SCOTUS Rules Same Sex Marriage is legal

[Denny]

Yep. Fags acting like a bunch of faggots.

[dcs13]

This is bullshit. These 2 targeted a Christian business so they could sue when they refused to allow their wedding.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/farm_couple_sued_for_discrimination_say_they_were_set_up_.html

[dcs13]

^^

This certainly sets a precedent.

THAT is the real scare here. And Scalia sees it (as many of us with a brain do), and he is not mincing his words.

[Baba Ganoush]

^^ I remember reading that.

Even with my limited knowledge of the inner workings of the judicial system, when someone at work told me the SCOTUS made gay marriage legal in all 50 states, I immediately said "What? They can't do that."

This certainly sets a precedent.

[dcs13]

What's interesting is to read how SCOTUS dealt with the defense of marriage act (DOMA- Federal law). They said it was a states right issue to deal with marriage and struck down the federal statute as it related to taxes. Now they have last weeks ruling contridicting themselves...
Here is a story on the 2013 ruling

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html

An excerpt from the LA Times:
"But be careful: this isn’t an affirmation that same sex marriage should be legal in every state. The Supreme Court could have addressed that issue but it didn’t. What it does say is that the federal government does not have the right to overturn a particular state’s decision when it comes to defining marriage. Expect to see more activities by the individual states on this point – but that’s a good thing. The definition of marriage has always been in the purview of states – this issue excepted – and it can now remain so."

[46Tbird]

After taking con law, I really got on board with the idea of scraping the constitution, rewriting, and dumping out the commerce clause (primarily) and figuring out a way to offer protection equally without the targeted fucking that we are constantly experiencing.

To change the existing interpretation, that's exactly what would have to happen. The precedent is now set at the highest level of judicial review and there is no way to interpret it any differently.

[The King]

Here we go:

http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattves...ymore-n2018582

Wonder if the ACLU supports the United Negro College Fund, which discriminates against equally deserving non-minorities, or the National Association fot the Advancement of Colored People, which discriminates against assisting people not of color to advance in society?

[Sean88gt]

Did you completely miss my first two sentences?

The problem is, there is no federal law about marriage criteria. That means that all state laws concerning marriage were perfectly legal because they were not in contradiction of any federal law.

So while everyone is gleefully putting up rainbow versions of their FB profile pic, the Supreme Court just overstepped their jurisdiction, which is inerpreting and upholding actual law passed by Congress in accordance with the Constitution. They struck down state law that was not in violation of federal law. So while that may not be a problem for you, today, "because love won," it sets the precedent that we are not actually a union of sovereign states.

In this way, the nine justices of the Supreme Court wrote law that the Congress did not pass. You still have no problem with this?

This isn't new. They cage it under "fundamental right to privacy" which includes; contraception (the right to use it/not), abortion, marriage, procreation, education, family relations/rearing children, and sex with any consenting party. Along with right to travel and other provisions in the bill of rights. The commerce clause and equal protection/due process give the SCOTUS the ability to literally throw anything and everything into those 2 categories.

After taking con law, I really got on board with the idea of scraping the constitution, rewriting, and dumping out the commerce clause (primarily) and figuring out a way to offer protection equally without the targeted fucking that we are constantly experiencing.

BUT...I wouldn't trust any politician in this country to do that in a sufficient manner.

[GhostTX]

Here we go:

http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/06/28/aclu-were-not-defending-religious-freedom-laws-anymore-n2018582

[Chili]

In this way, five of the nine justices of the Supreme Court wrote law that the Congress did not pass. You still have no problem with this?

ftfy..

[46Tbird]

http://carreonandassociates.com/supremacy-clause/

Federal law in over state law. States can make laws as long as it's in line with the federal constitution.

Did you completely miss my first two sentences?

The problem is, there is no federal law about marriage criteria. That means that all state laws concerning marriage were perfectly legal because they were not in contradiction of any federal law.

So while everyone is gleefully putting up rainbow versions of their FB profile pic, the Supreme Court just overstepped their jurisdiction, which is inerpreting and upholding actual law passed by Congress in accordance with the Constitution. They struck down state law that was not in violation of federal law. So while that may not be a problem for you, today, "because love won," it sets the precedent that we are not actually a union of sovereign states.

In this way, the nine justices of the Supreme Court wrote law that the Congress did not pass. You still have no problem with this?

[jdgregory84]

There is no federal marriage license. There is no mention in the Constitution that the federal government mandates criteria for a "legal" marriage.

That means that this is (was) a states' rights issue that the SCOTUS had no business ruling on.

While everyone is very happy that the gays can get married (whoopty fucking shit, btw), the precedent is set. The real ruling is that states should no longer have any notion of self-rule.

http://carreonandassociates.com/supremacy-clause/

Federal law in over state law. States can make laws as long as it's in line with the federal constitution.

[AnthonyS]

What happened to the 10th Amendment? Seems like that one doesn't matter anymore.

The Civil War destroyed that one and made the states all one big happy union with no hope of indepedence.... then a few decades later you created a federal bank to really tighten the noose. Then taxes were made so restrictive that the federal government has control of state budgets. History is a real pain.

[Broncojohnny]

There is no federal marriage license. There is no mention in the Constitution that the federal government mandates criteria for a "legal" marriage.

That means that this is (was) a states' rights issue that the SCOTUS had no business ruling on.

While everyone is very happy that the gays can get married (whoopty fucking shit, btw), the precedent is set. The real ruling is that states should no longer have any notion of self-rule.

Exactly

Not only what you said but the logic they used to make their decision is pushing the envelope. And that was Scalia's issue. This goes back to the original Obamacare decision where if we just call it a "tax" then everything is fine. Unbelievable.

[Trip McNeely]

What happened to the 10th Amendment? Seems like that one doesn't matter anymore.