Supreme Court Decision on gay marriage

Discussion in 'Politics Discussion' started by Rosyrain, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. Xauras

    Xauras Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2015
    Posts:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who called for gay marriage? ...The few gays I know didn't call for it, and they don't know any that lobbied for it either, yet all of a sudden out of the blue it is the most pressing issue for a whole variety of countries at the same time. I wish they could be so efficient at settling our fiscal problems. Maybe there is a hidden agenda that pushed it through in so many countries worldwide at the same time??
     
  2. SteakTartare

    SteakTartare Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Mar 2014
    Posts:
    857
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well, the Old Testament, and at least one reference in the New Testament, is loaded with polygamy and concubinage (giggity-giggity, giggity-goo). Here is a handy guide to some forms of Biblical marriage:

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2015
  3. Xauras

    Xauras Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2015
    Posts:
    55
    Likes Received:
    0
    SteakTartare - I checked out the last two on the poster and my authorised KJV Bible says something completely different, the reason they killed all the men women and children was because they had brought idolatry to Israel and as a result Israel experienced plagues and famines. Henry's Concise commentary explains it thus...'The sword of war should spare women and children; but the sword of justice should know no distinction, but that of guilty or not guilty. This war was the execution of a righteous sentence upon a guilty nation, in which the women were the worst criminals. The female children were spared, who, being brought up among the Israelites, would not tempt them to idolatry. The whole history shows the hatefulness of sin, and the guilt of tempting others; it teaches us to avoid all occasions of evil, and to give no quarter to inward lusts. The women and children were not kept for sinful purposes, but for slaves, a custom every where practised in former times,

    [SUP]Numbers 31:15 [/SUP]And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
    [SUP]16 [/SUP]Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

    And as for the last one...

    [SUP]Exodus 21:3 '[/SUP]If he (slave) came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
    [SUP]4 [/SUP]If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

    It pays to have a KJV bible of your own to read regularly to obtain wisdom and knowledge of God, or use the one online for quick access at biblegateway.com, then you too can quickly understand the correct meaning of verses put to you out of context. I urge you to research the other claims on the poster to verify their validity.
     
  4. Alex

    Alex Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Apr 2015
    Posts:
    634
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'm not opposed to gay marriage, however it was not in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide on these matters of law. It exceeds the stated powers given, which is why each time it came to court, it was sent back to the states to decide. As time goes on, the Supreme Court has extended it's powers in cases such as this, and yes it does goes against the tenth amendment. Once a decision like this has been made, who is to say it won't rule on divorce laws across all states and other related issues. The states do not want to relinquish power the the federal system so constitutionally the Supreme Court ruled on something that was not in their remit.
     
  5. Sunflogun

    Sunflogun Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2015
    Posts:
    426
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gays should have the same rights as straight because it's a legal contract, at least in what concerns material aspects. As for adoption and kids that is another matter.
     
  6. L_B

    L_B Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2015
    Posts:
    356
    Likes Received:
    2
    .

    I am with you on this. When two people who love each other are joined together in marriage it should simply be that. It is a marriage. There is not need for any prefixes. I believe in time that it will eventually be looked at that way or I sure hope so anyway.
     
  7. JR Ewing

    JR Ewing Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2014
    Posts:
    4,950
    Likes Received:
    39
    Just wait until the Dems in charge lock up the court with young leftist judges who are indebted to them for one thing or another. We'll be done as a country for sure.
     
  8. Alex

    Alex Senior Investor

    Joined:
    Apr 2015
    Posts:
    634
    Likes Received:
    3
    I was looking at the ages of the justices and trying to figure out when they will either die or retire. Scalia won't retire for sure. It won't be for another decade at least until the court changes, but justices should be impartial regardless and it depends on how they interpret the constitution, whether they think as a framer or a judge who can apply the law within the given framework and adapt the law.
     
  9. FrankieD

    FrankieD Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2015
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    I too am happy, because it reinforces the ideals of America. We should not be treating others as second class if we don't really have to. If at all reasonable, we should support equal treatment. That should be the general standard. Like those against interracial marriage in the past, the reasons for being against gay marriage just aren't convincing or powerful enough to wipe out that standard. It's time to stop respecting the idea that we should be against Adam & Steve because in a popular holy book there is an Adam & Eve.
     
  10. RShacklefurt

    RShacklefurt Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2015
    Posts:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, the Supreme Court does have the authority to make sweeping decisions that invalidate any and all state laws which conflict with its ruling. The Supreme Court finds this authority in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and from the very significant court case of Marybury vs. Madison which more or less established the Supreme Court's absolute authority to literally "say what the law is."

    States do have autonomy to decide certain issues for themselves. These are judicial notions of 'comity' and 'parity,' the idea that state governments are better equipped to deal with local and regional issues rather than a distant Congress in Washington. In fact, the laws of contracts traditionally belong to states, which is why every state in the U.S. has slight legal differences in how contracts are formed, enforced, written, etc. Marriage, in its most basic legal form, is a contract entered into by two consenting adults, which is why marriage laws have been decided by state legislatures and state courts.

    But there's an important amendment to the U.S. Constitution that (as of today) strips away the right of a state to define marriage in their laws as a union between one man and one woman: the Fourteenth Amendment (and more specifically the Equal Protection Clause) which states:
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Without getting too much into the nuances of the Supreme Court's varying standards of review (although I certainly can if you're interested), the Supreme Court traditionally reviews Equal Protection issues under what's called a 'rational basis review.' It is the most permissive standard the Court can adopt--that is, it is the least difficult standard to meet in order to successfully defend a law from being struck down. The review asks whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. With respect to the issue of marriage equality, the question is: Are state laws banning same-sex marriage rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting the institution of marriage?

    To that question the Supreme Court has apparently said 'no.' The fact that the Supreme Court today could not find any rational basis for these state bans related to the stated goal of protecting the institution of marriage says a lot. The Court is literally saying there is no rational relationship between banning same-sex marriage and protecting marriage. Thus, same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, and every such law in the United States is immediately invalidated.
    The Supreme Court has made sweeping judgments like this before, although decisions of this magnitude are quite rare. For examples, see Brown vs. Board of Education (which held that state laws enacting racial segregation were unconstitutional) and Loving vs. Virginia (which held that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional).
     

Share This Page