around 1961 if not before and certainly by 1972. So nothing the Senate, congress, POTUS or SCOTUS does shocks me anymore. This country has fallen far from what our forefathers wanted, but they made it so if we left being a Republic, which we have long ago, that the outcome of becoming a Democracy would someday kill us off. That has not happened yet, but we are racing towards that.

"Remember democracy never last long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Adams 1814

 

[LP1]

... The government needs to be out of the marriage business altogether.

Going along with that, there are a lot of regulations and benefits that should be revised. Here are a few off the top of my head...
1) employer-sponsored health coverage - require the allowance for "employee+1" rather than stipulating "employee+spouse"
2) eliminate "married" rates for income taxes
3) eliminate "married" vs. "single" for Social Security benefits. Doing this equitably would require some method for calculating a reasonable benefit for a stay-at-home spouse.
4) provide a simple way for everyone to name another person who can act on their behalf

I'm sure there are a lot more.

 

[Arthur Dent]

This is a terrible failure on the part of the SCOTUS, worst since Roe v Wade. Another example of activist judges rewriting the law to be what they want it to be rather than interpret the law as it is written. Marriage laws are the realm of the individual states, in this case the SCOTUS bypassed the states like a bulldozer out of control

They're only activist judges when they don't rule the way you want them to.

 

[MisterChester]

Looks like there's plenty of Grade A salt to go around this thread. Jeez. A lot of the arguments against the decision mirror the same arguments from the 60's against people who aren't white. When the country drags its feet to support equal protection under the law as mandated by the constitution, the court must step in to ensure it happens. Evidence enough of history repeating itself.



Remember this?

Replace integration with gay marriage, and it's exactly the same. Stop looking for excuses.

 

[LP1]

This is a terrible failure on the part of the SCOTUS, worst since Roe v Wade. Another example of activist judges rewriting the law to be what they want it to be rather than interpret the law as it is written. Marriage laws are the realm of the individual states, in this case the SCOTUS bypassed the states like a bulldozer out of control

If something is a right, it needs to be available to people in all states. If not for so-called "activist" judges, we could still have "separate but equal", bans on interracial marriage, denial of a woman's right to control her own body, etc. Sometimes it takes the judiciary to force the issue and enforce people's rights. That's why it's there.

Marriage is no longer simply a religious institution; it has become intertwined with so many non-religious aspects of our existence that it needs to be defined uniformly for all Americans.

Personally, not being gay, I think a fair compromise would have been to allow for civil unions which would have all the legal benefits (and pitfalls) of marriage, and to require that all states recognize a marriage from another state. However, I also understand the importance that LGBT citizens place on having recognition of their relationship.

 

[mbills2223]

Shouldn't even be a government institution

 

[Eight]

Looks like there's plenty of Grade A salt to go around this thread. Jeez. A lot of the arguments against the decision mirror the same arguments from the 60's against people who aren't white. When the country drags its feet to support equal protection under the law as mandated by the constitution, the court must step in to ensure it happens. Evidence enough of history repeating itself.

View attachment 39526

Remember this?

Replace integration with gay marriage, and it's exactly the same. Stop looking for excuses.

Not the same at all.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, there's the fact that the 14th Amendment was actually enacted to make African-Americans full citizens, but please, explain how the drafters thereof had gay marriage in mind.

 

[rambone]

Looks like there's plenty of Grade A salt to go around this thread. Jeez. A lot of the arguments against the decision mirror the same arguments from the 60's against people who aren't white. When the country drags its feet to support equal protection under the law as mandated by the constitution, the court must step in to ensure it happens. Evidence enough of history repeating itself.

The ends did not justify the means in the 1960s either. The fight for social issues should be occurring in the state legislatures. The Feds should not be dictating marriage standards, or drug laws, or abortion policy, or any other similar social issue.

 

[mrjarrell]

The ends did not justify the means in the 1960s either. The fight for social issues should be occurring in the state legislatures. The Feds should not be dictating marriage standards, or drug laws, or abortion policy, or any other similar social issue.

Do the ends justify the means when we win gun rights cases in the courts? Or is that OK?

 

[foszoe]

This is a terrible failure on the part of the SCOTUS, worst since Roe v Wade. Another example of activist judges rewriting the law to be what they want it to be rather than interpret the law as it is written. Marriage laws are the realm of the individual states, in this case the SCOTUS bypassed the states like a bulldozer out of control

I can't see how this is a worse decision than Roe v Wade which is state sanctioned murder. I support this decision even though it is morally wrong. I am not a homophobe, the culture doesn't scare me. Church leaders will just need to quit being agents of a civil contract and become priests of a mystery that is beyond legislation

 

[HoughMade]

Do the ends justify the means when we win gun rights cases in the courts? Or is that OK?

You mean like when the courts apply the original intent of a right that is explicitly stated in the Constitution?

Oh yeah, I see all kinds of parallels.

 

[gstanley102]

Justice Kennedy in his opinion said that churches CAN deny same sex couples, it's the states that must not deny the right. So they can go to a courthouse for a marriage license but a church will not be forced to perform them.

^^^^^ Yet. ^^^^^

Wait until tomorrow.

 

[mrjarrell]

You mean like when the courts apply the original intent of a right that is explicitly stated in the Constitution?

Oh yeah, I see all kinds of parallels.

States, counties and cities have all passed laws that infringe on a fundamental right and they have been defeated in the courts. The courts long ago defined marriage as a fundamental right, they have no applied it properly to the expanded population. SOme day, it may even be expanded again. Who knows? But it is the same, whether you like it or not.

 

[gstanley102]

Don't forget all that all this SC action is in the name of progress.

Progress = Centralized Government

It seems to me this type of stuff is what sparked action in the late 18th century.