Comments on: Marriage equality: Not for states to decide Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: RevTimmy Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:40:14 +0000 “Deep in our hearts, we do believe that we shall overcome the evil lethal myth of heterosexual-supremacy that dominates life and law in Pennsylprejudice.” ~ Revs. Timothy George Hare RA MA Architect and Earl David Ball, M.Div, S.T.M.

Video: SA

By: EconCassandra Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:03:18 +0000 Your strongly-voiced “argument” is nothing more than your personal opinion, but contains no facts to support it.

The 14th Amendment was designed specifically to ensure the rights of blacks in this country, due to treatment they had received as slaves.

It has also been “misused” by some to ensure blacks are not only “equal”, but “more than equal” (i.e. reverse discrimination through “affirmative action), as if past wrongs can be somehow reversed by the denial of rights to present citizens who had nothing whatsoever with slavery.

There is no moral way to justify such actions, or to put it more simply (i.e. on a level your mind can accept), “two wrongs do not make a right”.

That is a zero sum game for this nation.

Frankly, my “bullshit-o-meter” went off the scale on the amount of “rah, rah, sis, boom, bah” in this poorly written screed.

I was going to point out some obvious legal errors in your interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but frankly you have departed from reality so far there is no way I can cover it all in this venue.

Let me say your statement that “The Constitution enshrines certain rights and liberties as so important that they are above the politics of the day. Freedom of speech and religion, for example, are never put to a popular vote” sent shivers down my spine.

This IS about the “politics of the day”.

To characterize it any other way is to misunderstand the importance of the “politics of the day” in terms of how we govern ourselves. Notice I said not how we are governed. There IS a difference.

What you are arguing is that the federal government — actually, nine fallible men and women who are entirely above the law, and not subject to the US Constitution at all, but supposedly are able to determine what it means for this entire nation at any point in time — has the right to decide on its own and enforce “certain rights and liberties as so important that they are above the politics of the day”.

I wasn’t aware there are any “eternal truths” that all people everywhere would agree that are above the “politics of the day”.

What IS “enshrined” in the constitution is that this is a “democracy”, not a kingdom or dictatorship subject to the whims of a person or an elite minority who can decide for us what is right.

If you care to look at the history of the rulings of the US Supreme Court, you will notice they have made MANY mistakes in the past.

Let’s hope by this time the supreme court has learned enough about racial equality that they choose not to take that road again.

ANY nation that ignores the “politics of the day” risks putting itself in jeopardy of being overthrown by its own people.

As a matter of fact, that is exactly how the US Constitution came into being — or have you forgotten?

You are young and have the impatience of the young, but I suggest you tone down the inane “cheerleading” and do a reality check on what you are saying before engaging in more screed like this. It serves no useful purpose, but only tends to inflame what is already a “hot button” issue. One in which I believe we should move carefully and with deliberation.

By: EqualSexes Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:54:01 +0000 We already have marriage equality: One man + one woman! You can’t have any more equality or diversity of the sexes than woman + man! In contrast, sexual preference is just as exclusive as racial preference. Thank God that the Supreme Court did not bring us back >50 years to force the public institution of marriage to accept gender-exclusive marriage. Two men with a sexual preference is no more diverse than two same-race oriented people in 1967! Why would we want to go back to bigotry?

Let’s celebrate diversity: One man + one woman!

By: Papersails Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:23:43 +0000 It’s ‘queer’ (funny) how some previous Supreme Courts have had the structure of the Constitution at the heart of their decisions while others exude their human frailties and fears. The current court seems ‘squeamish’ in this context… What do they fear? Being equated with historic precedent that knocks down one of the last bastions of discrimination in regard to that puritanical and prudish abhorrence to anything dealing with sexuality? Do they ever think about the implications of this kind of messaging to the younger people in our society? Whatever one’s sexual orientation, should they be embarrassed to acknowledge the fact that every one of us is a sexual creature? This is where our societal troubles really begin…. yet, SCOTUS reflects the adolescent aspects of our society’s current mindset… we ARE evolving… adaptation is a gradual process it would seem…

By: jonathb Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:57:57 +0000 Some related qs:
– Does a muslim man have a constitutionally protected right to marry 4 wives in, say, California, as is common in the Middle-East?
– How would the IRS code work if such a man died and 1 or more of the wives takes ownership of a family home?
– Still more complicated, in some muslim societies (e.g., Saudi) there can be more than 4 wives, but there is a distinction between the first 4 and numbers 5 onward, who are not exactly “mistresses” in modern western concept.
– And, at least one society – in the Himalayas, I think – accepts a wife taking two husbands. How would the IRS handle this?

By: Splitter226 Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:33:40 +0000 “Aw, geeze, Edith, there’s a homosexual in the woodpile, again!”

Sure would like to see MORE writers calling this abomination just exactly WHAT it is: HOMOSEXUALITY.

By: chekovmerlin Wed, 26 Jun 2013 17:01:29 +0000 THIS is an argument regarding the 10th Amendment. States, not the federal government have the right to set up the standards for marriage, licensing (other than air, sea and interstate commerce), education, etc. That is to say, those items which are not explicitly mentioned in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It includes medical practices and licensing, the right to die, the right to smoke, etc. While I don’t agree with the specifics of the previous decision on Civil Rights and voting, I do applaud the Court for saying that the 10th Amendment is alive and well. The federal case really was about social security and money, not the cultural aspect. It will be interesting to see the Court’s view of Article IV of the Constitution as it applies to a gay coupled married in one state going to another state. As a former teacher of the Constitution, I am fascinated by these discussions relating to parts of our Constitution.

By: unionwv Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:47:59 +0000 “Marriage equality: Not for states to decide”

Not much of anything is left for “states to decide” (Used to be called “states rights…”).

But The states themselves are ever more proscripitve of citizen’s behavior and restrictive their liberty, so it doesn’t make much difference, really.

Get remotely locted, and stay under the radar and regret the loss of what used to be shared cultural values