Originally posted by Badabing
Wow Digi, how libertarian of you. clapclapI see this thread has been merged, which is the only reason I came here. As a mod, I try to be neutral and avoid taking a side in these threads. Mainly because KMC is an escape where I don't have be a serious adult. dur Most of the people who know me well already realize my political leanings. I'd consider myself a fiscal and Constitutional conservative and a social libertarian. I disclose this only for context of my post below.
This ruling from the Supreme Court, and recent prior rulings, concerns me. In 1 week the SC has rewritten laws and legislated laws. This is starling to me because the USA is a democratic republic. We elect people to Congress who are supposed to enact laws which reflect the will of the people. The SC justices are neither elected nor legislators.
I would rather not have the Federal Government involved in any way with marriage, and most aspects of American lives. I fear this overreach will continue. The Constitution is made of liberties for the American people. Every time the Feds overreach their authority, our (American) liberties are eroded.
I know many of you applaud this ruling, and believe it is just. I would like you all to consider possible future ramifications of overreach by the Federal Government. Because right now it doesn't appear that we have 3 co-equal branches of government. And believe me, I assign a lot of blame to the Republican led Congress.
Now, let's get real. Everybody in the USA should elect me supreme ruler. For a safe and prosperous future. Join me!
While I agree that there can be a discussion about a more powerful activist judicial branch in the US being worrisome, I see this ruling from a completely different angle, i.e. that the SC did what it was meant to do. The whole reason there is Supreme Court is to keep legislative and executive power from passing and enacting laws that are against the constitutional rights of the people, and in recent years there has been extreme popular support in denying certain minorities rights due to the opponents religious beliefs. This is most definitely against the spirit of what America is build on, and there is a constitution in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
I don't know what your opinions on this are, but generally I don't understand some libertarians belief that for some reason federal government is bad, while regional government is good, from my point of view it doesn't matter whether the federal government or the state government is taking your liberties, and if the supreme court uses its power to make the federal government stop state governments from discriminating and infringing on American people's rights, that's a win for liberty in my opinion.
So in theory I agree with Digi, and I assume what your stance is, and think government should just stay out of marriage contracts altogether (perhaps give some guidance, as with any other form of incorporation), but that's not the world we live in, in the current world government is completely involved in marriages, and some state governments discriminate against its citizens, that is obviously unjust and against the spirit of the constitution, and we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Indeed. This is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. Their decision here is no different than similar decisions they've made in the past, particularly about racial segregation and interracial marriage.
The fact is it is deeply immoral to allow the public to vote and decide on the rights of minorities, and the public have shown time and time again why the supreme court is needed. As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
So in theory I agree with Digi, and I assume what your stance is, and think government should just stay out of marriage contracts altogether (perhaps give some guidance, as with any other form of incorporation), but that's not the world we live in, in the current world government is completely involved in marriages, and some state governments discriminate against its citizens, that is obviously unjust and against the spirit of the constitution, and we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good.
As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.
2.
the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3.
a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4.
oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5.
undue severity or harshness.
6.
a cruel or harsh act or proceeding; an arbitrary, oppressive, or tyrannical action.
What the Supreme Court did was not only unconstitutional however it went against what was the rights of the states. The judges did not upload the constitution they bipassed it. This is tottering rule where 9 unelected officials have absolute power.
The wording of Kenndy's vote said that religious people have a right to advocate their beliefs while the constitution says people have religions freedom. Advocate and freedom are two different meanings.
Furthermore Obama is lying to the Amercian people. Less then 3 years ago he did not support same sex marriage and spoke against it and said it was a state matter. He carefully pulled arms and strings with his Justices to get this ruling and make it seem as if he did not actually get it done himself. On top of it, after the ruling he was overjoyed. So he is either lying then or lying now. Or he's pulled a John Kerry "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."
Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed. This is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. Their decision here is no different than similar decisions they've made in the past, particularly about racial segregation and interracial marriage.The fact is it is deeply immoral to allow the public to vote and decide on the rights of minorities, and the public have shown time and time again why the supreme court is needed. As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
We face a tyranny now. You are just unaware of it because these moves have not impacted your beliefs. When they do you will revolt. However I doubt that will happen as you seem to be all for a government ruled by corporations special interest groups and the feelings of people. You have not thought about the real impact of this. How it will affect religious freedoms. How it will affect churches, Christian schools, and much more. Since you are an non believer you don't care however then you are biased in saying that a this protects tyranny of a majority, when actually now the monorties have tyranny and more power then the majority.
The right of gay couples to marry in no way effects the rights of Christians, unless they count "the right not to be offended" or "the right not to have to know that somewhere out there people are doing something that my interpretation of a two thousand year old book doesn't condone"
The entire gay marriage debate has been one of Christians trying to impose their values through the law. The outcry among certain religious groups over this decision shows that many Conservative Christians consider anything less than a complete stranglehold on the moral conversation of America as them being oppressed. They need to learn to coexist.
Originally posted by Surtur
Prior to this how was certain stuff handled? For instance, if you were a man who had an actual sex change into a woman..could you legally marry a man? Or would you still only be able to marry another woman?
I don't know how they are going to proceed from this point on regarding transgender and polygamy, honestly. Those are important questions to ask on the basis of this ruling.
Originally posted by BackFire
Indeed. This is exactly why the Supreme Court exists. Their decision here is no different than similar decisions they've made in the past, particularly about racial segregation and interracial marriage.The fact is it is deeply immoral to allow the public to vote and decide on the rights of minorities, and the public have shown time and time again why the supreme court is needed. As Bardock mentioned, it's precisely to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
The tyranny of the majority 😐
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Furthermore Obama is lying to the Amercian people. Less then 3 years ago he did not support same sex marriage and spoke against it and said it was a state matter. He carefully pulled arms and strings with his Justices to get this ruling and make it seem as if he did not actually get it done himself. On top of it, after the ruling he was overjoyed. So he is either lying then or lying now. Or he's pulled a John Kerry "I voted for the war, before I voted against it."
Nobody gives a sh_t about Obama.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We face a tyranny now. You are just unaware of it because these moves have not impacted your beliefs. When they do you will revolt. However I doubt that will happen as you seem to be all for a government ruled by corporations special interest groups and the feelings of people. You have not thought about the real impact of this. How it will affect religious freedoms. How it will affect churches, Christian schools, and much more. Since you are an non believer you don't care however then you are biased in saying that a this protects tyranny of a majority, when actually now the monorties have tyranny and more power then the majority.
What they did here is not new. They did the exact same thing in the 60's, ruling that the interracial marriage ban that was on the books in several states was unconstitutional and overturning it despite the law having popular support in many areas. Things like this is why the SC exists.
Minorities don't have more power than the majority, but this ruling is a step in ensuring that they do have equal rights.
Originally posted by BackFire
What they did here is not new. They did the exact same thing in the 60's, ruling that the interracial marriage ban that was on the books in several states was unconstitutional and overturning it despite the law having popular support in many areas. Things like this is why the SC exists.Minorities don't have more power than the majority, but this ruling is a step in ensuring that they do have equal rights.
Everyone's here but a few claims the U.S. Is a democracy. Yet these judges went against what 36 states out of 50 said.
So this was tyranny. The issue isn't same sex marriage. It's the shredding of the constitution and democracy.
It's imposing the will of the few on the many.
Gays already could get married in certain states and have civil union.If the issue is receptivity of liscenses across the states. Now gun owners that carry concealed permits for weapons have the same claim that a liscense is a license and and it should have reciprocity.
The only one that won here was the federal government taking away more of the consitition and divorce lawyers.