Gay Marriage Upheld by Supreme Court in Close Ruling

AZ Jim said:
The irony here is one of the judges who was a no vote, Stevens, is black and married to a white woman. Had the earlier SCOTUS not ruled Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage, he could not today be married to a white lady. Can you say hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Isn't it Clarence Thomas, not Stevens, you are referring to?
 

BobF said:
As I see it the Supreme Court has just ruled against the courts of he states and rewrote those laws to include same sex marriages. What the Supreme Court can not do is tell religions how they will respond to marriage rules. Religions are protected but not controlled by our court system.
Click to expand...

Jim, this Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with what I said. I have no problem with the SC ruling as it came out. What I was pointing out was that if same sex want to get married they have full protection if they go to a court room and ask to be married, as I and my wife did over 50 years ago. If they want a church to do so, they will need to search to find one willing to do so. The churches are not under our federal rules. If so, a number of very conservative churches of Christian and other religions will be very upset and this problem will never be closed.
 
Glinda said:
Each state has it's own law with regard to common law marriage. In California it is not legal. This ruling has nothing to do with common law marriage.
Click to expand...


So the federal court can over rule state laws and decide who can marry. Who is to say they will not make each state consider common law, too? How can they pick and choose which state laws they can change? Evidently state laws no longer matter if the Supreme Court disagrees with them.
 
~Lenore said:
So the federal court can over rule state laws and decide who can marry. Who is to say they will not make each state consider common law, too? How can they pick and choose which state laws they can change? Evidently state laws no longer matter if the Supreme Court disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

There is nothing new here. Federal law has always trumped state, county, city law.
 
An interesting situation about "Same Sex Marriage" arose on
Pitcairn Island.

Pitcairn is where the Captain and Officers of The Bounty were
put ashore by the mutineers.

They have a population of 48 and no "Gay Couples" on the Island,
they do have a lot of "In-Breeding" though.

But they back "Gay Marriage".

Story Here

Mike.
 
truespock said:
This has been an awfully long time coming and is the very LEAST a society claiming to be 'civilized' can do. NOW, perhaps we can all work on the disbanding of the obsolete and ineffectual two-party system of American government.
Click to expand...

This two party system is not part of our Constitution at all. Don't like either party? How would we get rid of them anyway as it is just personal decisions, not laws.
 
BobF said:
This two party system is not part of our Constitution at all. Don't like either party? How would we get rid of them anyway as it is just personal decisions, not laws.
Click to expand...

However... Majority rule IS part of our constitution.. Please explain to me HOW this is accomplished without a two party system.. Being that majority by definition means 51%.. With three parties..theoretically a party could win with 34%.. Not a majority... Four parties? 26% In order to seriously adopt more than 2 parties, we would have to move toward a parliamentary system... like the UK.. Ok with you?
 
QuickSilver said:
However... Majority rule IS part of our constitution.. Please explain to me HOW this is accomplished without a two party system.. Being that majority by definition means 51%.. With three parties..theoretically a party could win with 34%.. Not a majority... Four parties? 26% In order to seriously adopt more than 2 parties, we would have to move toward a parliamentary system... like the UK.. Ok with you?
Click to expand...

Just sounds like a vote off of ties would need to be done. With no parties it would depend on who had the most votes to be a winner and if no 51%. I will need to check the Constitution to see how that is handled.
 
BobF said:
Just sounds like a vote off of ties would need to be done. With no parties it would depend on who had the most votes to be a winner and if no 51%. I will need to check the Constitution to see how that is handled.
Click to expand...

You simply need to look up the definition of majority... It can be nothing else BUT 51%
 
QuickSilver said:
However... Majority rule IS part of our constitution.. Please explain to me HOW this is accomplished without a two party system.. Being that majority by definition means 51%.. With three parties..theoretically a party could win with 34%.. Not a majority... Four parties? 26% In order to seriously adopt more than 2 parties, we would have to move toward a parliamentary system... like the UK.. Ok with you?
Click to expand...

Yes, and we had a coalition of two minority parties for 5 years. And you see how well that worked out. Not!
 
So far, to my recollection, At least in recent memory, Canada has not elected a minority federal govt. which relied on the goodwill (snicker) of the other parties. Should it happen, things will no doubt heat up in Canuckistan. There be daggers behind those smiles! Lol. Beware of courteous Canadians bearing gifts. Lol.
 
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
 
As I promised I would look up how things go. Such a confusing mess to look into.

One being the President is not elected by the people. That is done by the Electoral College.

Some cities have very elaborate ways to vote and count. Different state do use different methods.

Pretty difficult to find one method for all.

Read through this document and see the many ways for elections and counting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
 
That's nice Bob... BUT you want another party... or no party.. I'm talking about congress,.. How would you do this and still maintain the majority rule that the Constitution outlines.
 
QuickSilver said:
That's nice Bob... BUT you want another party... or no party.. I'm talking about congress,.. How would you do this and still maintain the majority rule that the Constitution outlines.
Click to expand...

In Congress the items either pass or fail. No in between.

http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/

[h=1]The Legislative Process[/h]
learn-rotunda.png

[h=2]“All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”[/h] (Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution)


[h=2]How Are Laws Made?[/h] Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.
 
~Lenore said:
So the federal court can over rule state laws and decide who can marry. Who is to say they will not make each state consider common law, too? How can they pick and choose which state laws they can change? Evidently state laws no longer matter if the Supreme Court disagrees with them.
Click to expand...

Lenore, the Supreme Court selects cases it wishes to rule on based on what they consider important, relevant or controversial to the American people at that point in time. Just because a case makes it to the Supreme Court doesn't mean they'll decide to hear it. They selected this case because the rights of gays are very much in the forefront of American life at this time and those rights desperately needed to be clarified. Now, as for common law marriage, I don't know that it's such a burning issue right now. Since you're interested in it, perhaps someday a case involving common law marriage will reach the Supreme Court and they will decide to hear it. And perhaps it will result in a federal law clarifying common law marriage for all 50 states. But meanwhile, each state will have its own law regarding common law marriage. My state, California, does not recognize common law marriage. I believe your state, Texas, does.
 
I've said it before, BUT -- I will never understand why the Right gets its panties in such a twist about gay marriage. If you don't approve, don't do it! But that doesn't give you the right to disregard the civil rights of those who do. All that stuff the Right spouts about gay marriage threatening traditional marriage is simply ridiculous horsepuckey. I don't think a whole bunch of heterosexual people are going to wake up tomorrow and say "Hey -- gay marriage is now legal, so I think I'll do that instead." Gimme a break!

All the legalization of gay marriage really does is to respect the unions of those who choose to commit to another of the same sex, and bestow on them the same legal rights to community property, inheritance, etc., as heterosexuals enjoy. What is so heinous about THAT, anyway?? It is NOT a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue.


And someone please tell me how gay marriage "threatens religious freedom." Religious freedom allows us to participate, or not, in whatever religion we choose. It does NOT give us the right to force our views on others.
 
Butterfly said:
I've said it before, BUT -- I will never understand why the Right gets its panties in such a twist about gay marriage. If you don't approve, don't do it! But that doesn't give you the right to disregard the civil rights of those who do. All that stuff the Right spouts about gay marriage threatening traditional marriage is simply ridiculous horsepuckey. I don't think a whole bunch of heterosexual people are going to wake up tomorrow and say "Hey -- gay marriage is now legal, so I think I'll do that instead." Gimme a break!

All the legalization of gay marriage really does is to respect the unions of those who choose to commit to another of the same sex, and bestow on them the same legal rights to community property, inheritance, etc., as heterosexuals enjoy. What is so heinous about THAT, anyway?? It is NOT a religious issue, it is a civil rights issue.


And someone please tell me how gay marriage "threatens religious freedom." Religious freedom allows us to participate, or not, in whatever religion we choose. It does NOT give us the right to force our views on others.
Click to expand...

The best one is that Gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage... I imagine millions of married couples have decided to divorce because of this ruling... NOT
 
That fallacy almost ranks with the precept that allowing gays to teach in the schools would somehow turn pupils from being hetero into gay and lesbian children. Pleez, sexual orientation is not a contagious disease. Lol
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top