Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[mrjarrell]

The SCOTUS just tossed the republicans a bone. Now we'll have to see if they're smart or if they'll earn their "stupid party" nickname.

The Supreme Court just did Republicans a huge favor on gay marriage - The Washington Post

 

[mrjarrell]

And, for those of you so inclined, here's a starting list for you to begin your boycotts.

The Supreme Court's Same-Sex Marriage Decision Is Already Being Used to Sell You Washing Machines - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I think I'll go have a Coke.

 

[KG1]

Personally, not being gay, I think a fair compromise would have been to allow for civil unions which would have all the legal benefits (and pitfalls) of marriage, and to require that all states recognize a marriage from another state. However, I also understand the importance that LGBT citizens place on having recognition of their relationship.

To me this whole same sex marriage push has been more about the latter. I do believe the social recognition and acceptance aspect is of greater importance to the cause. I do not think a compromise for civil unions would have been sufficient, IMO.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Where is this list of fundamental rights and how are rights selected to be added? What mechanism was established for amending this list?

 

[KG1]

The SCOTUS just tossed the republicans a bone. Now we'll have to see if they're smart or if they'll earn their "stupid party" nickname.

The Supreme Court just did Republicans a huge favor on gay marriage - The Washington Post

Good. Now maybe partisan media hacks will quit trying to pigeon hole republican candidates with the same old line of questioning such as gay marriage and abortion in their attempts to control the narrative. Maybe they will start to ask pertinent questions on things like the economy and the candidates ideas on constitutional obligations and so forth.

 

[mrjarrell]

Good. Now maybe partisan media hacks will quit trying to pigeon hole republican candidates with the same old line of questioning such as gay marriage and abortion in their attempts to control the narrative. Maybe they will start to ask pertinent questions on things like the economy and the candidates ideas on constitutional obligations and so forth.

That would be refreshing. It would also be nice if the candidates put those very issues forward as prime movers. So far the only one doing that is Sanders, and he's a friggin' socialist.

Edit: It was nice to see Graham and even Carson give the correct response.

 

[cobber]

The SCOTUS just tossed the republicans a bone. Now we'll have to see if they're smart or if they'll earn their "stupid party" nickname.

The Supreme Court just did Republicans a huge favor on gay marriage - The Washington Post

Just like Heller was a huge break for the Dems, who could finally ST** about gun control.

Er, what's that? Seems like the Dems already won the "stupid party" title, the GOP will have to settle for second place.

 

[KG1]

Where is this list of fundamental rights and how are rights selected to be added? What mechanism was established for amending this list?

IDK but it looks like the fundamental right to marriage has been added to that list.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Semantics. This was about equal rights. Who cares what you call it. Feel free to make up a new word for marriage between a man and woman if it makes you feel better.

Screw you. We heterosexuals had marriage first. YOU go invent a new term. (You can take that as sarcasm, if you really want to)

 

[mrjarrell]

Just like Heller was a huge break for the Dems, who could finally ST** about gun control.

Er, what's that? Seems like the Dems already won the "stupid party" title, the GOP will have to settle for second place.

Nope the gop is, until they improve, the stupid party. The dems are the evil party, as always.

 

[MisterChester]

Screw you. We heterosexuals had marriage first. YOU go invent a new term. (You can take that as sarcasm, if you really want to)

How do you know that?

 

[mrjarrell]

IDK but it looks like the fundamental right to marriage has been added to that list.

Marriage has been recognised as a fundamental right since the courts ruled in Loving v VA. It was a fundamental right prior to that, but one that was infringed frequently by the states till the courts corrected it and applied the Constitution to the matter, as they did today. Where does it come from? The 9th and 14th Amendments.

 

[mrjarrell]

Screw you. We heterosexuals had marriage first. YOU go invent a new term. (You can take that as sarcasm, if you really want to)

Do you have any proof of that? Marriage existed long before christians or jews or buddhists or muslims or most modern religions and it likely came in many forms. Same sex marriage was a known practice amongst American Indian tribes and they predate judeo christianity by thousands of years.

 

[spec4]

First time I've ever head the GOP referred to as the "stupid" party. IMO, partisan silliness not worthy of being posted. I imagine divorce lawyers are licking their chops. Over the years I have observed that gay relationships have a relatively short shelf life.

 

[mrjarrell]

First time I've ever head the GOP referred to as the "stupid" party. IMO, partisan silliness not worthy of being posted. I imagine divorce lawyers are licking their chops. Over the years I have observed that gay relationships have a relatively short shelf life.

Then you've not been paying attention. Hell, even Kirk has called them the stupid party before. It's a very old term, nothing new.

Origin of "Stupid Party" & "Evil Party" | RedState

 

[SteveM4A1]

First time I've ever head the GOP referred to as the "stupid" party. IMO, partisan silliness not worthy of being posted. I imagine divorce lawyers are licking their chops. Over the years I have observed that gay relationships have a relatively short shelf life.

Just like heterosexual relationships?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

States, counties and cities have all passed laws that infringe on a fundamental right and they have been defeated in the courts. The courts long ago defined marriage as a fundamental right, they have no applied it properly to the expanded population. SOme day, it may even be expanded again. Who knows? But it is the same, whether you like it or not.

What "expanded population"? Are you saying there were no gays when the constitution was drafted, or when the 14th amendment was ratified?

 

[mrjarrell]

What "expanded population"? Are you saying there were no gays when the constitution was drafted, or when the 14th amendment was ratified?

They were a smaller and much more persecuted minority then. We have matured as a nation and people and have made changes along the way. We will make more in the future, I am sure. Just as Jefferson said.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[steveh_131]

If only there was a way to add or remove things from the constitution. Like a process or something. I don't know, I'm just spit-balling here.

 

[HoughMade]

States, counties and cities have all passed laws that infringe on a fundamental right and they have been defeated in the courts. The courts long ago defined marriage as a fundamental right, they have no applied it properly to the expanded population. SOme day, it may even be expanded again. Who knows? But it is the same, whether you like it or not.

Well certainly my opinions don't change minds at the Supreme Court, but their opinions don't rewrite history and can not write a purpose into the 14th Amendment that was not there. They can change the law at their whim, but that is what they are doing. They are not following the Constitution of laws. That's not highly unusual, but it's nice to know if there is a personal preference involved, we can ignore federal overreaching whenever we want to.