I can't wait till we have president in the White House who doesn't play legalization off as some kind of joke and addresses it for the serious issue that it is. At the very least talk seriously about moving it to schedule 2. I think we are moving closer to that point but we are definitely not there yet.
This does sort of trample on the whole State's Rights thing, but I'm not really an expert on American Constitutional law or anything. I never understood why people have to stick their noses in other people's business. If two men or two women want to get married, how is that any skin off my nose?
I disagree with the Supreme Court because marriage isn't a natural right. Marriage is a legal construct and in many cases a legal entity. It will cause some interesting complications going forward if marriage is continued to be improperly considered a natural right. Things that others must provide and create for you can't be natural rights because marriage is a state sanction and a state sanction can't be a right. This is the first time I've seen the Supreme Court actually change the very concept of natural rights. It is a very interesting precedent.
But marriage should not be state sanctioned. The state has no business in the relationship of two individuals. The state should have absolutely no authority over that relationship. The state should not be involved for any reason, taxes, laws or otherwise.
Well care to explain then? We're having a discussion, this snide remark doesn't add anything. Maybe explain to him why he's wrong in thinking that way because he isn't alone. I feel similarly to him and maybe it's because I don't understand so help us understand.
I may agree with what you said there but it's moot point since the government DOES establish and manage the legal entity of marriage. If they didn't do that, this wouldn't gave been a legal issue. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
well maybe people just need to stop respecting legality and the government and completely blow them off. Pay no mind to their laws.
Look at Loving vs Virginia which happened in the 60s. In this case the court talks about marriage as a natural right. There are also several other cases that happened almost 40 years ago where the supreme court talks about marriage as a natural right. It's the right to associate with you want to which isn't that much of a stretch. This ruling didn't just come out of nowhere. The Supreme Court has been working towards this ruling for the last 30-40 years. If you read Loving vs Virginia which I think is a very valid interpretation then you will see where this ruling comes from.
If marriage was required for free association, I'd agree with the decision. The supereme court has been working toward it for awhile, no doubt, but that doesn't mean it's any less wrong.
the state has no right to determine gender as per the fifth amendment. Unless they have a warrent its an unwarrented search -yuri so its not discrimination to take away insurance benefits from gays? -yuri
I didn't know insurance benefits were being seized. As far as I know, you are legally entitled to whatever benefits your insurance company provides no matter what your sex or orientation.
I have felt for quite some time that if some gay guy wants the "privileges" that go along with marriage, he should have to live with a woman like the rest of us had to. Equal protection and all.
there are certain benefits for being married. So by banning certain people from marriage it effectly discriminates -yuri that makes no sense -yuri
You're looking at it assbackwards. No one is saying free association requires marriage. People are saying that the idea of free association is guaranteed, and marriage falls underneath that branch. It's really not that hard to understand. If you disagree with the principle that gay people's relationship is not equivalent to a heterosexual relationship then that can't really be argued. However, it's really not that radical that the courts made this decision if you believe homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.
You're looking at it assbackwards. No one is saying free association requires marriage. People are saying that the idea of free association is guaranteed, and marriage falls underneath that branch. It's really not that hard to understand. If you disagree with the principle that gay people's relationship is not equivalent to a heterosexual relationship then that can't really be argued. However, it's really not that radical that the courts made this decision if you believe homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships.