One Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue

[MrFedEx]

Scalia is doing EXACTLY what was meant to happen. It doesn't matter if its 1798 or 2145. The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be the law of the land and wasn't supposed to be open to interpretation. Obama is not, WAS NOT, a Constitutional lawyer. And his actions, much like most liberals, clearly determines that he either doesn't care what the Constitution actually says or just doesn't understand it.

Has the world changed at all since 1776? This is why your argument is ridiculous, because there have been tremendous changes which need to be addressed. The nature of societies is to change, and our laws are modified accordingly.

If you and Scalia want to live in a plastic bubble from the past, be my guest. The rest of us will just learn to adapt and evolve.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Not unless you mean on a state by state basis. There are more than a handful of states that don't allow it. Government works best when it's limited in size and scope and sticks to it's role that is spelled out in The Constitution. If they left states alone many would probably give in and allow gay marriage. I don't approve of gay marriage myself but I definitely approve of letting states decide per The Tenth Amendment instead of the Fed forcing it upon them all with one big Constitution twisting brush stroke.

My mistake I was under the impression you wanted government out of it all together:

But you're right on the mark about the government having no business being involved in marriage period.

I guess we're just on different levels when it comes to what limited government really means.

 

[wkmac]

I guess we're just on different levels when it comes to what limited government really means.

I've come to realize when some people call for limited gov't that they mean for gov't to limit everyone else!

As to the issue of marriage, interesting study from a historical perspective. This LiveScience piece from a couple of years back offers food for thought.

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

 

[wkmac]

 

[wkmac]

A fascinating critique and criticism of the gay marriage equality movement from a self described "queer activist" herself. One is not required to accept the conclusions in order to listen to the analysis.

 

[wkmac]

TGIF: The Libertarian Case for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

 

[soberups]

In the case of gay marriage....protection from what?

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, gay couples did not enjoy the same benefits under the law as straight couples did. They were financially discriminated against because their marriages were not recognized on the Federal level and they were not eligible for the same tax and Social Security benefits as straight couples. They were denied equal protection under the law, which SCOTUS just ruled was in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[soberups]

Yes, concealed carry should be recognized in all states for the very same reason I mentioned already. Because it falls under The Second Amendment that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

Marriage licenses are recognized in all 50 states because marriage is legal in all 50 states per The Tenth Amendment. Not because marriage is a Constitutional right. The Tenth Amendment ensures that each state can determine what isn't covered in The Constitution is covered by their own legislation. That's why a state wouldn't (I should say SHOULDN'T) be wrong for not recognizing a gay couple's marriage that came from out of state should their laws differ.

Concealed carry is not a guaranteed right under the Second Amendment. Since it is not allowed in all 50 states, and since each state has differing restrictions on the time, place and manner in which guns can be carried and used, then by your logic carry permits should NOT be reciprocal in all 50 states. Sorry, you cant have it both ways.

 

[MrFedEx]

Concealed carry is not a guaranteed right under the Second Amendment. Since it is not allowed in all 50 states, and since each state has differing restrictions on the time, place and manner in which guns can be carried and used, then by your logic carry permits should NOT be reciprocal in all 50 states. Sorry, you cant have it both ways.

CCW is not a right at all. In every state I know of, you have to apply for a permit and get background checked. I have a CCW, paid my money and got the permit. There are plenty of people who get denied.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Prior to the SCOTUS ruling, gay couples did not enjoy the same benefits under the law as straight couples did. They were financially discriminated against because their marriages were not recognized on the Federal level and they were not eligible for the same tax and Social Security benefits as straight couples. They were denied equal protection under the law, which SCOTUS just ruled was in violation of the 14th Amendment.

That's not discrimination. Those "benefits" werent theirs to claim.

 

[bbsam]

That's not discrimination. Those "benefits" werent theirs to claim.

Now they are.

 

[tourists24]

Now they are.

and thus opening Pandora's Box for the next round of marriage equality claims

 

[Sportello]

and thus opening Pandora's Box for the next round of marriage equality claims

What, pray tell, would those be?

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Concealed carry is not a guaranteed right under the Second Amendment. Since it is not allowed in all 50 states, and since each state has differing restrictions on the time, place and manner in which guns can be carried and used, then by your logic carry permits should NOT be reciprocal in all 50 states. Sorry, you cant have it both ways.

The Second Amendment clearly states we have the right to keep AND BEAR arms. We were never meant to have restrictions on how we carry. There is no inconstancy in my logic on reciprocal permits. You just don't understand why it doesn't apply to both issues because you also don't understand that there are rights guaranteed by the states, via The Tenth Amendment, that aren't guaranteed in The Constitution. Thats why the permits included with those state laws shouldn't be recognized in states without them.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Now they are.

Thanks to activist liberal wackos. But keep celebrating. They only circumvented Our Constitution.

 

[tourists24]

What, pray tell, would those be?

The 14th Amendment gives protections to individuals equal protection under the law. The Court decided that gay individuals have the same protection in marriage as straight people. Now wouldn't this be the same for any individual that wants that same protection for a different type of marriage also?

 

[trickpony1]

What, pray tell, would those be?

Maybe certain groups of people who believe in polygamy.
I must be politically correct so I won't enumerate who they might be.

 

[bbsam]

The 14th Amendment gives protections to individuals equal protection under the law. The Court decided that gay individuals have the same protection in marriage as straight people. Now wouldn't this be the same for any individual that wants that same protection for a different type of marriage also?

Is this somehow supposed to be scary? In all the states that have allowed gay marriage, has there been any kind of groundswell demand for polygamous marriages?

 

[oldngray]

The Second Amendment clearly states we have the right to keep AND BEAR arms. We were never meant to have restrictions on how we carry. There is no inconstancy in my logic on reciprocal permits. You just don't understand why it doesn't apply to both issues because you also don't understand that there are rights guaranteed by the states, via The Tenth Amendment, that aren't guaranteed in The Constitution. Thats why the permits included with those state laws shouldn't be recognized in states without them.

That right to bear arms can be interpreted as being allowed to have either open or concealed carry. States must allow at least one of those two choices.

 

[oldngray]

Is this somehow supposed to be scary? In all the states that have allowed gay marriage, has there been any kind of groundswell demand for polygamous marriages?

Why is there need for a groundswell? According to the judges majority opinion doesn't matter in these cases.