(July 21, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Cato Wrote: The legislation wasn't granting rights, it was to prevent others from continuing to trample them.

Who's right were being trampled . . .??? . . Same Sex marriage??? Umm first no one was being denied the right to marry. Now what you want to "play with" is not a matter of law.

Second what civil right was being trampled on if no civil law had ever allowed same sex marriage in the first place or was even reconsidered under the federal constitution. It never was even seen as a constitutional right in both federal or state constitution!!

Also this may make you mad or crazy, which ever comes first, but the court did NOT RULE ON MARRIAGE. It rule that there were certain privet acts that a person does to be given or seen as dignified. Because marriage is one of those assumed acts for dignity, then non should be prevented form acting in a manner that will give dignity and security to individuals. Because marriage was argued to be one of the many dignity bestowing acts, it could not be restricted.

The act to perform a dignity action is what was ruled.

(July 21, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Clearly, you go on online in between posts and frantically search the web for information to back up whatever point your trying to make. That's hardly impressive and I seriously doubt anyone under the age of nine would believe that you are well-versed in matters of the law. Seems to me that if you actually understood the law and the Constitution, you would understand why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, even if you personally disagree with it.

The internet? If you have to go to the internet to learn that you clearly did not learn anything from 8th grade civics and history class. Are you honestly telling me you did not know how we amend the constitution of the United States (They even have cartoons on it) and that the amendments require approval of State legislatures and 2/3 of the States in the union? Or how African Americans were granted freedom, citizenship, and rights? Wow, our education system really is going to shit.

Regrettably I am better versed than most in regards to the law and the constitution. Which is why I know the ruling is not supported by precedence in regards to the subject of marriage, separation of powers, and constitutional interpretation.

But pray tell. What is your understanding of why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage? I hope you do not state something utterly stupid like the government does not have the right to discriminate (as it can, must, and does under various levels of scrutiny). Or some foolish notion of universal equality without consideration of quality (since we are treating some equal while still not treating others).

(July 21, 2015 at 1:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I'm confused: aren't native Americans... American citizens?

Technically speaking Native Americans are member of Sovereign Nations under the administration and protection of the Government of the United States. Native Americans are granted US Citizenship as well as an enrollment number by the Federal Government and their Tribes.

Up until recently Native Americans were considered property of the US government and throughout much of the US were prohibited from working outside of their reservations unless it was on military bases. If Native Americans wanted to travel they were required to get permission from the US State Department.

Native American reservations are not bound by State laws but may not pass laws in contradiction of Federal law. Reservations are not permitted to have an international boarder and even if they have a maritime boarder their territory ends at the waters edged which is then consider US territorial waters.

(July 21, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Cato Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Anima Wrote: Your black ass should realize that your civil rights were approved by congressional vote in the 13th-15th amendments and then subsequently ratified by 2/3 majorities in the State congresses such that 2/3 majority of the States agreed to ratify the amendments in order to be enacted as law.  In short your basic status and subsequent rights as an American citizen were a matter of public debate and voted upon and approved at the State level.

The idea being, and the sickening part, that the government shouldn't be required to force people to treat others fairly. The fact that the government has to constantly be petitioned to protect the rights of minorities doesn't speak well of many of our citizens.

The legislation wasn't granting rights, it was to prevent others from continuing to trample them.

I am sorry I do not follow. The legislation granted rights. Blacks were neither recognized as people (other than the 3/5th compromise) or as citizens. They were not privy to any more rights at law than a cow. By means of the amendments ratified by the States they were granted their freedom, citizenship, and rights.

By not given are you referring to, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the inalienable rights endowed by the creator that you do not believe in? You have as much inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness as nature allows or denies. In turth you do not have a right to life. However you do not have an obligation to give up your life. You do not have a right to liberty; but you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your liberty. You do not have a right to happiness and you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your happiness.

This is not to say the state cannot take it from you for the sake of society. Only that you are not obligated to surrender any of them for another without a reason. Otherwise the only rights you have as a citizen are enumerated or substantively defined in the Constitution or if you are not a UN conspiracist the UN Charter.

(July 21, 2015 at 3:28 pm)Anima Wrote: But pray tell.  What is your understanding of why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage?  I hope you do not state something utterly stupid like the government does not have the right to discriminate (as it can, must, and does under various levels of scrutiny).  Or some foolish notion of universal equality without consideration of quality (since we are treating some equal while still not treating others).

Why the game? Below is a link to the opinion. Here is the last paragraph of the majority opinion.

Quote: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’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

The court found that the laws in question violated the 14th amendment. You can disagree with it and argue the merits of it until you're blue in the face; but that's the court's opinion in a nutshell.

(July 21, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Anima Wrote:

(July 21, 2015 at 2:44 pm)Cato Wrote: The idea being, and the sickening part, that the government shouldn't be required to force people to treat others fairly. The fact that the government has to constantly be petitioned to protect the rights of minorities doesn't speak well of many of our citizens.

The legislation wasn't granting rights, it was to prevent others from continuing to trample them.

I am sorry I do not follow.  The legislation granted rights.  Blacks were neither recognized as people (other than the 3/5th compromise) or as citizens.  They were not privy to any more rights at law than a cow.  By means of the amendments ratified by the States they were granted their freedom, citizenship, and rights.

By not given are you referring to, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the inalienable rights endowed by the creator that you do not believe in?  You have as much inalienable right to life, liberty, and happiness as nature allows or denies.  In turth you do not have a right to life.  However you do not have an obligation to give up your life.  You do not have a right to liberty; but you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your liberty.  You do not have a right to happiness and you do not have an obligation to sacrifice your happiness.  

This is not to say the state cannot take it from you for the sake of society.  Only that you are not obligated to surrender any of them for another without a reason.  Otherwise the only rights you have as a citizen are enumerated or substantively defined in the Constitution or if you are not a UN conspiracist the UN Charter.

I side with Mr. Jefferson and those of like mind that preceded him on the issue of rights. Governments do not grant rights, they can only serve to curb them or protect them. Governments are a necessary evil knowing that the biggest obstacle to liberty in nature is other people no better demonstrated by your vehement disagreement with the Obergefell decision.

I'm all for my right to be free from discrimination, but what this lady did to the anti-gay demonstrator goes too far:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f3T7SsTrMk

I do still believe the anti-gay demonstrator is retarded, but I disagree with what the pro gay (I'm assuming Christian) lady did. I don't want throwing things (which IMO is violence) to represent me.

I agree. That is not the way forward.

(July 21, 2015 at 3:58 pm)Cato Wrote: Why the game? Below is a link to the opinion. Here is the last paragraph of the majority opinion.

Quote: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’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes  of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

The court found that the laws in question violated the 14th amendment. You can disagree with it and argue the merits of it until you're blue in the face; but that's the court's opinion in a nutshell.

I hope you are not acting like the court can never reverse a decision it has made or realize it made a bad decision. It reversed a decision in order to grant Obergfell a victory. So we know that is not the case.

Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication. Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.” - Chief Justice John Roberts.

Indeed why are we playing games. There is no protection from loneliness or right to dignity as expressed by Justice Kennedy in support of the majority opinion in the Constitution. I am sure none of your have ever head of a companionship or dignity clause in the constitution. In fact I am willing to bet the majority of you heard the law is reason free from passion statement, yet here you see Kennedy say the law is to respond to the emotions of individuals and conveys emotional support. So why are you suddenly acting as if what Kennedy said has always been the case or ignoring the repercussions of what was said? Because this outcome is one you agree with?

(July 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote: Petitioners’ “fundamental right” claim falls into the most sensitive category of constitutional adjudication.  Petitioners do not contend that their States’ marriage laws violate an enumerated constitutional right, such as the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution. See ante, at 3, 14. They argue instead that the laws violate a right implied by the Fourteenth Amendment’s requirement that “liberty” may not be deprived without “due process of law.”

This is the blue in the face part. You're just going to have to get over it, the decision won't change.

As far as enumeration, remember that there was a loud camp that argued against a bill of rights simply because they thought that if certain rights were enumerated that some would interpret this as limiting rights to just those enumerated. I think you're guilty of this here.