Same Sex Marriage Now Legal Nationwide in USA

[MENTION=1814]invisible[/MENTION]

If legal bodies have to observe it, that means they should not be able to change it easily. Legal bodies can become corrupt which is exactly why we have a constitution. The constitution is strongly tied to legal precedent.

When it comes to politics, being able to convince people is all one really needs. You might expect better than that but it doesn't happen. Citing the Constitution is also not really an argument in the first place because its entire purpose is to be cited, and the courts look to it for guidance in deciding cases. That is what it is designed for. Allowing the Constitution to be changed easily would directly effect court decisions which would change what laws we allow. It's not just people that appeal to the Constitution, the entire legal system must obey it.
 
And some would LOVE to add in anything that could favor them, and often the Constitution is the only thing that saves us from blatantly corrupt lobbying. If crooked officials were given half a chance to amend it I assure you they would. The fact that people cite it so much is a sign that it is working.

If people were just allowed to amend it, SCOTUS wouldn't be approving same sex marriage based on Constitutional rights because they'd likely have been stripped out of the Constitution by now.
 
The Constitution is walking on thin ice. Should it fail in one sense, all it has done will be a failure.

[video=youtube;2Z2RzVhw4rE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z2RzVhw4rE[/video]
 
Last edited:
@sprinkles thanks, after reading what you wrote, i have obtained a better understanding of why its stability is important, and i can comprehend its utility better. but, i never said that it should be easy to change. i only said that arguing that something should remain a certain way because it has been a certain way in the past is fallacious, and that often, i can often see this kind of appeal being made to the constitution. i think that when formulating arguments for possible change, the more constructive focus is on why the change is necessary or meaningfully good, rather than that things were done a certain way in the past. i recognise that this is idealistic, but if it were possible, it would be more productive and constructive, and i think we should try to aim for this argument style in dealing with other arguments.
 
invisible said:
@sprinkles thanks, after reading what you wrote, i have obtained a better understanding of why its stability is important, and i can comprehend its utility better. but, i never said that it should be easy to change. i only said that arguing that something should remain a certain way because it has been a certain way in the past is fallacious, and that often, i can often see this kind of appeal being made to the constitution. i think that when formulating arguments for possible change, the more constructive focus is on why the change is necessary or meaningfully good, rather than that things were done a certain way in the past. i recognise that this is idealistic, but if it were possible, it would be more productive and constructive, and i think we should try to aim for this argument style in dealing with other arguments.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a way of amending it, it's just very hard, as it should be.

And sure, people make appeals of tradition against the Constitution. It isn't a perfect system. But a lot of times we point to it because it's really the right thing to do. Just look at the Bill of Rights.

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
Click to expand...

People point to this because that's what it says and what it says is good - it doesn't matter how long it has been that way, does it? Do you ever predict a time when this would become outdated tradition?

Where we run into problems is with things like the right to bear arms. But as I said, it's not perfect, and the problem is that if we let people amend one thing that isn't necessarily perfect, we have to field equal arguments for everything else. We HAVE to or otherwise there will be a lot of claims of hypocrisy, and whether they're true or not they would gum up a system which works pretty well more often than not. It's not perfect as I said but you can do a hell of a lot worse.
 
As I said...

If I believe differently than, say, most of those on this forum; I may get attacked. Doesn't change my beliefs. Change yours?

If I stand for what I believe in, it is most unusual for it to just be about myself. Can the Constitution make a person marry a couple of gays when his religious beliefs are protected by that same Constitution? Exactly who is the Constitution protecting here? Just one group, as I see it. If a florist refuses to sell flowers for a wedding, will they be sued? Who will the Constitution protect? Walking on the thin ice of another day. Why think things are so personal.

I don't come here to argue, but feel the need to if I read three people's posts. Two of them clutter threads as fast as they can as a mode of operation. You aren't there yet.....I guess. I can enjoy my visits here by avoiding you, so I do. There is a time to kill, and a time to lay down swords.

I see these things as smoke screens for Iran's nuclear disagreements and our country's ignorance. Look: shiny flag and gay marriage...... and most everyone looked.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION]

Not selling flowers is incredibly petty and spiteful if you ask me. I'm not sure being an ass entirely counts as a religious right.

And as for forcing someone to marry two people - I don't see that happening. Seriously, who would bother? This is about recognition, not who does the service. I doubt anyone wants to get married where they are not welcome. It kind of ruins the mood.
 
Although I am joining this conversation a little late I wanted to provide some input. First, I was very excited to hear the ruling! Friday will certainly go down in the history books as a great day for LGBT people and Straight Allies. As a gay man, and having come out of the closet about 7 years ago, I am in awe at how quickly the tide has turned to advance marriage equality. Seven years ago I remember thinking that it would be many decades before same-sex marriage was recognized by all 50 states of the United States of America. While it seems that the battle will drag on a little bit longer in my home state of Kansas (Texas and Kansas seem to have similar resistance at this point), I am sure that compliance will come fairly soon. However, like many other LGBT folk and Allies, I recognize that the battle is still not yet complete. There is currently discussion, as there always has been, by some about an amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, we must remain vigilant to defend the ruling.

Honestly, I have some mixed feelings on the ruling. Aside from the happiness I have on the ruling, I have enduring questions. As I am very familiar with the issue of marriage equality, and have been involved in some activism, I came to hold my own perspectives on the constitutionality of such a ruling. Apart from other people I know who are also passionate about this issue, I take a perspective of the federal government having somewhat of a limited role in the issue of marriage equality. To be specific, I interpreted the constitution as indicating, through the Full Faith and Credit clause, that only recognition could be required by the federal government. I was actually surprised when the Supreme Court went beyond this by ruling that all states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I therefore, am still having some difficulty determining the logic behind the requirement for all states to issue marriage licenses. This still persists despite reading all of the opinions issued by the Supreme Court. Additionally, this persists as the historical precedent has been that the states have regulated marriage, not the federal government.

Once again, while I am very happy that same-sex marriage is now recognized by all 50 states, I am still perplexed as to the constitutionality of the court going beyond simple recognition by all states.

What thoughts and arguments do you all have regarding this?
 
[MENTION=9824]Tilheyra[/MENTION]

The license is the recognition as it is what allows an equal marriage in the first place. A state recognizing marriage is kind of pointless if they don't issue licenses.

Edit:
Also it'd be like saying "we recognize your equal rights elsewhere, but we're not giving them to you." It kind of doesn't make any sense - if you recognize a right, then recognize it as valid all the way. I don't think states are allowed to halfway on civil rights anyway. State's rights are not rights to flout anything they find convenient.
 
Last edited:
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=9824]Tilheyra[/MENTION]

The license is the recognition as it is what allows an equal marriage in the first place. A state recognizing marriage is kind of pointless if they don't issue licenses.
Click to expand...

Forgive my oversight, I was referring to marriages being recognized outside of the state where it was performed. For example, here in Kansas, same-sex marriage was not recognized, so many couples decided to get married in Iowa. This was fine if they were in Iowa, or another state that recognized same-sex marriage, but not if they returned and continued to live in Kansas.

But a state can still recognize a marriage without issuing licenses for said marriage. This means that the state would still honor a legal marriage performed in another state, but would not perform said marriage within the boundaries of the state. The state would still be upholding the rights of the couple. An example outside of same-sex marriage is a self-uniting marriage, where only the couple need to declare they are married, without a state-approved individual witnessing. Very few states allow self-uniting marriages to occur within their territory, but all 50 states recognize the self-uniting marriage as valid. Given the Full Faith and Credit clause, this not only makes sense, but also allows a state to determine the marriages performed within its territory.
 
Tilheyra said:
Forgive my oversight, I was referring to marriages being recognized outside of the state where it was performed. For example, here in Kansas, same-sex marriage was not recognized, so many couples decided to get married in Iowa. This was fine if they were in Iowa, or another state that recognized same-sex marriage, but not if they returned and continued to live in Kansas.

But a state can still recognize a marriage without issuing licenses for said marriage. This means that the state would still honor a legal marriage performed in another state, but would not perform said marriage within the boundaries of the state. The state would still be upholding the rights of the couple. An example outside of same-sex marriage is a self-uniting marriage, where only the couple need to declare they are married, without a state-approved individual witnessing. Very few states allow self-uniting marriages to occur within their territory, but all 50 states recognize the self-uniting marriage as valid. Given the Full Faith and Credit clause, this not only makes sense, but also allows a state to determine the marriages performed within its territory.
Click to expand...

No, I understand. The question is though, would a refusal to issue a license not be a violation of civil rights according to the Constitution as SCOTUS interpreted it in this case?

For what reason would a state deny a license other than not recognizing the couple's rights to have one? I can understand not allowing self uniting marriages, or even common law marriages, because they don't solicit the state to issue a license in the first place.
 
[MENTION=834]Dragon[/MENTION]
It's also ridiculous that Christians are allowed to discriminate against anyone they want based on religion but if somebody discriminates against a Christian based on religion it suddenly becomes persecution. What a big double fucking standard that is.
 
sprinkles said:
@Dragon
It's also ridiculous that Christians are allowed to discriminate against anyone they want based on religion but if somebody discriminates against a Christian based on religion it suddenly becomes persecution. What a big double fucking standard that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Fox news would go ballistic if a county clerk who believes in the flying spaghetti monster refused to issue marriage licences to Christians using the same religious liberty argument logic. Only Christians are allowed to discriminate in the name of religious freedom.
 
Dragon said:
Yeah, Fox news would go ballistic if a county clerk who believes in the flying spaghetti monster refused to issue marriage licences to Christians using the same religious liberty argument logic. Only Christians are allowed to discriminate in the name of religious freedom.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

Here's what you do people, and take note:

You let other people have the same freedoms you would like to have. That's how you avoid being an ass. It's really easy!
 
One of my cousins just posted a straight pride picture on facebook.

There is no hope for our species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top