[Deluge]

Surprised somebody didn't already make a thread about this. Up until now, homosexuals in America could only get married in blue states. Now it's expanded into the Deep South, Utah and more...

TL;DR the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from five states trying to keep their gay marriage bans, making gay marriage legal in those states and all other states that share a Court of Appeals Circuit with them.

Quote:

The decision had an immediate impact on five states. Same-sex marriage became legal in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin, where the authorities had been appealing defeats against local bans on same-sex marriage in the lower courts.

Legal experts said gay marriage was also now “presumptively legal” in six further states that shared jurisdictions with the appeal court circuits that heard the defeated appeals: Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Source.

[n0000]

Good, now maybe the nation can stop talking about the whole ridiculous topic. Gay marriage is nothing but a handout to the divorce industry and a distraction from more important matters(fed printing money, extra judicial killings, militarization of police, impending demographic entitlement crisis, student loans at 2 trillion with a 50% delinquency rate, obesity pandemic etc etc).

[lskdfjldsf]

Who cares, as long as the Church (arguably the last bastion of moral sanity in the US) doesn't recognize it. Like abortion, just another inconsequential click-bait issue to attract young voters and the social justice types.

[Old Fritz]

This whole thing is stupid. Personally, I believe the government has no place getting involved in marriages. This includes heterosexual
and homosexual. Hell, if you want to get married to a chair that is your business.

Our government needs to focus the debate on the more important issues. (Economy, infrastructure, military, healthcare, etc) They won't but it still needs to be said. Too bad most of our population seems to hold this "issue" as more important than the above.

[heavy]

(10-07-2014 08:09 AM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

This whole thing is stupid. Personally, I believe the government has no place getting involved in marriages. This includes heterosexual
and homosexual. Hell, if you want to get married to a chair that is your business.

Our government needs to focus the debate on the more important issues. (Economy, infrastructure, military, healthcare, etc) They won't but it still needs to be said. Too bad most of our population seems to hold this "issue" as more important than the above.

Marriage is by definition a contract with the state.

Regardless of your feelings about the "gay marriage debate", this is representative of the fall of our country, these United States of America.

Federalism has fallen. Hamilton is rolling - nay spinning - in his grave.

[Seth_Rose]

Everyone here seems to "get it".

My two main gripes with this are:

1.) It isn't being done democratically. The courts shouldn't have such sweeping powers to say fuck you to numerous states where voters have gone through the process of instituting a ban on gay marriage. People in the deep south will refuse to recognize gay marriage, and the whole LGBT lifestyle in general for years to come.

Although, I do suppose you could make the argument that the Supreme Court used its powers to end segregation in schools and a ban on interracial marriages...

2.) Where does it end? The floodgates are now open as to who can marry who, or should I say 'what'.

Why shouldn't polygamy be legal now? Or incestual marriage?

Also, I hate to sidetrack the thread but when I clicked on the source it brought me to USAToday. The headline article was this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi.../16826065/

'Sexual Harrassment Rampant in Restaurants' while showing a picture of a Hooters Waitress...

[Phoenix]

Still waiting for you guys to have that long overdue Article 5 Convention.
The federal judiciary has basically used the 'equal protection of the laws' phrase to mean 'we get to make the law'. Time the states reigned the Feds in.

[TheWastelander]

(10-07-2014 08:24 AM)heavy Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:09 AM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

This whole thing is stupid. Personally, I believe the government has no place getting involved in marriages. This includes heterosexual
and homosexual. Hell, if you want to get married to a chair that is your business.

Our government needs to focus the debate on the more important issues. (Economy, infrastructure, military, healthcare, etc) They won't but it still needs to be said. Too bad most of our population seems to hold this "issue" as more important than the above.

Marriage is by definition a contract with the state.

Regardless of your feelings about the "gay marriage debate", this is representative of the fall of our country, these United States of America.

Federalism has fallen. Hamilton is rolling - nay spinning - in his grave.

Marriage is a contract with the state? How do you figure?

[Jack198]

It's a contract sanctioned by the state and enforced by its courts. But as we all know, it's gone from a contract where both sides had rights and responsibilities to a suicide pact for the guy. These homosexuals are so busy parading around doing the victory dance they have no idea how ugly it will get for (at least one half) of them.

The state needs to get completely out of the business of playing traffic cop over relationships, period. Tax everyone the same and let the churches and synagogues worry about what a marriage is.

If you want kids, it's actually a lot more affordable to just knock up some woman, have her crank out the little one and just send in the payments. You can even get visitation rights that way. But getting an actual, legal marriage exposes your entire asset portfolio to her the minute she decides to pull the pin, which nowadays more than ever she probably will.

With homosexual marriage likely going to be stuffed down everybody's throats like it or not, the entire premise of creating a stable environment to raise kids is completely out the window and along with it the basis for state involvement.

[Truth Teller]

Welcome to the United States in 2014.

The New Constitution reads as follows:
Article 1, Section 1: Congress shall make all laws, but the Judicial branch can serve in place of the people and the President is entitled to do whatever he wants.

Also, I love how people are saying that "this is a step for equality!" and all that stuff. The Supreme Court not taking a case indicates its feelings that this is a non-issue. They're not adjudicating on whether or not it's right or not; they simply don't care.

[alexdagr81]

I agree with Seth that it's very telling that Gay Marriage victories are not being done democratically. Of course since it serves liberal interests they don't question it. Sure they cite polls over acceptance, but these changes in attitudes are probably false since they are afraid of the blowback the elites will give them for going against the grain.

[DChambers]

(10-07-2014 08:30 AM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

Everyone here seems to "get it".

My two main gripes with this are:

1.) It isn't being done democratically. The courts shouldn't have such sweeping powers to say fuck you to numerous states where voters have gone through the process of instituting a ban on gay marriage. People in the deep south will refuse to recognize gay marriage, and the whole LGBT lifestyle in general for years to come.

Although, I do suppose you could make the argument that the Supreme Court used its powers to end segregation in schools and a ban on interracial marriages...

2.) Where does it end? The floodgates are now open as to who can marry who, or should I say 'what'.

Why shouldn't polygamy be legal now? Or incestual marriage?

Also, I hate to sidetrack the thread but when I clicked on the source it brought me to USAToday. The headline article was this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi.../16826065/

'Sexual Harrassment Rampant in Restaurants' while showing a picture of a Hooters Waitress...

Your quite right especially on the first point.

Legally the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over any of this, or for that matter most of what it has been ruling on for the past few centuries.


From the Constitution:

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."


Following the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I become clear that the powers to decide the legality belong SOLELY to the respective States.

We are always told that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review but that isn't true, at least not de jure power. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803.

One of the greatest blows that this country ever suffered was when people become convinced that the Constitution is supposed to be a "living document" that changes with the time,

As Jefferson said ""Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.
Let us not make it a blank paper by construction."

In having a "living constitution" you in fact create a dead one, as the State can simply trot out a kangaroo court and say "oh well, times have changed, this is what it means now."

We are in the twilight of the Empire, in the words of John Brown, "that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with blood.”

Though I hope I am wrong.

[Truth Teller]

The courts have made their decision. Now let them implement it.

[Uzisuicide]

This is why the Civil War was fought. What good is having separate States when the Feds overrule them on anything they're inclined to? Red states are still screwed because of losing in 1865. At least Lincoln got what he deserved, a bullet. America needs to split up into 3 different countries.

[Truth Teller]

The Civil War was fought over slavery. The "states' rights" canard comes from the Lost Cause mythology.

[Spectrumwalker]

If and hopefully not when Idaho and Montana ever legalize gay marriage, all hope will be truly lost in the US.

[blacknwhitespade]

I love it when the Braves play the Giants. Nothing like watchin' a ball game between gAyTL and Fagcisco!

[kaotic]

(10-07-2014 08:30 AM)Seth_Rose Wrote:  

Everyone here seems to "get it".

2.) Where does it end? The floodgates are now open as to who can marry who, or should I say 'what'.

Why shouldn't polygamy be legal now? Or incestual marriage

Next you're going to tell me why can't bestiality be legal

Come on man they've tried using that slippery slope argument for years.

The only other thing I see happening is transgendered rights. (Which is already happening)

The others are a joke and have been argued before.


Let the gays be miserable as the rest of the divorced couples are out there.

[zaqan]

It goes on to say, “Idaho and Nevada’s same-sex marriage laws not only classify on the basis of sex, but also, implicitly and explicitly, draw on “archaic and stereotypical notions” about the purportedly distinctive roles and abilities of men and women.”

We are doomed.

(10-07-2014 08:24 AM)heavy Wrote:  

(10-07-2014 08:09 AM)Old Fritz Wrote:  

This whole thing is stupid. Personally, I believe the government has no place getting involved in marriages. This includes heterosexual
and homosexual. Hell, if you want to get married to a chair that is your business.

Our government needs to focus the debate on the more important issues. (Economy, infrastructure, military, healthcare, etc) They won't but it still needs to be said. Too bad most of our population seems to hold this "issue" as more important than the above.

Marriage is by definition a contract with the state.

No it isnt. Its a contract between a man and a woman, or two families. It has recently been appropriated by the state. 200 years ago, marriage records were stored at Christian churches. Now they are stored at statist churches.

Quote:

Federalism has fallen. Hamilton is rolling - nay spinning - in his grave.

He was one of those responsible for causing this.

(10-07-2014 11:14 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The Civil War was fought over slavery. The "states' rights" canard comes from the Lost Cause mythology.

This is objectively false. Slavery was a war cry, just like WMDs in Iraq. States rights as a cause is a bit more wobbly than that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at any cost (including allowing slavery to continue), that they wanted to permanently destroy any hopes of southern industry and cement the economic superiority of the north, among other things. If youre a conspiracy theorist, you can also cry Rothschild banksters, but I wont go that far. haha

(10-07-2014 11:15 AM)Spectrumwalker Wrote:  

If and hopefully not when Idaho and Montana ever legalize gay marriage, all hope will be truly lost in the US.

Too late: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govb...and-idaho/

[Uzisuicide]

(10-07-2014 11:14 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

The Civil War was fought over slavery. The "states' rights" canard comes from the Lost Cause mythology.

The Civil War was not started over slavery. Nobody has raised, trained, equipped and taken human army casualties to free slaves. That is the story that is told by the victors to make their motives seem altruistic. It would have been far cheaper to buy all the slaves and then free them. The problem with the South losing the War for Southern Independence is that the Federal Government now overrules the states and overturns the will of people who have spoken out at the ballot box in free elections through the Federal court system. Gay marriage was never banned anywhere! Nobody was crashing gay weddings and sending them to jail. We are simply talking about state recognition of something that most states didn't see beneficial as to put it on par with traditional marriage. In which familys are based on and the next generation of doctors, soldiers, and citizens of all stripes are spawned. The Federal Govt. is overturning the will of free people everywhere. Damn the tyrannical minority.

[Truth Teller]

Why was the Confederacy founded on the "Great Truth that the Negro is not equal to the White man?" Look at Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone speech before you start spouting off about the causes of the Civil War.

[Uzisuicide]

^^^ Boo hoo, it wasn't. The United States flag flew over slavery longer than the Confederate flag ever did. This thread is about gay marriage being forced upon states by the Federal Courts that usurped the powers that were delegated to the states under the Constitution. The Federal government's power grab was solidified because of the Civil War being lost by the Southern States. There was no one left to stand up to the Federal government after 1865. So here we are

[kbell]

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-41138.html

I started a thread about the civil war here. I think this is fascinating and would be curious to hear your opinions in depth.

[Phoenix]

The argument is about 2 things.

1) Should gay people be able to form 'personal corporations' which confer the same legal status as a normal 'marriage' (I think they should - but also that any number of people of any gender or relation should be able to as well). This is the 'rights' argument.

2) The definition. This is why the gay community will not accept 'civil unions', and instead demand that a relationship between two men or two women can be a 'marriage'. Why they would care about this is clear, for the same reason that anti-gay-marriage activists care about it - by controlling use of an existing word, you are hijacking pre-existing feelings towards that word. It is a 'social acceptability' play.

Frankly, the idea that a relationship between two people of the same sex can be a 'marriage' is just so absurd and bizarre I can't see it being subject to rational debate. It's like 'nothing is anything' and 'anything is nothing' nowadays. Say whatever you wish, get a group behind you, and that 'makes it right' somehow.

Also on the issue of the federation, this has to, and probably will happen in the near future:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
The idea that a convention is 'dangerous' is simply a political device which says 'the state legislatures are incompetent, only the federal legislature knows what is best for the country'. It was actually included in Article 5 for 'safety' reasons, namely as a safeguard to the exact situation we have now - the federal government having free reign.

Other countries and states already have frequent conventions, in which the convention proposes amendments, which the electorate or the states either vote up or down. With a 75% state supermajority ratification requirement in the US, it is clearly bullshit that a convention is 'dangerous'. Indeed, by the wording of the Article, a convention should already have been called (there is nothing in the wording that indicates specific things such as 'a state can withdraw a call' or 'the calls must be about the same subject').

[Seth_Rose]

(10-07-2014 12:36 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Next you're going to tell me why can't bestiality be legal

Come on man they've tried using that slippery slope argument for years.

The only other thing I see happening is transgendered rights. (Which is already happening)

The others are a joke and have been argued before.


Let the gays be miserable as the rest of the divorced couples are out there.

I disagree.

People like to say "Equal Marriage", but it's not actually about equality. They just want to use a nice, pretty term to make gay marriage sound acceptable. Now that marriage is no longer defined as one man and one woman, what exactly is the definition of marriage? Can you define it for me?