hurleyjd
Well-known member
Judge Nap says "That the scotus got this wrong and just opened it up for discrimination in every shape and color" paraphrased here.
hurleyjd":1jp5ccja said:Judge Nap says "That the scotus got this wrong and just opened it up for discrimination in every shape and color" paraphrased here.
May as well have been judge Judy or Perry Mason......hurleyjd":1ah2zxjm said:Judge Nap says "That the scotus got this wrong and just opened it up for discrimination in every shape and color" paraphrased here.
Or nowadays, some type of internet crowd funding...Normally these types of cases are driven by outside groups that are footing the bill.
lolJogeephus":1mb4ra1b said:had the gov't followed the constitution this never would have happened which just proves if it wasn't for the gov't
we wouldn't need them.
Son of Butch":2i0j1y5t said:lolJogeephus":2i0j1y5t said:had the gov't followed the constitution this never would have happened which just proves if it wasn't for the gov't
we wouldn't need them.
well put.
Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.
Jogeephus":1osi3suw said:Though I have my suspicions, I'd like to know why the couple chose that particular baker.
Son of Butch":qi0vaeq3 said:Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.
The next thing you know, you have penguins at the North Pole because you are actually pointed to the South Pole.
Bestoutwest":2u33weud said:Son of Butch":2u33weud said:Civil unions yes, gay marriage no. But the obvious correct answer isn't how case law works.
Case law is built on precedent which gradually skews justice from due North to several degrees off either to the
left or right. Once it is tipped it just continues dragging more and more in the direction of the first error.
The next thing you know, you have penguins at the North Pole because you are actually pointed to the South Pole.
So why do gay folks get to be denied the right to marry?
According to the constitution:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
M-5":2o2btkq7 said:the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.
Bestoutwest":1meggpew said:M-5":1meggpew said:the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.
The problem is, though, that those who are married are afforded certain rights that those who aren't are denied. That's where the problem lies. I don't care what you call it, make the rights equal and then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another. I think, after this ruling, that if a church declared itself as "for profit" there wouldn't be much one could do if they decided to deny performing a marriage ceremony b/c it would be based on the grounds of religious freedom. That way, if a pastor felt deeply enough about it to refuse to do it, they'd be OK.
I have zero animosity regarding this..none, nada, never have either.Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another.
Jogeephus":3dnh7wt0 said:Bestoutwest":3dnh7wt0 said:M-5":3dnh7wt0 said:the constitution says nothing about marriage. Marriage is binding a woman to a man and the government found a way to tax it. The queers can do what ever they want . Marriage is between a man and woman.
The problem is, though, that those who are married are afforded certain rights that those who aren't are denied. That's where the problem lies. I don't care what you call it, make the rights equal and then there wouldn't be a problem. Also, if you were to take away a church's right to be non-profit, you'd solve a lot of the animosity that goes along with denying the right of marriage to one group and not another. I think, after this ruling, that if a church declared itself as "for profit" there wouldn't be much one could do if they decided to deny performing a marriage ceremony b/c it would be based on the grounds of religious freedom. That way, if a pastor felt deeply enough about it to refuse to do it, they'd be OK.
I disagree. Seperation of church and state ruins that argument. What would be simpler is to get the government out of the marriage business. It should be of no concern of theirs whether you are married or not. Not on your taxes, not on your insurance not on anything. Each person is supposed to be treated equally in the eyes of the government and no special treatment should be afforded anyone. This includes marriage and other things like affirmative action or quotas that give special priviledges to certain people. Is this not in itself discrimination since you are giving an unfair advantage to one group over another?