The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
The system was designed for equal representation for all. Gridlock is the opposite, a few people (Congress) deciding to do nothing.
The answer is simple. Elect more Democrats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants. Gridlock would be over. Damn elections screwed everything up.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by alloak41]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
The system was designed for equal representation for all. Gridlock is the opposite, a few people (Congress) deciding to do nothing.
The answer is simple. Elect more Democrats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants. Gridlock would be over. Damn elections screwed everything up.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by alloak41]
You are such a f%$king idiot.
So is your bff muledouche.
I stand by the original statement. If the justices would have ruled against gay marriage, it would be more than logical to conclude you wouldn't have been in an uproar based upon all of your complaints.
Oh, stop it. You already know I don't care what our gay friends and neighbors do. Couldn't care less.
However, being a huge States rights proponent, I don't like the over reach. And I don't like the definition of a word being revised to pave the way for some political agenda. Just about anything the Feds want to impose is possible once you start going down these roads.
This is business as usual for the SCOTUS Alloak so not sure how you think some precedent has been set? The briefs cited the appropriate amendment in the Constitution so how is the an over reach?
Business as usual, huh.
Great.
Since you are someone who has said many times here that gridlock in congress is a sign that the system is working exactly as it should, no one should be surprised that you apparently confused about how SCOTUS is supposed to work as well.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
Scalia complains about every ruling he does not agree with, even throwing his colleagues under the bus in the process, so I take his ranting's with a grain of salt. He is the Donald Trump of the SCOTUS.
When it was time to strike down DOMA, four liberal judges ruled that it was a State matter. Remember? Now they reverse their very own ruling a few years later. So much for consistency.
Congress does not have the right to legislate marriage. That is a State's issue.
The states do not have the right to discriminate against individuals. They can't allow 2 people to enter a contract, and deny that right to 2 other people. Equal protection under the law. It IS in the constitution
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
The system was designed for equal representation for all. Gridlock is the opposite, a few people (Congress) deciding to do nothing.
The answer is simple. Elect more Democrats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants. Gridlock would be over. Damn elections screwed everything up.
This ridiculous line of thinking is a perfect example of what is wrong in government, and why congress approval rating has been hovering in the 16-20% range. Meanwhile Obama's approval rating is up to 50%.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by gondicar]
Back then, they seemed concerned about marriage and States rights. Pretty amazing reversal...
It is not a reversal, the cases are different. Saying it is a reversal is simply foolish. It was foolish the first time you said it, it will be foolish the hundredth time you repeat it.
Back then, they seemed concerned about marriage and States rights. Pretty amazing reversal...
It is not a reversal, the cases are different. Saying it is a reversal is simply foolish. It was foolish the first time you said it, it will be foolish the hundredth time you repeat it.
All cases are different. Their concern over States rights seems to have evaporated. Runs hot and cold like a faucet. They can call it whatever they want, an equal rights issue or what have you to explain it away. Marriage is still the core issue in this case.
Just call something a "right" and it opens up all kinds of possibilities. Rights!
How bout if they call having sex a right? You could threaten every gorgeous woman with discrimination and claim equal rights if she doesn't go to bed with you. If she doesn't agree you can call her a bigot. Tell her she needs to get with the program and start evolving. How's that sound?
Marriage is still the core issue in this case.
I disagree. I believe equal protection under the LAW is the core issue here. Marriage is a legal proceeding. Any religious aspect is optional. You don't meet the preacher at the church to get a divorce (according to religious precepts, you should NEVER get a divorce), you take a lawyer to meet a judge who decides in a courthouse whether your marriage is dissolved or not and who gets what.
Just call something a "right" and it opens up all kinds of possibilities. Rights!
How bout if they call having sex a right? You could threaten every gorgeous woman with discrimination and claim equal rights if she doesn't go to bed with you. If she doesn't agree you can call her a bigot. Tell her she needs to get with the program and start evolving. How's that sound?
Like an argument with no merit or credibility.
Just call something a "right" and it opens up all kinds of possibilities. Rights!
How bout if they call having sex a right? You could threaten every gorgeous woman with discrimination and claim equal rights if she doesn't go to bed with you. If she doesn't agree you can call her a bigot. Tell her she needs to get with the program and start evolving. How's that sound?
Like an argument with no merit or credibility.
Exactly. I knew you would understand.
The system was designed for gridlock.
At least one justice has wondered out loud what the hell they were doing even involved in this ruling.
The system was designed for equal representation for all. Gridlock is the opposite, a few people (Congress) deciding to do nothing.
The answer is simple. Elect more Democrats to rubber stamp anything Obama wants. Gridlock would be over. Damn elections screwed everything up.
This ridiculous line of thinking is a perfect example of what is wrong in government, and why congress approval rating has been hovering in the 16-20% range. Meanwhile Obama's approval rating is up to 50%.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by gondicar]
The system was not designed for equal representation for all. It was designed for representation that the people cast ballots for.
Comparing the approval numbers of a body vs an individual is meaningless. Poll each INDIVIDUAL Congress member in their own district and the number is much higher than 16-20%. How could they have won their election if that wasn't the case? We seem to recall that many, many Republicans won.
Back then, they seemed concerned about marriage and States rights. Pretty amazing reversal...
It is not a reversal, the cases are different. Saying it is a reversal is simply foolish. It was foolish the first time you said it, it will be foolish the hundredth time you repeat it.
All cases are different. Their concern over States rights seems to have evaporated. Runs hot and cold like a faucet. They can call it whatever they want, an equal rights issue or what have you to explain it away. Marriage is still the core issue in this case.
You are mixing and matching legal concepts to meet your predetermined conclusion. The concern over states rights has not "evaporated" it just wasn't part of this case the way it was with the DOMA case in 2003.
The system was not designed for equal representation for all. It was designed for representation that the people cast ballots for.
Someone wasn't paying attention in social studies class.
Comparing the approval numbers of a body vs an individual is meaningless.
Of course it is!! lol
Just call something a "right" and it opens up all kinds of possibilities. Rights!
How bout if they call having sex a right? You could threaten every gorgeous woman with discrimination and claim equal rights if she doesn't go to bed with you. If she doesn't agree you can call her a bigot. Tell her she needs to get with the program and start evolving. How's that sound?
Like an argument with no merit or credibility.
Exactly. I knew you would understand.
I love it that the irony went right over your head, apparently. 
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
You mean like the constitutional right to consume alcohol? The one that allows for for gambling?
Is there any wording in the constitution that pertains to marriage of any kind (I haven't read the entire document, so I don't know)? As long as we're on the subject, is there anything in the constitution that PROHIBITS OR BANS the use of drugs or other substances?
There is no constitutional right to use alcohol or OBVIOUSLY to gamble since it is illegal most everywhere. Let's get something straight. What the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, prohibits is government action that infirnges on the rights of people based on their membership in a protected class. If they are in a protected class, any state action that has an effect of discriminating must meet a very high standard of "compelling government interest." If the person is not in a protected class then there must merely be a rational basis for it. Protected classes are race, sex, religion, ethnicity and now sexual orientation.
Drinkers, drug users and gamblers are NOT members of a protected class therefore the government may regulate and prohibit actions that affect them.
In the marriage case, what it came down to is that five court members felt that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman discriminated against homosexuals without a compleling government interest in doing so.
We certainly do not live in a libertarian society where the state cannot take actions that limit our freedoms. They do that all the time. The Constitution is a very limited document.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Sorry. That's not in the Constitution.
Any church can still refuse to marry anyone under the first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. For instance, the Catholic Church can still refuse to carry out the religious ceremony of marriage of two gay men. Nothing in today's decision changes anything about that constitutional granted right. Sadly, some on the right are claiming today's decision will eventually lead to the end of such rights....I don't think it will.
Fortunately marriage is first and foremost a legal procedure and secondly a religious ceremony. Thank god for separation of Church and State is all I can say as I'm a supporter of gay marriage and consider today's ruling a huge victory for those gay couples who have been denied the legal rights that heterosexual couples have had since this countries inception.
[Edited on 6/27/2015 by Chain]
I would say 90 percent of gay people are thrilled and happy and ready to declare victory. 10 percent of activists (gay and otherwise) want to destroy the tax exempt status of the religious bodies and will use this as the first wedge in attempting to do so. Take it to the bank. It only takes one lawsuit to get the ball rolling.
I would hope that gay people who want to get married will be satisfied to utilize one of the Churches that permits it and leaves others alone.
I agree 100% with "leaving others alone". There's no reason to impose. I would imagine that you prefer to "leave others alone" so as not to create conflict when there is no need for any, right? If gays began demanding that ALL churches, synagogues, and mosques perform their weddings, then they become the problem....not the other religions.
I'm baffled that you do not share this same sentiment with that of Pam Geller. This creature WANTED a terrorist attack to happen on US soil, instead of allowing Homeland Security and the FBI to handle it.
Seriously? You are bringing that into this here?
Comparing the approval numbers of a body vs an individual is meaningless.
Of course it is!! lol
Most all Congressional Republicans either won or retained their seat. This must be due to their abysmally low approval number in their district, right?
While you mull that over, tell us which color you prefer. Green or Bowling Ball?
Oops. You are correct. Got my meaningless scraps of parchment mixed up. The Declaration of Independence. Still, it is an inalienable right.
An article in the Chicago Tribune showed why this is important. Even though same sex marriage was legal in Illinois, if that couple traveled to Michigan, their marriage was not recognized - so if one went to the hospital, the other was not legally seen as a spouse and did not have the same rights..... people in a same sex marriage had to know the laws of any state they visited or traveled through......... this makes it so they are recognized as married everywhere in the US - a good thing, I think...........
Amen to that! This decision will also have a huge impact on people working for corporations who's spouse was only recognized (for benefits like health insurance) if you lived in a State where marriage was legal.
This is a great and important ruling.
You wouldn't have posted this had their decisions this week agreed with your beliefs. The SC has functioned this way for how many years? Did you criticize the decision of 9 unelected judges in their Citizens United decision & any other decisions that fell your way?
Are you really that adamant and narrow minded about gay marriage & rights? Geez!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its hard to believe this is the same court that gave corporations personhood. That ruling is a travesty.
Is a ruling a travesty just because you disagree with it? Did it occur that the Court may have had valid legal reasons based on precedent and the like to rule the way they did in both cases? You can disagree with it but when you say its a "travesty" you say it's illegitmiate. Either the Court is legitimate and you accept its rulings or it is illegitmate and you don't. That is the essence of our civil society, accepting decisions we disagree with.
So, Texas AG has said state workers can legally discriminate by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples base on religious objections. If it is my job to issue marriage licenses, which are a legal document, how in the world are my religious beliefs compromised by issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple? Could I then turn around and decide to issue a license a hetero couple if one or both have been divorced, hetero couples who have had pre-martial sex or hetero couples have children out of wedlock. Do people get to just pick what parts of the bible to back & ignore the rest? Sounds like "religious freedom" is being co-opted into code for "legal discrimination" to me.
Texas AG: State workers can deny licenses to gay couples
BETSY BLANEY, Associated PressLUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Texas' conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Supreme Court decision giving same-sex couples the right to marry a "lawless ruling" and said state workers can cite their religious objections in denying marriage licenses.
He warned in a statement Sunday that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion requested by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton says "numerous lawyers" stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.
In its 5-4 opinion Friday, the Supreme Court did nothing to eliminate rights of religious liberty, Paxton's opinion states.
"This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech," the AG wrote.
While many Republicans have said they disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, officials in most states have said that they will abide by it. Paxton's comments echoed those Friday of Gov. Greg Abbott, who said Texans can't be forced by the court ruling to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
"Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected," Abbott said Friday.
In his two-page memo, Abbott ordered agency leaders that no one in their ranks could take "adverse action" against someone acting on their religious beliefs, including "granting or denying benefits." That led to early confusion and questions over whether state agencies might deny health or retirement benefits to the spouses of gay employees.
Abbott spokesman John Wittman later issued a clarifying statement Friday, saying the directive doesn't order the denial of benefits to same-sex couples. He said it only "ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."
Paxton in his statement Sunday says the justices "weakened the rule of law" and "fabricated a new constitutional right."
Texas was not part of the case before the Supreme Court. A federal judge in 2013 ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional but declined to enforce the ruling while it was on appeal. Since Friday's ruling, a federal district court in Texas has prohibited Texas from enforcing state laws that define marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The answer to your question is yes. People are very much allowed to pick out what parts of the bible they follow or no parts of the bible or write their own bible. The state has zero business being involved in religion in any capacity.
Oops. You are correct. Got my meaningless scraps of parchment mixed up. The Declaration of Independence. Still, it is an inalienable right.
Well it has no legal effect but the thing is the pursuit of happiness is a very broad term and if it actually had legal effect would stop a TON of laws. It has no legal or Constitutional effect and though the Supreme Court has expanded rights beyoond the letter of the text ever since Grissom ended laws prohibiting birth control, there is no way that drug alcohol or gambling laws will every be struck down as inherently unconnstitutional unless they affect another clause in the Constitution such as due process, equal protection, religious expression etc.
I see what you are saying. The Constititution has nothing to do with it.
Since it's legal in several states, I don't view it as a civil rights issue as much as an EQUAL rights issue. There are citizens of the United States of America who matter-of-factly enjoy and exercise more freedoms than do others. You can grow plants on your patio that would land me in prison. I see that as injustice.
There is no constitutional right to use drugs.
You mean like the constitutional right to consume alcohol? The one that allows for for gambling?
Is there any wording in the constitution that pertains to marriage of any kind (I haven't read the entire document, so I don't know)? As long as we're on the subject, is there anything in the constitution that PROHIBITS OR BANS the use of drugs or other substances?There is no constitutional right to use alcohol or OBVIOUSLY to gamble since it is illegal most everywhere. Let's get something straight. What the Constitution, specifically the 14th amendment, prohibits is government action that infirnges on the rights of people based on their membership in a protected class. If they are in a protected class, any state action that has an effect of discriminating must meet a very high standard of "compelling government interest." If the person is not in a protected class then there must merely be a rational basis for it. Protected classes are race, sex, religion, ethnicity and now sexual orientation.
Drinkers, drug users and gamblers are NOT members of a protected class therefore the government may regulate and prohibit actions that affect them.
In the marriage case, what it came down to is that five court members felt that state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman discriminated against homosexuals without a compleling government interest in doing so.
We certainly do not live in a libertarian society where the state cannot take actions that limit our freedoms. They do that all the time. The Constitution is a very limited document.
Well, there is the 21st Ammendment to the Constitution, but other than that...
Just call something a "right" and it opens up all kinds of possibilities. Rights!
How bout if they call having sex a right? You could threaten every gorgeous woman with discrimination and claim equal rights if she doesn't go to bed with you. If she doesn't agree you can call her a bigot. Tell her she needs to get with the program and start evolving. How's that sound?
Like an argument with no merit or credibility.
Exactly. I knew you would understand.
You could threaten every gorgeous woman with discrimination and claim equal rights if she doesn't go to bed with you. If she doesn't agree you can call her a bigot. Tell her she needs to get with the program and start evolving.
Thanks, I'll take your advice and let you know how it goes.
So, Texas AG has said state workers can legally discriminate by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples base on religious objections. If it is my job to issue marriage licenses, which are a legal document, how in the world are my religious beliefs compromised by issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple? Could I then turn around and decide to issue a license a hetero couple if one or both have been divorced, hetero couples who have had pre-martial sex or hetero couples have children out of wedlock. Do people get to just pick what parts of the bible to back & ignore the rest? Sounds like "religious freedom" is being co-opted into code for "legal discrimination" to me.
Texas AG: State workers can deny licenses to gay couples
BETSY BLANEY, Associated PressLUBBOCK, Texas (AP) — Texas' conservative Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton called the Supreme Court decision giving same-sex couples the right to marry a "lawless ruling" and said state workers can cite their religious objections in denying marriage licenses.
He warned in a statement Sunday that any clerk, justice of the peace or other administrator who declines to issue a license to a same-sex couple could face litigation or a fine.
But in the nonbinding legal opinion requested by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, Paxton says "numerous lawyers" stand ready to defend, free of charge, any public official refusing to grant one.
In its 5-4 opinion Friday, the Supreme Court did nothing to eliminate rights of religious liberty, Paxton's opinion states.
"This newly minted federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage can and should peaceably coexist with longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech," the AG wrote.
While many Republicans have said they disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling, officials in most states have said that they will abide by it. Paxton's comments echoed those Friday of Gov. Greg Abbott, who said Texans can't be forced by the court ruling to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
"Despite the Supreme Court's rulings, Texans' fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected," Abbott said Friday.
In his two-page memo, Abbott ordered agency leaders that no one in their ranks could take "adverse action" against someone acting on their religious beliefs, including "granting or denying benefits." That led to early confusion and questions over whether state agencies might deny health or retirement benefits to the spouses of gay employees.
Abbott spokesman John Wittman later issued a clarifying statement Friday, saying the directive doesn't order the denial of benefits to same-sex couples. He said it only "ensures that individuals doing business with the state cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs."
Paxton in his statement Sunday says the justices "weakened the rule of law" and "fabricated a new constitutional right."
Texas was not part of the case before the Supreme Court. A federal judge in 2013 ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional but declined to enforce the ruling while it was on appeal. Since Friday's ruling, a federal district court in Texas has prohibited Texas from enforcing state laws that define marriage as exclusively a union between one man and one woman.
[Edited on 6/29/2015 by gondicar]
The answer to your question is yes. People are very much allowed to pick out what parts of the bible they follow or no parts of the bible or write their own bible. The state has zero business being involved in religion in any capacity.
In terms of your first two sentences, of course people can practice religion however they want. What I was really talking about though are government employees who are going to claim a religious objection to gay marriage as a reason not to do their job issuing marriage licenses, but not raise an objection when issuing licenses to, for example, people who are on their 2nd, 3rd or 4th marriage. Someone can make their own choices about their own religious practices, but it crosses the line to bigotry when they sit in judgement of someone else and use religion as the excuse. IMO of course.
Your last sentence I agree with completely, and to me that means that a state or municipal employee who's job it is to issue marriage licenses must provide marriage licenses to anyone who is legally entitled to one and cannot hide behind their own personal bias, be it based on religion or anything else, to deny issuing someone a license.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with people who have a religious objection to same sex marriage or homosexuality or anything else that their religion tells them to object to, that's their choice. But if you can't tell already, I do have a problem with people who project their religious views onto others, which is essentially what the Texas AG is encouraging clerks in his jurisdiction to do.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by gondicar]
Very Well said Gondicar. If the employees have a problem performing their government paid jobs due to religious objections it is time to find a new Job I think.
Latest is Ted Cruz telling States not involved in the the case to ignore the ruling. The case in question Obergefell v. Hodges deals directly only with Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee, which by Cruz's logic, are the only states which must comply.
So that is the deal with Republicans huh? If you don't like the law just ignore it?
The Texas AG also warned county clerks that they could be prosecuted and fined if they do not issue marriage licenses as legally requested. There is no way one's religious views should be able to exclude people from equal protection under the law. A marriage license is a legal document, a marriage is a legal proceeding overseen and regulated by the state. We have separation of church and state for a reason (Thank god!). I really don't understand why this is so hard for so many to grasp, and how anyone could see this turning out any other way in a country grounded in the rule of law. By the same token, a pastor cannot be forced to marry someone in his church against his will.
