Judge rules Va gay marriage ban unconstitutional

[EdwinWillers]

Did she cite the 10th Amendment? Has she ever even read it?

She voted for Obama. He's read it.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage so marriage is a state issue

The constitution doesn't mention (any) drugs, therefore legality of them is a state issue.
Do you agree?

 

[MachZer0]

The constitution doesn't mention (any) drugs, therefore legality of them is a state issue.
Do you agree?

Yes

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Marriage licensing goes back to the 1800s. And if we take into account the entirety of human history, "traditional marriage" would be one arranged by the parents as more of a business transation than a covenant of love. In many parts of the world, for much of human history, that would include a man and however many women/girls he could provide for.

Sorry I should've been more clear...when did it actually become a federally recognized status in terms of taxation?

 

[Marius27]

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage so marriage is a state issue

It doesn't mention privacy, voting, or travel either. Would you be ok with States handling those issues? What if a State forbids citizens from travel across State borders?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Actually, it's a very big change. Marriage, which has always been recognized as two persons of the opposite sex will now include two persons of the same sex

So? I mean... seriously. So what?

and sets a precedent for more than two persons of any combination of sexes

So?

marriage between groups and ages that had not previously been allowed to marry,

Marriage requires this little thing called consent. Minors cannot legally give consent to marry. Also note that in many states, a minor could get married if they have their parents consent. Some states allow people as young as 15 to be legally married with their parent's permission.

marriage between family members, marriage to inanimate objects, marriage to animals, etc.

This part is so absurd, I won't even address it.

Marriage has always been the basis of the family, which has always been the basis of Western Civilization, and was, in fact, the first institution ordained by God in the Bible. But with these rulings, the left is trying to remove that foundation.

How is allowing more people to form families going to destroy families? I seriously don't get this argument.

The Constitution doesn't mention marriage so marriage is a state issue

There's a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution but are granted to all citizens because we're a country that prides itself on the idea that all are created equal and all deserve equal protection of the law.

That's definitely in the constitution.

 

[MachZer0]

It doesn't mention privacy, voting, or travel either. Would you be ok with States handling those issues? What if a State forbids citizens from travel across State borders?

Voting is a state issue now within the limits of what the Constitution does require. The travel issue is a non-issue because we are citizens of the nation per the Constitution gives us rights to travel interstate. As far as privacy, we are guaranteed to be secure against unreasonable searches. Beyond that is out of the purview of the federal government

 

[MachZer0]

There's a lot of things that aren't mentioned in the constitution but are granted to all citizens because we're a country that prides itself on the idea that all are created equal and all deserve equal protection of the law.

That's definitely in the constitution.

Everyone has the same equality of marriage even if homosexual marriage is outlawed in every state

 

[Spaceman_Spiff]

Everyone has the same equality of marriage even if homosexual marriage is outlawed in every state

AKA: gays can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

 

[super animator]

AKA: gays can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

Yeah we've all heard your bigoted comments on this before

"You can pick any car you want, as long it's blank."
ChoiceTM

 

[Savior2006]

This part is so absurd, I won't even address it.

Stayed tuned. This is a thread on gay marriage, so there's more absurdity on the way.

 

[MachZer0]

"You can pick any car you want, as long it's blank."
ChoiceTM

Our liberal friends seem to understand that concept when it comes to taxes and some people are taxed at a higher rate than others rather than all being taxed at an equal rate

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Everyone has the same equality of marriage even if homosexual marriage is outlawed in every state

Seriously dude. How does this make any sense? I'm just trying to understand the logic behind this statement.

You mean homosexuals are free to get married as long as they marry someone of opposite sex?

Do you not understand what homosexuality is?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Stayed tuned. This is a thread on gay marriage, so there's more absurdity on the way.

It's my new favorite pass time. Watching righties spin their wheels trying to justify this injustice.

It's ok though. The show will be over soon enough when all 50 states have legalized SSM and the people who opposed it are lost in annals of history.

 

[AceHero]

Stayed tuned. This is a thread on gay marriage, so there's more absurdity on the way.

It's my new favorite pass time. Watching righties spin their wheels trying to justify this injustice.

It's ok though. The show will be over soon enough when all 50 states have legalized SSM and the people who opposed it are lost in annals of history.

After that happens I'm sure many conservatives will be working to get a Federal marriage amendment passed. They just never completely give up, no matter how arcane and outdated their positions may be.

 

[MachZer0]

Seriously dude. How does this make any sense? I'm just trying to understand the logic behind this statement.

You mean homosexuals are free to get married as long as they marry someone of opposite sex?

Do you not understand what homosexuality is?

That's true, with other limits of course

 

[AceHero]

Seriously dude. How does this make any sense? I'm just trying to understand the logic behind this statement.

You mean homosexuals are free to get married as long as they marry someone of opposite sex?

Do you not understand what homosexuality is?

That's true, with other limits of course

And those limits are what?

 

[MachZer0]

And those limits are what?

Well, a man can't marry his sister or mother. A woman can't marry her father or uncle. There are a plethora of limits but all are treated equally

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's my new favorite pass time. Watching righties spin their wheels trying to justify this injustice.

It's ok though. The show will be over soon enough when all 50 states have legalized SSM and the people who opposed it are lost in annals of history.

I'm kind of hoping that marriage as we know it (meaning a government licensed institution) goes away.

In our society, there's nothing to stop two people from living together, I don't see what the draw is in paying the government to get married

In this issue, I see a lot of hypocrisy on both sides (I'm not making reference to any poster in this thread particularly, or even this thread in particular)

To certain folks on the left...
If it's really about the pursuit of happiness, you don't need a piece of paper to be happy and live with the one you love. (My GF & I have made that very decision, we're not getting a marriage license, we just filled out the appropriate forms to give the other power of attorney and make each other beneficiaries). With that being said, if it's about the benefits that go along with the marriage license, then just be honest and say 'it's about the benefits" and don't try to make it about some noble quest for the pursuit of happiness.

To certain folks on the right...
Don't advocate small government & less spending in one instance, but then justify frivolous spending by Republicans in cases surrounding this topic (DOMA and similar things...) ...and also, please stop comparing it with incest, beastiality, and pedophilia as a talking point. Anytime I'm in one of these thread and try to make some progress in justifying states' rights to make their own decisions on it, undoubtedly one of these will show up and derail the whole thing.


I've also seen people try to misuse the FF&C (Full Faith & Credit) clause in this matter too... Since it is a state licensed institution at the current juncture, people have a habit of using this to try to trump other state's laws. Yet, we don't hear those same people complaining about other cases where FF&C isn't being applied to other types of state licenses.

Right now, Concealed Carry and Driver's licenses are two types of state issued licenses that vary greatly from state to state.

We'll go with the drivers license as an example
Driving Age by State

I've never heard anyone say "In many states, you can get a full drivers license at age 17, yet, in Indiana, you have to be 18...Indiana's 17 years old aren't getting equal protection under the law due to FF&C & the 14th amendment"...I've never heard anyone say that these laws are a case of age discrimination, etc...

 

[Creech]

If conservatives still think this country can be fixed from within the system, this is further proof that they are totally wrong.