MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[SteelCurtain]

For prof, they are 3 months away until three months pass, then some more signs happen and he "corrects" his prof-ecy for another year hence. To my knowledge he has predicted doom three years running or some such.

[Brian37]

The great thing for the west and secular law, is that nobody is obligated to give one fuck what any holy book says. ..

There is no such thing as a "holy" book, only men that claim a book is "holy."

The book is a claim and the attributes of it's importance is a claim, and interpretations of the significance of the verses are claims, all just claims made by human, selfish and self-serving men that have been shown to be wrong again and again and again.

Yes, the reality is these are merely books. They contain no magical powers, or patents on human morality. It amounts to humans worshiping an object. If one were to worship the Star Wars series and worship "the force" treating it as a literal religion, the sane would rightfully call that nuts.

The truth of all religions and holy books or holy writings are that they are merely reflections of the social norms of the times of in which they were written.

[Minimalist]

You're still a fucking idiot, prof.  Your butthole must be on fire today, huh.

[professor]

It's raining here, so you guys provide some brightness to an otherwise dull day.
Thanks.
I don't know what is coming in September, the elete seem to have something in mind though.

[Pyrrho]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but not being American I'm confused. Does this actually mean that same-sex couples can get married in any state as soon as it comes into effect, or can state law in practice override the federal law, as it kind-of-does-kind-of-doesn't with cannabis legalisation?

States cannot violate federal law. Period. In states which have "legalized" marijuana, the drug is technically still illegal under federal law. If you are caught by a federal agent, you will still get prosecuted under federal law.

The reason states can effectively legalize marijuana but cannot refuse marriage licenses to gay couples is due to the actual laws involved. With marijuana, the federal government ruled it is illegal, but that just gives states the right to arrest people for it. States are not required to arrest people, so some states choose not to, effectively making the drug legal there. With gay marriage, the federal government ruled that states cannot refuse licenses for gay couples, so states which continue to do so would directly violate federal law.

I read this morning that some counties in Alabama have refused *all* marriage licenses rather than issue ones for gay people. This probably isn't against federal law, because the counties are not discriminating; they are refusing licenses for all people. It is rather pathetic though.

TL;DR: When federal laws give a state the right to do something (e.g arrest someone for marihuana possession) the state can choose not to use that right. When federal laws require a state to do something, or to not do something, the state has no choice but to comply with the federal law.

I think it probably is illegal and a violation of federal law for them to refuse to issue marriage licenses.  If I understand the ruling, marriage is a fundamental right, and therefore states must allow it.

But we will see what happens if they continue to refuse to issue licenses.  My guess is that if they do, someone will bring a lawsuit against them, and they will lose.  But I am no lawyer, so feel free to ignore my opinion on this.


To Razzle, it means that states must allow gay marriage and must recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions.  Of course, sometimes people break the law, including members of government, so sometimes there are delays.  Just like when the federal government ordered the racial integration of public schools about half a century ago, not every state immediately followed the law and the federal government stepped in and made them do it anyway.

[Brian37]

It's raining here, so you guys provide some brightness to an otherwise dull day.
Thanks.
I don't know what is coming in September, the elete seem to have something in mind though.

It would brighten our day if you would actually make arguments rather than regurgitate words. Anyone can repeat words out of a book.

[Pyrrho]

Why are people crying about this? The Supreme court is giving rights to other people, and not taking rights away from people.

People are upset because they are fascists who wish to control others and make others conform to their ideas of how people should live their lives.  This is the attitude of many who scream loudly about "freedom."  To understand this, it is helpful to understand the concept of Orwellian doublespeak.

Of course, you are correct that, with this ruling, the Supreme Court is giving rights to people, not taking away rights.

[Jackalope]

Why are people crying about this? The Supreme court is giving rights to other people, and not taking rights away from people.

People are upset because they are fascists who wish to control others and make others conform to their ideas of how people should live their lives.  This is the attitude of many who scream loudly about "freedom."  To understand this, it is helpful to understand the concept of Orwellian doublespeak.

Of course, you are correct that, with this ruling, the Supreme Court is giving rights to people, not taking away rights.

More correctly, the SC is recognizing a right that already existed was being denied.

[LastPoet]

You know prof. You are kind of furniture in this forum. Is it the 25th of september? That would ruin both of my good catholic sisters birthday. Can you intercede with god to make it on the 26th? I hear there is alot of christ's blood to be drank.

[Minimalist]

Euphoria, aside, this is actually a better explanation for Roberts' vote than the silly idea that the fuck came to his senses.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/corporat...r-rulings/

Corporate America on the winning side of Supreme Court’s latest major rulings

The court on Thursday rejected a conservative challenge to President Barack Obama’s healthcare law on a 6-3 vote and, a day later, ruled 5-4 that gay marriage should be legal nationwide.
Both cases were largely seen through the lens of national ideological wars, with liberals backing gay marriage and Obamacare and conservatives opposing them. But the cases could also be seen as pro-business rulings by a court with a reputation as friendly to corporate interests under Chief Justice John Roberts.
Unlike in other contexts, such as a series of cases in which the court cut back on class-action lawsuits, business interests aligned themselves with liberal activists for these cases.
“This Supreme Court is unquestionably responsive to the views of corporate America.