Thank you Supreme Court...

[Bubblehead1980]

The US Supreme Court ruled Section 5 of the so called "Voting Rights Act" unconstitutional as it violated state's rights requiring Federal approval for their election plans etc, but not all states, just a few cherry picked by Congress 48 years ago. This section was misused(especially under Obama/Holder) by the feds to block combating voter fraud by the states, now they can no longer legally do this.Faith in the court has been shaken recently with obamacare ruling etc but they got this one correct, even if by one vote, bravo.

[CaptainHaplo]

It is an interesting ruling, but its impact will be minimal given that the Court recently ruled that states cannot require ID over and above that required by federal law.

They didn't overturn the provision, they overturned its CURRENT implementation - meaning that it can be reinstated should Congress update the formulas.

The funniest thing is, here Democrats have kept "at large" elections rather than district elections since they would not win as many seats that way. Wonder how the local boys are gonna deal with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent.....

[Tribesman]

The US Supreme Court ruled Section 5 of the so called "Voting Rights Act" unconstitutional

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.
So they issue no ruling on section 5 but ruled that section 4(b) was unconstitutional unless it is updated.

[Tchocky]

Here come the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions

[Tchocky]

DOMA unconstitutional under equal protection
Opinion here http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf

Well that's good news

[Tchocky]

Prop 8 case dismissed on standing

[CaptainHaplo]

These two rulings are quite interesting. Prop 8 was dismissed on a standing issue because it was a state matter - not a federal one. DOMA as written was unconstitutional - regardless of your views on gay marriage.

The SC simply punted. I find that funny.

[AVGWarhawk]

Skirting the issue. The federal way!

[CaptainHaplo]

What will happen now is some states will allow gay marriage, others wont.

The States have been determined to be able to decide - at this point - the issue on their own - but only if upheld by state judicial proceedings.

So basically no "state" decision - once ruled on by the State Supreme Court - can be challenged at the federal level.

However - what WILL be the next step for the pro-gay side will be to sue (through a couple that was married in a state recognizing such unions) a state that does not allow recognition of same sex marriage - using the full faith and credit Federal law.

That the SC's will have a hard time punting on.

[soopaman2]

States rights...

I know we had a past beef with negro slavery and states rights, but this is almost the same.

Maybe we are due for another war with the the Christian Sharia states, who for some reason wish to intrude in people lives, and legislate what they do with their private parts.

Thou shalt only stick thy penis into government approved holes.

Anti gays are silly, and have no argument outside of Bible quotes

[soopaman2]

For real, wtf is happening to our freedoms, when who someone loves is legislated?

Freaking nothing better to do, no other important domestic issues, what about the FED, or unfair trade gaps between China and America?

We gotta worry about gay marriage?

Really?

Glass Steagall act was repealed, yet you all care about who sticks what into who...

[AVGWarhawk]

We gotta worry about gay marriage?



No, the current administration does. Promises made and upcoming election that will feature Hillary Clinton as the next runner. :yep:

[CaptainHaplo]

I don't know of any legislation that says you can only love certain people. If there is any, show it to me.

It isn't about love - its about an intentional decision by a small minority to redefine a subject (and word) using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view - when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.

[August]

I don't know of any legislation that says you can only love certain people. If there is any, show it to me.

It isn't about love - its about an intentional decision by a small minority to redefine a subject (and word) using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view - when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.


This ^

[Sailor Steve]

when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.
No it shouldn't, but you have to get permission from the governent to marry, which makes it a governmental issue. Therefore, who the licenses are issued to is a matter for the government, at least under current law, so the definitions are made by the government. Therefore the government is indeed discriminating against certain people as long as gays aren't allowed to marry.

Remove the government from the marriage business and gays will marry anyway. I don't see what the problem is.

[Tribesman]

It isn't about love - its about an intentional decision by a small minority to redefine a subject (and word) using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view - when in reality it shouldn't be a governmental issue to start with.
Same old rubbish which that poster has already shot down himself when he previously made the claim:doh:
To recap, the early church moved into the marriage business which at the time was a purely government issue.
It was a case of a small minority redefining a subject using the power of government to make the rest of society accept their view.:yep:

[August]

I say government shouldn't to be in the marriage business regardless of the genders involved.

[Tribesman]

I say government shouldn't to be in the marriage business regardless of the genders involved.
Good idea.
Just get the government to withdraw all the laws where marriage has a bearing, then get them to make up a couple of thousand new laws to cover the vast multitude of situations which have just been put in legal limbo.

[Bubblehead1980]

No they didn't, they ruled that the formula used to apply Section 5 was out of date.
So they issue no ruling on section 5 but ruled that section 4(b) was unconstitutional unless it is updated.

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

[Bubblehead1980]

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

[August]

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states, decision is correct in it takes feds out of marriage but the sweeping activist language is troubling.Court did not define homosexuals as a suspect class either.

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

[CaptainHaplo]

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the states.

Gotta disagree with you. Marriage is a civil contract between consenting parties. As such, it should not be the realm of the state to decide who can or cannot consent to enter into a contractual understanding with another (or other) consenting person.

The idea that it is a "right" or a "privilege" are both part of what has caused the issue to even exist. The issue is not about what people do in their bedrooms - if it were you would have the "bible thumpers" demanding that sodomy laws be enforced. The issue is an attempt to redefine a traditional word that has its earliest significant references found in religious texts. For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

There are truly 2 different issues here - one is an intentional attack on a religious commitment in an attempt to redefine in and thus modify the religious acceptance of homosexuality. That is simply a wrong action attempted by proponents of "gay marriage". The second is the reality that a civil union between two (or more) consenting adults is not the business of anyone else - be it the church, the state, or the neighbors down the street. As such, society (including churches and states) should back the heck out of what people do in their own bedrooms provided it is between consenting adults.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Well, I'm gonna throw a monkey wrench into all this by speculating that it probably all boils down to taxes in the end, ergo government involvement.:hmm2:

[Stealhead]

Honestly marriage is a very complex issue and means different things to different people.Simply reading the Wikipedia article on marriage would make that obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[Bubblehead1980]

Gotta disagree with you. Marriage is a civil contract between consenting parties. As such, it should not be the realm of the state to decide who can or cannot consent to enter into a contractual understanding with another (or other) consenting person.

The idea that it is a "right" or a "privilege" are both part of what has caused the issue to even exist. The issue is not about what people do in their bedrooms - if it were you would have the "bible thumpers" demanding that sodomy laws be enforced. The issue is an attempt to redefine a traditional word that has its earliest significant references found in religious texts. For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

There are truly 2 different issues here - one is an intentional attack on a religious commitment in an attempt to redefine in and thus modify the religious acceptance of homosexuality. That is simply a wrong action attempted by proponents of "gay marriage". The second is the reality that a civil union between two (or more) consenting adults is not the business of anyone else - be it the church, the state, or the neighbors down the street. As such, society (including churches and states) should back the heck out of what people do in their own bedrooms provided it is between consenting adults.


Okay, marriage as a religious thing simply does not matter here, because it does not count for everyone as we have separation of church and state and not everyone is governed by religion.Some of us are religious, some of us are atheists like myself, I could care less if a man in a robe etc performed a ceremony.I am speaking of legally recognized marriage by a state, which issues a marriage license which entitles you to said privileges.Marriage, much like a driver's license is a privilege, state's set their standards, as long as it does not deny said privilege on grounds of say race or gender or other members of a suspect class.Homosexuals are not a suspect class, so denying them a marriage license is not illegal.However(not sure about all but just saying), I believe most state's laws that do not allow gay marriage simply define marriage as between a man and a woman, really the same thing as saying you must be 16 and pass a driving test to obtain a license or that you can not marry your sister etc. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, freedom of speech is a RIGHT, marriage , in the civil marriage, legal sense, is not.

[Bubblehead1980]

Marriage is not a privilege granted by the states. They may withhold their official recognition of a marriage but they cannot stop someone from marrying.

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it, they may grant or deny based on if you meet the criteria they set for a marriage license.Some state's say you must have different equipment, other's do not, it's up to them as long as it is not denied on basis of race, gender, etc.

[August]

Yes, it is a privilege.Sure, they can't stop you from having a ceremony but the privilege is the legal benefits and recognition that come along with it,

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.

[Tribesman]

Of course, you would jump on a typo. 4 not 5* They did say it was unconstitutional, read the decision.


Perhaps you should have read the decision.
Even your attempt at correcting your mistake fails.
Perhaps you are right, maybe those people teaching you law really do know nothing. It would certainly explain a lot.

Sorry, government handouts will never be what defines a commitment as intimate as a marriage between two people.
So being "next of kin" is a government handout?????:doh:


For example, both Christianity and Islam claim Adam and Eve as the "origins" of humanity. While neither text states clearly that they were married, they both show a picture of a married couple. Their son, Cain is the first specific mention of marriage in religious texts. There are no known non-religious texts or records that would predate the religious claims.

You are correct that it doesn't state that they were married, however it doesn't imply that they were married either so that picture is one you are drawing for yourself.
Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

[Hottentot]

Cain is indeed the first mention of marriage, but he had to go to the land of Nod to get married. Which suggests that the religious community in Eden didn't have marriage but the ungodly masses living in the other place did. So your religious text clearly undermines the claim you are trying to put on it.

Might as well be a reflection of exogamic traditions, though.

[Oberon]

In the name of Kane! :salute:

[Tribesman]

Might as well be a reflection of exogamic traditions, though.
Well that's where it gets tricky, did he really marry outside of his community or did he marry his twin, or did he perhaps marry one or both of the Abel triplets to avoid the twincest?
If he married outside his community to one of the mortal women who inhabited the earth before the creation of Adam and Eve was he adopting their non religious societal culture and their accepted norms?
Were Michael and Gabriel really best men at the wedding? Or if they had been among those angels shagging the humans before the creation of Adam and Eve were they there as father of the bride or brides?

[Hottentot]

Well that's where it gets tricky

It does, and I don't claim to have answers to those questions, especially since it has been at least several years since I last studied that particular part of the Bible. I have just always been somewhat fascinated from the historiographical point of view in how these old stories may be reflecting something from the ancient past, so could hardly resist adding that.

It's not that long since I red a theory proposing the exogamy as a reason for why in the ancient folk tale traditions we so often see the hero going to some far foreign land and ending up married there. I suppose that's where it popped into my mind in the first place. So much for being original. Then there is of course the good old theory of the tales' trolls and similar monsters being reminiscent of the Neanderthals. And so on and so on.

Carry on with the thread subject, I'll tell my inner scholar to sit down and shut up.

[Tribesman]

It does, and I don't claim to have answers to those questions, especially since it has been at least several years since I last studied that particular part of the Bible. I have just always been somewhat fascinated from the historiographical point of view in how these old stories may be reflecting something from the ancient past, so could hardly resist adding that.

The beauty about that bit of the bible when it comes to study is that there are so many versions and so many contradictions both within each version and between versions.
Plus of course so many attempts over thousands of years to try and make them balance, fill in the big gaps and rework the contradictions to lend it some form of maintainable credibility.

[Mr Quatro]

These two rulings are quite interesting. Prop 8 was dismissed on a standing issue because it was a state matter - not a federal one.

DOMA as written was unconstitutional - regardless of your views on gay marriage.

The SC simply punted. I find that funny.

Is this okay to point out some facts about the prop 8 and the DOMA ruling in this thread?

and by the way I also agree that the SC punted, but they used some funny punters.

I love the Jews and I even like gay girls due to the fact that we like the same things ... gay men is another subject, but this is about the laws that were just turned over by the SC.

First of all the lawsuit against DOMA (defense of the marriage act) enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Cliton was brought to the awareness of the supreme court by a Jewish couple married in Canada with the marriage recognized by the same sex law in the state of New York where they were living at the time of her partners death.

Mrs Edith Windsor (83) was charged a federal estate tax of over $300,000 upon the death of her wife and she brought the lawsuit to the SC. I wonder how much that cost her to sue?

She was the injured party and the DOMA was ruled by Justice Kennedy and four other SC justices as unconstitional, of whom three of the other four justices were Jewish, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

again it's just a small point and I am not against the Jews or the catholics, but yet the other case prop 8 was ruled to have no injured party and was denied a ruling sending the case back to the lower courts in California where a pro-homosexual judge had already invalidated the prop 8 ruling passed by a majority of California voters back in 2008.

Now gay marriage will be okay soon and very soon in the state of California with the options of stopping very slim.

I noticed that in the DOMA ruling however that over and over again SC justice Kennedy said that the DOMA case was over ruled, but only applied to the 12 states that had already approved of same sex marriage for the purposes of obtaining federal benefits, which in turn kept it from being approval of same sex marriage in all 50 states.

Do they then go back and make a correction that it includes California ... a fine point indeed, but isn't it the fine points of the law that have to be obeyed?

[Wolferz]

Maybe the Westboro Baptist Curch is running things now?
Christians drinking the haterade?