Supreme Court Rules All States Must License And Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[seta-san]

On the one hand you are talking about something as complex as a human being and their equality and on the other you are talking about something less complex and a privilege.

 

They are two different situations...

basically states are dead. state's rights are dead. they should just put the final nail in the coffin and call them providences

[HawkMan]

This is not how the US is setup. 

 

Can you legally drive in France if you do not have a Drivers License there?   If so, How*?

 

*(I am pretty sure you can due to reciprocal agreements.)

 

If you cannot, the EU should take over all Driver issues for the EU. 

 

The answer is generally yes, but not always... depends on the license and stuff. 

 

usually as a visitor you can drive a normal passenger car if you have a license for it in another country mostly anywhere though. But other licenses may not apply, depending on stuff, and if you move you may not be granted a license in the country you move to.

 

I mean some east block countries basically give you the license for being sober enough to get into the car without falling on your face. while Germany and scandinavia have seriously strict driving tests requiring a certain amount of hours of driving with a teacher untill he approves you for the test, a written test, several practical tests including "long" driving, city driving, ice driving, night driving (many of these are often combined), so you can see why they won't just transfer just any license to theirs. 

[HeartsOfWar]

-some states did try to secede. it was a little affair that we've been arguing about all week. it was the confederacy.

 

If you want to break a contract you either legally prove the contract is VOID due to infraction by the other party or you pay a price of breaking terms.

 

The Confederacy didn't want to do either and instead resorted to violence by taking Fort Sumter in SC and initiated Civil War. The Union responded and won. Case closed.

 

If some states want to seceed over same-sex marriage, they should do so without war.

[Clirion]

You missed the inference.  The various US states recognize most things from state to state because of a similar reciprocal law, yet refused to acknowledge SSM's. This is a legal disparity that could not be left to stand.

I did not miss the inference.  That is NOT what happened.

Logical Apex was right in what he said.   What was not done was to Utilize the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Instead, they made a new Federal Definition and said this is now law.

[Clirion]

The answer is generally yes, but not always... depends on the license and stuff. 

 

usually as a visitor you can drive a normal passenger car if you have a license for it in another country mostly anywhere though. But other licenses may not apply, depending on stuff, and if you move you may not be granted a license in the country you move to.

 

I mean some east block countries basically give you the license for being sober enough to get into the car without falling on your face. while Germany and scandinavia have seriously strict driving tests requiring a certain amount of hours of driving with a teacher untill he approves you for the test, a written test, several practical tests including "long" driving, city driving, ice driving, night driving (many of these are often combined), so you can see why they won't just transfer just any license to theirs. 

 

Again, just like the United States.  This is how we are setup except for Federal functions.

If I move to another State, I will have to pass that States drives license exams et all, but I can drive in that State as a Visitor with my current States license.

[FloatingFatMan]

I did not miss the inference.  That is NOT what happened.

Logical Apex was right in what he said.   What was not done was to Utilize the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  Instead, they made a new Federal Definition and said this is now law.

 

Well, the states can't argue they didn't have plenty of time an opportunity to respect the FF&CC, so I'm not going to blame the court for overriding their bigotted asses and forcing it on them.

[Clirion]

Well, the states can't argue they didn't have plenty of time an opportunity to respect the FF&CC, so I'm not going to blame the court for overriding their bigotted asses and forcing it on them.

 

You do understand that is NOT what happened right?

[HeartsOfWar]

Again, just like the United States.  This is how we are setup except for Federal functions.

If I move to another State, I will have to pass that States drives license exams et all, but I can drive in that State as a Visitor with my current States license.

 

Not necessarily. If you move to another US state, you do not have to pass that state's driving exam. I'm sure the State reserves the right to decide if they want to extend that courtesy, but 99.999% of the time they will.

[FloatingFatMan]

You do understand that is NOT what happened right?

 

Maybe not in the fine details, but in essence, it is.  States weren't respecting SSM licenses issued in other states, now they have too, and ALSO have to allow SSM in their own states. It's a 2 for 1 deal!

[DConnell Member]

 I don't agree with the lifestyle or decision, but ultimately it doesn't really affect me. It's their life to live as they see fit.

 

My only concern is that this opens the way for priests/ministers/whatever to be forced to perform the ceremonies against their beliefs. gay marriage now has legal recognition in all the states, but that doesn't change the religious aspect of it. And if the church should not have influence on the government, then the government should equally have no say in the teaching and ceremonies in the various churches.

 

Basically, while same sex couples now have the legal recognition of their marriages, I hope that won't mean clergy will have no choice in whether they perform the ceremony.

[hagjohn]

redefining marriage huh.  polygamy up next !

 

If people want to live in a polygamist relationship on their own volition, then why should I care? And why should you care?

 I don't agree with the lifestyle or decision, but ultimately it doesn't really affect me. It's their life to live as they see fit.

 

My only concern is that this opens the way for priests/ministers/whatever to be forced to perform the ceremonies against their beliefs. gay marriage now has legal recognition in all the states, but that doesn't change the religious aspect of it. And if the church should not have influence on the government, then the government should equally have no say in the teaching and ceremonies in the various churches.

 

Basically, while same sex couples now have the legal recognition of their marriages, I hope that won't mean clergy will have no choice in whether they perform the ceremony.

 

Priests and Ministers can deny to marry couples already.

[Tomoko]

they now have the ability to get insurance through the spouse, and legal rights about how things are handles, ex: death rights, property rights through spouse, etc... it's a bigger deal then someone always loving someone, it now handles the what if's in the legal sense for a lot of things

my question is, where is the westboro Baptist church? They should be on the steps of the SCOTUS with their signs saying "God hates SCOTUS" and what ever it is they write.. they seem to have no problem going to army funerals.....

 

Next step is to declare that bunch of idiots a hate group and take away their church tax exemptions.

[DConnell Member]

Priests and Ministers can deny to marry couples already.

 

Considering the flap over the bakery that was forced to shut down over their answer to the hypothetical question of catering a gay wedding, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine activists crucifying Father Brown and picketing the local church because he won't perform a gay wedding.

[Rippleman]

I want to marry my dog!! Stop discriminating! 

 

Can you prove your dog is consenting and wanting the same?

[guru]

If people want to live in a polygamist relationship on their own volition, then why should I care? And why should you care?

 

recognize polygamous marriage you bigot #equality

[T3X4S]

Welcome to the 21st century SCOTUS


If 2 people of the same sex want to be together - Good for them.  Doesnt effect me @ all
 

[Knife Party]

Can you prove your dog is consenting and wanting the same?

LOL, I love it when you think I was being serious

[jakem1]

This is not how the US is setup. 

 

Can you legally drive in France if you do not have a Drivers License there?   If so, How*?

 

*(I am pretty sure you can due to reciprocal agreements.)

 

If you cannot, the EU should take over all Driver issues for the EU. 

 

Already done:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence

[Rippleman]

LOL, I love it when you think I was being serious

 

Some religious groups/people say it as a defense to there position. I thought it's where you were going with it. Sorry.

[TPreston]

Analysis

Putting itself back in the forefront of the gay rights revolution, the Supreme Court ruled by the narrowest margin on Friday that same-sex couples across the nation have an equal right to marry. The five-to-four decision was based firmly on the Constitution, and thus could be undone only by a formal amendment to the basic document, or a change of mind by a future Supreme Court. Neither is predictable.

Explicitly refusing to hold off deciding the issue to see how other parts of society may deal with the rising demand for gay acceptance and legitimacy, the Court declared that two clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment mean that a

[Memphis]

Once again the Supreme Court has proven to nothing more than an lealized orginized crime syndicate. This has always been a individule states decision, and should have been left at that. 

 

I'm not a hater, just tired of this government jumping in when they clearly don't have too.

 

Think you should reference Loving v. Virginia before making claims like this.

[TPreston]

Think you should reference Loving v. Virginia before making claims like this.

no no no it was ok for the government to rule on marriage there because its not against my sincerely held religious beliefs...

[PGHammer]

The ruling is based on the "commerce clause" - period.  (In other words, Loving v. Virginia was the precedent.)  My "nasty suspicion" was indeed confirmed; this decision CAN lead to recognition of plural marriage as long as a single state recognizes it. (No less than Chief Justice Roberts - who wrote the dissent - confirmed that basis via, of all things, Twitter - following the publishing of the decision itself.)  The ruling earlier this week on the ACA, however, was basically a punt - as booming as any from Ray Guy OR Reggie Roby in their respective heydays - but STILL a punt. They took the wording of the original legislation itself and rewrote it according to what the individual affirming Justices WANTED it to mean - shades of two of the WORST SCOTUS decisions in the court's history (Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson).  However, the text of the majority opinion (Chief Roberts wrote it) gave future SCOTUS Justices an option to revisit in in future cases - he DOES see the decision being revisited, if not outright reversed, in a future ruling.

[wakjak]

Reversed, doubtful.

Plural marriage next? So what? Does it affect you and your marriage? No, then like I said, so what.

[Noir Angel]

Edit:  I've got mixed feelings about this... Libertarian side doesn't care, Conservative side does a little - not for religious beliefs, science.

 

Edit again:  Hopefully religious liberties are preserved and respected after this..

 

Nobody's "religious liberties" extend as far as shoving jesus into the bedrooms of consenting adults. It's 2015, it's about time the religious right realised that other people's sex lives really are none of their business.