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

By TPreston
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Draconian Guppy

Posted
Posted

When your state joined the "UNITED" States of America, it conceeded that there are was a single entity known as the Federal government that could create, enforce, and bind all states "UNITED" into enforcing as well.

 

SCOTUS did nothing today but uphold what 38 states and D.C, a vast majority by the way, have concluded on their own. "

+1 The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"

 

If your state didn't want to be "UNITED", it shouldn't have joined; likewise, your state can seceed, but I highly doubt it will... give and take... such is the order of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

seta-san

Posted
Posted

When your state joined the "UNITED" States of America, it conceeded that there are was a single entity known as the Federal government that could create, enforce, and bind all states "UNITED" into enforcing as well.

 

SCOTUS did nothing today but uphold what 38 states and D.C, a vast majority by the way, have concluded on their own.

 

If your state didn't want to be "UNITED", it shouldn't have joined; likewise, your state can seceed, but I highly doubt it will... give and take... such is the order of things.

actually when they entered the federal government was rather limited.

the federal government handled: interstate trade/disputes, international trade/disputes/war/treaties, and the indian tribes. Subsequent supreme courts declared themselves the ultimate arbiter of the law... and then began expanding the scope of the federal government through the "commerce clause" which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce to a size and scope the founders never envisioned.

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

HeartsOfWar

Posted
Posted

actually when they entered the federal government was rather limited.

the federal government handled: interstate trade/disputes, international trade/disputes/war/treaties, and the indian tribes. Subsequent supreme courts declared themselves the ultimate arbiter of the law... and then began expanding the scope of the federal government through the "commerce clause" which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce to a size and scope the founders never envisioned.

 

As are all things in their beginnings. It takes time to realize full potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Collaborator

Ralph3100

Posted
Posted

When your state joined the "UNITED" States of America, it conceeded that there are was a single entity known as the Federal government that could create, enforce, and bind all states "UNITED" into enforcing as well.

 

SCOTUS did nothing today but uphold what 38 states and D.C, a vast majority by the way, have concluded on their own.

 

If your state didn't want to be "UNITED", it shouldn't have joined; likewise, your state can seceed, but I highly doubt it will... give and take... such is the order of things.

 

They DID NOT uphold state laws established in 38 states, but rather took that power away from the remaining 12 and established a federal decree stating that SSM was now law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Tomo

Posted
Posted

Say what now?!? Do you have any proof for this or is this just bible dribble?

What the ###### are you going on about? I don't need to prove something that bothers me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

seta-san

Posted
Posted

What the ###### are you going on about? I don't need to prove something that bothers me.

he misread you and thought you were a bible thumper. I did not. I still want to know why you're conflating an argument about a government license with whether or not the government allows people to love each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

+Red King Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

HeartsOfWar

Posted
Posted

They DID NOT uphold state laws established in 38 states, but rather took that power away from the remaining 12 and established a federal decree stating that SSM was now law.

 

Such is the nature of a representative democracy. I may or may not have voted for Obama, but I have had to call him President for almost 8 years now. Give and take...

it's nice to watch a perfect small diamond turn into a giant piece of ######.

 

Sorry you feel that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

So, Driver's licenses should be done on a Federal level as well? After all, I do drive to other states without first being licensed in those states... The same is true for my Car regarding tags, registration, and inspections.

 

But if you get your license in one state you can drive through all states without having to retake the test for every state, and some state telling you you can't get a license because you're a guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Night Prowler

Posted
Posted

So, Driver's licenses should be done on a Federal level as well? After all, I do drive to other states without first being licensed in those states... The same is true for my Car regarding tags, registration, and inspections.

 

Marriage licenses are state by state. I think anytime the federal government wants to jump in and make laws, they should be the ones to enforce them, and take all responsibility for implementing, and maintaining.

 

I think the federal government needs to come in and license and maintain the necessary resources to make sure that there are protections for those that opt out to not be sued for discrimination based on the fact that this law was forced on them.

 

I also believe that drives licenses really need to be federally regulated. It just makes good sense to be able for all the sate and federal agencies to go to one place for that information. It also makes good sense to federally regulate the driving laws. Put everyone on the same page, it only makes sense. Why should someone with a suspended license for a DUI in one state be able to move to another state and be able to get a drivers license and drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution...

 

 

 

 

Source: US Constitution

 

yeah, but wouldn't that also be the reason this needed to be a federal issue. drivers license states follow that law. But that same law should also apply for SSM where people get married in another state, then it should be recognized in the others, it wasn't so it had to be taken to court and made a federal law since states didn't follow the law in the first place. 

what bugs me is that some people turn a debate about marriage into a straw-man debate about whether two people are allowed to love each other. for the record they do, with or without a government's approval. What we're talking about here is a license; a  pieces of paper that can be granted, denied, or revoked based on certain criteria.

 

The issue is that that paper gives certain privileges and advantages that they otherwise can't get. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Draconian Guppy

Posted
Posted

What the ###### are you going on about? I don't need to prove something that bothers me.

Well to be fair you said gay couples can't love each other the  way straight couples do, why? Feelings are feelings no matter genre, reproduction, is a whole different story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

seta-san

Posted
Posted

yeah, but wouldn't that also be the reason this needed to be a federal issue. drivers license states follow that law. But that same law should also apply for SSM where people get married in another state, then it should be recognized in the others, it wasn't so it had to be taken to court and made a federal law since states didn't follow the law in the first place. 

 

The issue is that that paper gives certain privileges and advantages that they otherwise can't get. 

well that's fine... but why is he making it out to be about whether a person is legally allowed to love another person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

 

 

I think the federal government needs to come in and license and maintain the necessary resources to make sure that there are protections for those that opt out to not be sued for discrimination based on the fact that this law was forced on them.

 

 

Say what now...

well that's fine... but why is he making it out to be about whether a person is legally allowed to love another person?

 

Some people for whatever reasons and/or beliefs feel the need to be married to show their love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

FloatingFatMan

Posted
Posted

Well to be fair you said gay couples can't love each other the  way straight couples do, why? Feelings are feelings no matter genre, reproduction, is a whole different story.

 

Dude, you totally misread his post. Try reading it again, maybe a few times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Draconian Guppy

Posted
Posted

What bothers me is that some people can't accept that two people of the same sex can be happy and love each other in the same way that straight couples do.

Ah FTFY, totally misread your post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Clirion

Posted
Posted

Yes, they should.  Otherwise, how can you legally drive in another state unless you have a driver's license issued there?

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

seta-san

Posted
Posted

Say what now...

 

Some people for whatever reasons and/or beliefs feel the need to be married to show their love.

 the question is rhetorical. I already know why and he doesn't want to admit it. He's trying to force emotion into the discussion. Liberals love making things emotional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

HeartsOfWar

Posted
Posted

So, Driver's licenses should be done on a Federal level as well? After all, I do drive to other states without first being licensed in those states... The same is true for my Car regarding tags, registration, and inspections.

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

FloatingFatMan

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.