DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional

I don't think it could have been stated any better. I know a lot of people who this impacts positively. Good stuff!!!

Imo, this shouldve been left up to each state. But,maybe since it's happened, the whole gay rights movement will fade away cause I'm sick of hearing about it.

Did you think that back in 96 that gays would have the right to marry, seeing as Clinton signed DOMA? Even our current president was against gay marriage at the beginning of his first term.

BTW, as I recall, the Joker is the guy that stole the gold from the federal reserve, if you believe everything you read in comics.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLqz2taVE58[/YOUTUBE]

'Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Constitutional'

"Why shouldn't they be miserable like the rest of us?" - Howard Stern



----------------------------------------------------

Note: ^That^ quote was from years and years ago, when he was still married to his first wife, not the hottie he has now.

Time for the LGBT community to start flying their rainbow flags over the native american reservations.

Some Oklahoma Trives Prohibit Gay Marriage

CREATED Apr 6, 2015

Tulsa - While the Oklahoma Attorney General battles alongside 14 other attorneys general to uphold state bans on gay marriage, several Oklahoma Native American tribes will not be affected regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Earlier this month, Oklahoma was among 15 states that filed a brief in the Supreme Court to uphold bans on gay marriage. Oklahoma is one of eight of the states where courts previously struck down bans on gay marriage.

A new Associated Press analysis reveals several federally-recognized Native American tribes have laws either defining marriage as between a man and a woman or explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriages, which means whatever is determined in state or federal court will be moot for sovereign tribes.

Lindsay Robertson, director of Oklahoma University's Center for the Study of American Indian Law and Policy, said many provisions covered by the Bill of Rights are extended to tribal jurisdictions through a separate law, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Claims made under that law must be heard in tribal courts, which would ultimately decide a challenge to a tribe's marriage law.

Below is information from the AP analysis, along with excerpts tribal laws regarding gay marriage. At least 10 other tribes recognize same-sex marriages, while many more are silent on the matter.

The Cherokee Nation, based in Oklahoma: ``No marriage shall be contracted ... between parties of the same gender.''

The Chickasaw Nation, based in Oklahoma: ``No Marriage will be recognized between persons of the same sex.''

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, based in Oklahoma: ``Same gender marriage prohibited. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another Indian Nation or state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.''

Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma: ``The court is not authorized to conduct a marriage ceremony or issue a marriage certificate to a couple if they are of the same sex.''

The Osage Nation, based in Oklahoma: ``A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another jurisdiction shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Osage Nation ...''

The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma: ``Person of the same gender will not be allowed to marry or divorce.''

Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa: ``Same gender marriages prohibited. Only persons of the opposite gender may marry.''

The Navajo Nation: ``Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.''

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, based in North Carolina: ``The licensing and solemnization of same sex marriages are not allowed within this jurisdiction.''

The Kalispel Tribe of Indians, based in Washington state: ``No marriage license shall be issued or marriage performed unless the persons to be married are of the opposite sex and at least sixteen (16) years of age.''

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin: ``A marriage may be contracted under this law between two (2) adults who ... are of the opposite sex.''

That same argument was made for desegregation. I doubt we'd have the progress we've made today if desegregation was left up to the states.

Does this mean Elizabeth Warren is a bigot?

Unless they can find her on the rolls somewhere, she's not a bigot, just a liar.

Least this guy has some damn sense left.....

Clarence Thomas lacks empathy.

Empathy has nothing to do with the law.

Our law encourages "liberty and justice, for all"

Actually, our law demands that. Empathy still has no place in law. A Supreme Court judge is not supposed to base his rulings on how they feel, but on the Constitution. If you study the Constitution, you will find that any powers that are not granted to the federal government are left to the states. In other words, the federal government has no place in determining what constitutes marriage, as there was no provision in the Constitution to set standards for marriage. That was supposed to be left to the states.

It doesn't matter what YOU think either flag represents, it's all about the number of people who find it offensive...

So was segregation, the right to vote, etc.

Why deal with allowing states who are morally bankrupt? We don't live in a theocracy. Basing laws off of theological texts with no factual backing sets a dangerous precedence in a democratic republic.

so was slavery, interracial marriage, women's right to vote.....

yea....imo, any cases of civil rights and liberties should never be left up to the states. we've already seen how that turns out.

Looks like someone forgot to read the 14th amendment - Link

I don't see how the two correlate. If I said "make an argument against same sex marriage without evoking religion", there really isn't one. If someone said "make an argument against an adult marrying a 12 year old without evoking religion", there would be a litany of logical reasons. The argument against same-sex marriage crumbled because it wasn't rational. The argument against 12 year olds getting married won't see the same erosion, because it's rooted in reason.

The right to vote should have been settled by the 15th amendment - 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

This amendment was passed in 1869.

Segregation was something never taken up by the Constitution, but the right of all for due process under the law was guaranteed by the 14th amendment which wiped out the 3/5s clause.

I also fail to see where these laws are based off theological text. Considering I am not religious, I never brought up a theologic slant for anything in this discussion.

Slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment. Marriage was supposed to be left to the states. A woman's right to vote was also left to the states, and before the 19th amendment 15 states had already granted women the right to vote, with Montana having a woman in the HoR when the 19th was passed.

Civil rights and liberties should always be left to the states, as this is what forces the federal government to consider the new laws.

Let's take one of your favorite subjects for example, of the poor, downtrodden pot smoker. 4(?) states and DC have already legalized pot. This will eventually push the other states to fight it or join with those 4. That will eventually force the feds hand in the matter. The process is slower, but it should be the one we use.

i don't want to get into about slavery again. but the civil war was fought over states rights, one big reason is to own slaves.

stop twisting history trying to validate your point. it isn't working.

[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law .

Keyword: "Liberty"

And before today, what, eighteen states had voted to allow same sex marriage with a few openly gay senators? Isn't that exactly what happened? A civil right was decided by the federal government. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

Keyword: "Property" - See Civil Forfeiture Laws. Sorry, off topic, just a pet peeve.

dude those laws suuuuuuuuuucks. i mean seriously...talk about taking advantage of people.

I am not twisting history at all. I am trying to lay out the history as it happened. Jim Crow laws should have never been passed in the first place. A complacent government that was not following the Constitution allowed that.

And the same will be said of gay marriage in 40 years.

What exactly does the word 'liberty' mean to you?

you want the real life definition or grand theft auto version?

Two homosexuals getting married in no way shape or form effects (or affects?) my life, nor does it step on any of my rights as an American. I cannot understand why it took this long for it to be legal everywhere.

The freedom to say or do whatever you want so long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's liberties.

It apparently means something else now that Justice Kennedy pulled one of his infamous flip-flops.

So i'll be waiting for video of all these people who claimed they was gonna leave the country, burn themselves alive and all this nonsense if the SC ruled in favor of gay marriage,

i'll be waiting.

This is one of the more ridiculous dissents.

Who said that?

Religious Fanatic Will Burn Or Be Shot If SCOTUS Legalizes Gay Marriage

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/06/religious-fanatic-doom-and-gloom-gay-marriage/

Earlier this month, Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, in an unfortunate choice of words, suggested that homosexuality was being "crammed down [the] throats" of Christians, noting that Tiffany's & Co is "advertising wedding rings for gay couples." Graham called for a boycott of the jeweler and Wells Fargo, which apparently both use same-sex couples in their ads. Ironically, he posted his outrage on Facebook, whose CEO and founder marched alongside his employees in 2013 in San Francisco's pride parade. He and his flock are going to run out of places to shop and bank pretty quickly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zo...kusaolp00000592

there's some golden nuggets on that link, BTW. i can provide more, if you like, but i think that's enough.

I agree. Really a laughable one. An injustice is an injustice. A government by the people, for the people, should not sponsor injustice. How exactly did he break genetically modified bread with the Monsanto legal team again?

Oh - I didn't look at your links - I thought you were saying some people on here were saying they'd leave.