I have a big problem with today's US Supreme Court court ruling. Before you jump at me and scream obscenities and call me a bigot, let me explain why:
The United States was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic. What this means is there exists a governing document that establishes a small central government and leaves all non-enumerated powers to the states to decide.
By taking it upon themselves to interpret non-enumerated powers through the lens of the 14th Amendment (which was meant for equality of the newly-freed slaves), they are trampling the 10th Amendment (states' rights) and causing a slippery slope with the 1st Amendment (specifically freedoms of religion and speech). This also continues the trend of nationalizing the U.S. Government, at the expense of rights for the States and for the People.
I believe that the "correct" decision would have been to invoke the 10th Amendment to determine that the States shall decide the law on their own. The end result of this would be that any states who passed laws through direct elections or through their legislatures would stand, and any states that had determinations through the court system would be overturned.
I believe that many states would take such an opportunity to determine that it is time to remove government from the "business" of marriage (such as Oklahoma) and leave it in the hands of clergy. Government's "business", due to the premise of separation of Church and State, should be to handle civil unions and civil contracts only. Therefore, if people differ on beliefs of marriage, then there is no conflict. At the religious level, marriage continues as it has, and at the civil level, consenting adults can form a civil contract recognized by government for purposes of inheritance, taxation, etc.. Government's only "business" in marriage is control of the populace for tax purposes, and they will be able to keep their grubby hands on the populace in this manner, as well, making them happy.
We have seen a great deal of vitriol spread by politicians and media over the past few years concerning the definition of marriage (and just about every other topic, no matter the importance). They do this to divide-and-conquer. It is important to keep this in mind because "A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand". Be tolerant and respectful of those around you - even if you disagree with their beliefs - because we will all suffer if we remain divided.
I invite the opinions of others, since I'm sure many will disagree with me.
Everyone is entitled to their own oppinion, I'm happy a lot of my friends can be a lot happier now. People give gay people a lot of crap, so a lot of gay people are depressed, this has probably helped emensley. So it had been a good week I think
I both agree and dissagree with hull... I, as a US citisen, may do this through the first admendment. It is our right to be able to marry who we want to marry... Why? because it WASN'T said that the gov't/states had any right restricting who we marry... In fact, that violates the first admendment... We have the right to find happines, to voice our opinions, and to worship whowe worship... If I find another woman to be my happines, start to worship satan, or think hull is crap //all just examples, I actualy love hull and all his brillant ideas// then nobody can say anything about it... I am glad for same-sex marrage tho...
I think same-sex marriage should've been a thing in the first place. It's ridiculous that in 2015 we need our government to ok whether we can marry people we love or not. It should have been freedom of marriage from the very start, and out of human decency, not a government.
On the current thing, I believe it's a great thing. In my opinion a government shouldn't pander specifically to people who believe gay marriage is wrong (which, in itself is a terrible and unhealthy belief in the first place). They speak for their entire country, and as far as I know the majority of our country is for same sex marriage.
This is kind of like that whole "not serving gay people in a cake shop" thing; yes, it is freedom of religion and is protected under the constitution, but refusing to serve a certain demographic is a dumb move. It's 2015, not the 1960s.
HullBreach
27 Jun 2015 12:40
In reply to FancyPants
Most people seem to have been either for government allowing it or for government banning it. My point is that I don't think government should have ever been involved. I think marriage should be something private. The only reason government was ever involved in the first place is because of control. If the Federal income tax was repealed and replaced with a national sales tax, that would be a great step in the direction of restoring previous freedoms.
When it comes to inheritance, hospital visitations, etc., that should all be handled at the state level through private contracts.
As for stores refusing service to someone: They do it all the time, anyways. There are dress codes, conduct codes, etc., at nearly every business. If a bakery doesn't agree with a certain action, what is wrong with the baker making that stand? It just opens the opportunity for boycotts and the opening of new competing businesses. This is 2015, when the vast majority of people have access to the Internet and social media, so good and bad reviews of businesses can spread in minutes. See what happened with Chick-Fil-A a couple years ago? The opposite has also happened with Walmart or other stores. I shop where it do for good products and services, and I refuse to patronize establishments that get too preachy with their politics and don't deliver what they promise.
The remaining states that did not make same-sex marriage legal would probably never will, such as Texas. I can confirm because I live in Texas and everyone here is super conservative.
Being represented equally upon the law is a constitutional right. It shouldn't matter who you marry or whatever sex you like.
Legalizing same-sex marriage nationally is just the right thing to do, and for the Supreme Court to do it is the only way it could be possible nationwide, in my opinion.
HullBreach
27 Jun 2015 01:41
In reply to Monstercat
But is marriage of any kind a "right"? That's the big question. I would tend to think that marriage is not a right because if it was, we would all be issued spouses on our 18th birthdays. My belief is very libertarian in that I believe government has no need to be involved with marriage. Let the People practice the "rite" as they wish.
I think the laws should be passed. Ever since the beginning they should have been. Why do laws have to tell us who to love? That's how I see it, laws forcing us to love opposite sex.
Religion takes a huge play as well as to why many disagree as well. That is why my family highly disagrees with my choice. "The Lord wants us to reproduce, and how can 2 of one reproduce? Makes no sense."
But what they don't realize is that they love eachother truly. And they won't stop fighting until they get what they want. The same thing happened with the bullying topic. It's not that hard of a decision.
So, yeah. I'm up for same-sex marriage. I won't let my religion take me against it.
I think that this decision is good. Sure, we're kind re-defining the meaning of marriage, which isn't the good part. I believe it's good all around because the people who were fighting for it are now happy. The people who were fighting against it will just have to deal with it. Less than 10% of the U.S. is gay or lesbian. It's a small minority.
From this day forward I believe we can actually do things that matter. Things that are actually a concern. So we don't have to keep focusing on non-concerning
This provides us a path to just move on, finally.
Cappuccino
27 Jun 2015 00:03
In reply to Cappuccino
Kind of*
Cappuccino
27 Jun 2015 00:02
In reply to Cappuccino