SCOTUS Rules Same Sex Marriage is legal

[jdgregory84]

Why can't it be true? They routinely rewrite laws and insert things they feel are appropriate ruling that the words "Exchanges set up by the states" means the federal government instead of the states. They ruled there was federal power over marriage despite the document being silent on it. They really could rule they are the only branch and everyone has been taught they are the final answer so you couldn't appeal.

Federal laws can't prohibit states from basing laws on religion. It's not a power granted.

14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

[Forever_frost]

Just read that an Oregon judge ruled in favor of a lawsuit by a same-sex couple against a bakery in Oregon (I think that it might be the same one GhostTX brought up) for $135,000 in emotional damages caused to the couple. Completely against this shit. If I was gay, and somebody said, they couldn't bake a cake for my marriage, I would just go somewhere else. I guess that's just me.

That being said...it address some of the folk that don't agree with my posts...which is fine.

Forever Frost...you and I know that that's not true.

46TBird, I know that at least in TX, the law that defined marriage between "a man and a woman" was passed in the last decade. If federal law states that laws can't be based on religion, that pertains to states. That's exactly what proposition (2?) was.

Why can't it be true? They routinely rewrite laws and insert things they feel are appropriate ruling that the words "Exchanges set up by the states" means the federal government instead of the states. They ruled there was federal power over marriage despite the document being silent on it. They really could rule they are the only branch and everyone has been taught they are the final answer so you couldn't appeal.

Federal laws can't prohibit states from basing laws on religion. It's not a power granted.

[ceyko]

Yeah I don't think that ruling is cool at all.

[jdgregory84]

Just read that an Oregon judge ruled in favor of a lawsuit by a same-sex couple against a bakery in Oregon (I think that it might be the same one GhostTX brought up) for $135,000 in emotional damages caused to the couple. Completely against this shit. If I was gay, and somebody said, they couldn't bake a cake for my marriage, I would just go somewhere else. I guess that's just me.

That being said...it address some of the folk that don't agree with my posts...which is fine.

Forever Frost...you and I know that that's not true.

46TBird, I know that at least in TX, the law that defined marriage between "a man and a woman" was passed in the last decade. If federal law states that laws can't be based on religion, that pertains to states. That's exactly what proposition (2?) was.

[Forever_frost]

When states use religious beliefs to make a law, it's contradictory to federal law.

Actually, that's not true. It would only be an issue if that religious law ran afoul of an enumerated power of the federal government.

[Denny]

This thread could be the basis of your thesis. LOL

[jdgregory84]

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?

When states use religious beliefs to make a law, it's contradictory to federal law.

[Forever_frost]

Except the Senate and House are elected by the people (despite the people never being meant to vote on Senators so that the states themselves had a voice) whereas the SC isn't. They were meant to stay in during a term and be removed when they act contrary to their position. The issue is that some idiot believed they could interpret the constitution instead of just reading it and interpreting the laws against it.

The SC could conceivably rule that they are the only branch of government, uphold it and that'd be the law.

[likeitfast55]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...ew-119559.html

Originally Posted by Ted Cruz View Post
I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to subject #SCOTUS justices to periodic judicial retention elections

Then this amendment should apply to the career politicians in the House and Senate. Elected office was never intended to be a career, because over time they (Senators and Representatives) become property of the deepest pockets.

[Gasser64]

Let them all go do Salvia divinorum.

[big_tiger]

Spike in divorce rate?

[phaux]

I don't feel like searching to see if this has been posted, if so, delete it.

[AnthonyS]

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?

Shhhh... you're going to scare the sheep. You don't want to alarm them. It's okay if most of them die as long as they don't actually see the wolves in their suits.

[Jimbo]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-ruling-reaction-npr-interview-119559.html

I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to subject #SCOTUS justices to periodic judicial retention elections

[Gasser64]

That... that seems aight. I guess I would want the fag to shoot someone for stealing his stuff.