We are Democrats .. and we're against gay marriage

[sandinista! 1,816]

I'm glad you are consistent on that because so many people run their mouth but then they want to put limits on numbers of parties involved or age restrictions or family relations involved.

aw, the old pedophilia and incest chestnut gets tossed out, because the polygyny one didn't catch.

[Danno 1,228]

aw, the old pedophilia and incest chestnut gets tossed out, because the polygyny one didn't catch.

"Pedophilia" ???

That was a leap farther than I had in mind.

Right now teens of all ages can wed, depending on state and circumstances... if you can't deal with that reality, you have not thopught things through all that much.

My friend, from your response I see my point has been made: We all draw lines.... it's just some pretend not to.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If marriage is a basic right, it's protected under the Constitution. As such, this is a federal issue. Which is why the SCOTUS will eventually rule on this and put the states that feel they can infringe on an individual's basic right into their place.

Marriage is not a basic right and is no where mentioned in the constitution. The only recent Federal Law that even deals with it in any way is DOMA.

A state can actually choose not to have/allow marriages. There is no law, no institution that requires such and frankly, there never will be. Actually to be even more accurate, as usually state law regulates the rules for marriage, even counties could go so far as to not allow people to get married in their county.

It would literally take a new federal law and/or amendment to the constitution to make marriage a federal matter. the SCOTUS honestly cannot declare it a right or not, as they would be creating legislation out of their butt. The only thing the SCOTUS can rule on, is whether or not a state has to allow all couples to get married without prejudice to sexual orientation IF that state performs marriages.

No state is willing to do it, but states could just as easily not hold marriage ceremonies anymore and not offer any type of benefits/penalties to couples.

[Vi-Jay 218]

I will wait until Dog and Paul are finished....sorry

Edited May 20, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Marriage is not a basic right and is no where mentioned in the constitution.

As the supposed Constitutional scholar you claim to be, you would know that you're dead wrong. Loving vs. Virginia and Zablocki vs. Redhail.

Some scholar you are.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I will wait until Dog and Paul are finished....sorry

We're finished. He's wrong and I'm right. Happens a lot.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

As the supposed Constitutional scholar you claim to be, you would know that you're dead wrong. Loving vs. Virginia and Zablocki vs. Redhail.

Some scholar you are.

Again, SCOTUS cannot create law.

SCOTUS ruled on "prejudice" in these situations.

There is a difference in "marriage" itself being a "right."

The Federal Government cannot force a state to perform marriages without a change in Federal or Constitutional law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, SCOTUS cannot create law.

Oh, I get it. The Constitution is actually wrong having assigned the final arbitration to the SCOTUS rather than to Paul.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Federal Government cannot force a state to perform marriages without a change in Federal or Constitutional law.

The Federal government can force states to respect the rights of US citizens.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh, I get it. The Constitution is actually wrong having assigned the final arbitration to the SCOTUS rather than to Paul.

The SCOTUS can only Rule on Laws that are already in place. It cannot create laws that do not exist or situations that do not exist.

Dude, I seriously hope you aren't being this ignorant.

There's a HUGE difference in ruling on "prejudice" and actually making something a "right." The SCOTUS nor the Federal Government at this point in time do not have the authority to forces states to perform marriages.

As I said, if they DO PERFORM marriages (and all do right now) then they cannot be prejudice against those who they allow to marry by standard definition as it stands right now.

The Federal government can force states to respect the rights of US citizens.

The Federal Government cannot just up and be like "you do this."

It takes laws and due process for everything.

No one can walk into a state and say "YOU MUST DO THIS." unless there are laws already on the books that allow such actions.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The SCOTUS can only Rule on Laws that are already in place. It cannot create laws that do not exist or situations that do not exist.

Right. Such as the Constitution. I suppose we can agree that the Constitution exists, yes? And based on that Constitution, the SCOTUS has invalidated certain state laws restricting marriage in the past. It will do so again in the future at which point same sex marriages will be legal in this great country of ours.

The Federal Government cannot just up and be like "you do this."

No, but the federal government can tell a state "you cannot do that". It has done so in the past and it will do so in the future. Get used to it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's a HUGE difference in ruling on "prejudice" and actually making something a "right."

In Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...". You might not like that ruling but that, fortunately, matters none. The Constitution has wisely assigned the final power of arbitration to the SCOTUS and not to you.

[^_^ 5,021]

I suppose we can agree that the Constitution exists, yes?

Have you ever seen the actual Constitution? I don't mean copies you find in the library but the actual Constitution. Have you seen it?

No. Because it doesn't actually exist. The existence of the so-called Constitution is the only hoax played on the American people that is larger than the hoax of Barack Obama's so-called "long form".

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Right. Such as the Constitution. I suppose we can agree that the Constitution exists, yes? And based on that Constitution, the SCOTUS has invalidated certain state laws restricting marriage in the past. It will do so again in the future at which point same sex marriages will be legal in this great country of ours.

"restricting" is the key word here. If a state doesn't allow marriage period however, then there's nothing the SCOTUS can do about it.

I'm not arguing that marriage has to be 'equal.'

All I'm saying, is that if a state wants to circumvent the fact that they cannot be prejudice, then they can eliminate marriage all together. It's their right under the 10th amendment to do so.

No, but the federal government can tell a state "you cannot do that". It has done so in the past and it will do so in the future. Get used to it.

No, they cannot. Not without a Federal Law that says they can.

The feds can't tell a state, "you cannot have red light laws" and just expect it to stick. They have to make it "law" first.

In Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...". You might not like that ruling but that, fortunately, matters none. The Constitution has wisely assigned the final power of arbitration to the SCOTUS and not to you.

The court had an "opinion" on the ruling that it's a basic civil right. However, unless Federal law makes it an actual institution, then a state can choose not to have marriages.

Again, not questioning who can and cannot get married. Just saying the way it can be circumvented, until the Federal Government creates laws for marriage.

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

The existence of the so-called Constitution is the only hoax played on the American people that is larger than the hoax of Barack Obama's so-called "long form".

obama doesn't want to show his long form because he knows eric will laugh at him.