Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Supreme Court backs gay marriage

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.

    In a landmark 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority ruled that marriage is a constitutional right for all.

    "No union is more profound than marriage,'' he wrote, backed by the court's four more liberal justices.

    It is unclear how soon marriage licences will be issued in states where gay unions were previously prohibited.
    Writing one of the dissenting opinions, Chief John Roberts said the constitution "had nothing to do with it".

    However, Christian conservatives decried the decision.

    "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat," said Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor.

    Before the ruling on Thursday, gay couples could marry in 37 states in addition to Washington DC.

    Now the remaining 14 states, in the South and Midwest, will have to stop enforcing their bans on same-sex marriage. Minutes after the ruling, couples in one of those states, Georgia, lined up to be wed.

    Loud cheers erupted outside the court after the ruling was announced, said the BBC's Paul Blake at the Supreme Court.

    Hundreds of people had camped out for hours awaiting the news.

    One of the demonstrators, Jordan Monaghan, called his mother from his mobile phone amid the celebrations.
    "Hey mom, I'm at the Supreme Court. Your son can have a husband now," Mr Monaghan said.

    On social media, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton merely tweeted the word "proud" and the White House changed its Twitter avatar into the rainbow colours.

    The case considered by the court concerned Jim Obergefell, an Ohio resident who was not recognised as the legal widower of his late husband, John Arthur.

    "It's my hope that gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past, and from this day forward it will simply be 'marriage,'" an emotional Mr Obergefell said outside the court on Friday.

    The first state to allow same-sex marriage was Massachusetts, which granted the right in 2004.
    In recent years, a wave of legal rulings and a dramatic shift in public opinion have expanded gay marriage in the US. In 2012, the high court struck down a federal anti same-sex marriage law.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by Cuauhtémoc1520 View Post
      Again, it's not that simple. The Constitution isn't some divine document that is so simple and perfect in it's writing that everyone can clearly define it.
      It was designed to be. Those who can't interpret such an easy to understand document, that's on them.

      Originally posted by Cuauhtémoc1520 View Post
      I'm sure the link I provided, was conveniently ignored and not even read by you. Like I told you before, the world isn't black and white, it's not so simple and it's the reason these discussions exist.
      I read the portion you provided, and saw this; "Constitutional conservatism must begin with a clear understanding of the Constitution."

      At that point I felt I no longer needed to go on, since this student was approaching this issue from the simplistic 'con vs lib' argument that is nothing more than simple, binary logic. I'm discussing solely what the Constitution says, not arguing it from the political philosophy of conservatism.

      Originally posted by Cuauhtémoc1520 View Post
      Unless you disagree with the 5-4 ruling and would like to explain why you understand and interpret the Constitution better than 5 members of the Supreme Court....
      The SC sometimes gets it wrong. I can cite 3 rulings they've made right off the top of my head that are dead wrong:

      1. In the Dred Scott case the SC ruled that human beings can be property.
      2. The SC ruled that the Federal Gov't had the right to ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol.
      3. This is the biggest one. The SC ruled that the FDR Administration had the right to apprehend American citizens without a trial and throw them into internment camps.

      I believe the SC interpreted the Constitution incorrectly in those 3 cases. Do you?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by 1bad65 View Post
        It was designed to be. Those who can't interpret such an easy to understand document, that's on them.
        Being designed to be, and actually achieving that are two different things. It was written hundreds of years ago, only someone with a simple mind would think that the interpretation of a document that old, wouldn't change over time.

        I read the portion you provided, and saw this; "Constitutional conservatism must begin with a clear understanding of the Constitution."

        At that point I felt I no longer needed to go on, since this student was approaching this issue from the simplistic 'con vs lib' argument that is nothing more than simple, binary logic. I'm discussing solely what the Constitution says, not arguing it from the political philosophy of conservatism.
        So I was right, you didn't bother reading it, and you failed once again to even consider the details of this debate. I find that to be a very common trait among people like you though.

        Sad that you divorce yourself from practical, logical conversations and instead choose to put blinders on because of your beliefs. That is the definition of "close minded".


        The SC sometimes gets it wrong. I can cite 3 rulings they've made right off the top of my head that are dead wrong:

        1. In the Dred Scott case the SC ruled that human beings can be property.
        2. The SC ruled that the Federal Gov't had the right to ban the manufacture and sale of alcohol.
        3. This is the biggest one. The SC ruled that the FDR Administration had the right to apprehend American citizens without a trial and throw them into internment camps.

        I believe the SC interpreted the Constitution incorrectly in those 3 cases. Do you?
        LOL, so the first example was from 1857, the second was prohibition and the third was after WWII.

        So if I gave you even more examples of when the SC made the correct rulings according to you, would that then nullify your 3 examples?

        hahahaha

        Comment


        • #24
          Techincally it is not legalized, as SCOTUS does not create laws, they determine whether laws are constitutional. But it is only a matter of time until state bans are challenged and wiped from the books, basically making it de facto legal.

          PS some of the Dissents are hilarious, great day tho

          Comment


          • #25
            Isn't marriage a religious union? If it is, then why does the government get to decide on matters involving religion?

            If you want a secular society, then you have to have it both ways. Personally, I'm not against gay marriage, ****sexuals have the right to be as miserable heterosexuals IMO. However, I think this should've been a decision for the respective religions, and not the government.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Russian Crushin View Post
              Techincally it is not legalized, as SCOTUS does not create laws, they determine whether laws are constitutional. But it is only a matter of time until state bans are challenged and wiped from the books, basically making it de facto legal.

              PS some of the Dissents are hilarious, great day tho
              No doubt, this is the first step in a long battle. Then again, we have gone through this before when the same people wanted to keep segregation legal. It's the same arguments, the same debate, and the same Bible verses used.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Hitman Hodgson View Post
                Isn't marriage a religious union? If it is, then why does the government get to decide on matters involving religion?

                If you want a secular society, then you have to have it both ways. Personally, I'm not against gay marriage, ****sexuals have the right to be as miserable heterosexuals IMO. However, I think this should've been a decision for the respective religions, and not the government.
                Marriage is NOT a religious institution. If it was, are you saying that only the religious should be allowed to marry?

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Hitman Hodgson View Post
                  Isn't marriage a religious union? If it is, then why does the government get to decide on matters involving religion?

                  If you want a secular society, then you have to have it both ways. Personally, I'm not against gay marriage, ****sexuals have the right to be as miserable heterosexuals IMO. However, I think this should've been a decision for the respective religions, and not the government.
                  It's about having the same legal rights as married people. Medical benefits, tax implications, etc etc.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    1st video ron paul basically explains about what he would do about the 10th amendment violations:


                    Here he explains the 10th amendment on gay marriage:

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Cuauhtémoc1520 View Post
                      Marriage is NOT a religious institution. If it was, are you saying that only the religious should be allowed to marry?
                      No, I'm in favor, civil partnerships (which is what we have in the UK), which gives gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples.
                      Does this law now mean churches have a legal obligation to marry gay couples, even if they object?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP