GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[EC]

Yeah. Didn't comment on mine.

What am I, chopped liver? 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Yeah. Didn't comment on mine.

What am I, chopped liver? 

Mine too! :P

[Hoodat]

Seems like many people here prefer THEIR tyranny BE the Law of the Land,and to hell with all that silly "freedom stuff".

Ah, so you consider two statewide ballot referendums in California, one of which to amend the State Constitution, to be 'tyranny'.  Yet you consider 5 people wearing black robes, one of which who has never been a judge before, who issue a decision overriding those statewide referendums with absolutely positively zero written federal legal basis whatsoever to be "freedom stuff".

Exactly how do you reconcile that?

While you're thinking about that one, here's the preamble to the California State Constitution:

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this
Constitution.

[Hoodat]

@SirLinksALot

Congress has a responsibility to follow the will of the people,and it SEEMS like most people seem to have the radical idea that homosexual Americans are STILL Americans,and have the same rights as the rest of us.

Homosexual Americans already had the same rights as the rest of us BEFORE this decision was issued.  Not that this has anything to do with sexual preference.  It doesn't.  It's about same-sex marriage, not homosexuality.  Try to keep up.

[Jazzhead]

It is immoral for a government to deny any group of American citizens rights that other groups of American citizens are free to enjoy,and name ONE issue more personal than who you choose to marry or have as a mate? Not only is it immoral,it is un-Constitutional for for the government to do this. They just don't have that legal right.

THAT needs to be understood before anything else even remotely related is even discussed. We either have the freedom to choose who we can live with and love,or we have no freedoms at all. There is no right more basic or important than this one.

I agree, SneakyPete.  I've spoken of the marriage equality issue in terms of the application of equal protection to laws assigning valuable tax and other benefits to civil marriage.  But you're right, the freedom issue is even more fundamental.   A poster above argued with a straight face that gays were as free as anyone else to marry someone  - of the opposite gender.   But that's an affront to the freedom and dignity of the person, to effectively force an individual to marry someone they cannot live with or love.     

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

WHAT policies? According to MY calendar,he won't be President and have policies for another 60 days or so.

policy
(pol-uh-see)

n.  a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc.

Trump through his words has already initiated a course of action.  That is if we can actually believe what Trump says.  You seem to be of the opinion that Trump has been lying this whole time and will transform himself into some Conservative stalwart once he takes office, even though you disagree with Conservative views.  Crazy.

[Hoodat]

I agree, SneakyPete.  I've spoken of the marriage equality issue in terms of the application of equal protection

Yet again, we already had equal protection before the tyranny of the courts were imposed upon this entire nation.  Equal protection has now been replaced by arbitrary boundaries that are at the future mercy of whomever happens to be wearing the black robe that day.

[Jazzhead]

Yet again, we already had equal protection before the tyranny of the courts were imposed upon this entire nation.  Equal protection has now been replaced by arbitrary boundaries that are at the future mercy of whomever happens to be wearing the black robe that day.

I don't understand what you're saying.  Are you saying that equal protection of the law was a Constitutional imperative before the 14th amendment?   And what's the "tyranny" in holding that a gay person has, under the Constitution,  the same right to marry who he/she wants to marry as you do?   Isn't a "tyranny" when a right or freedom is taken away?   How are your rights affected by whether your neighbors can marry?   

[Hoodat]

@jmyrlefuller

I don't know,or need/want to know your personal circumstances that leads you to believe you have no choice but to remain unmarried,but I am inclined to believe it is a matter of your own personal choices.

Well that's rich.  You make this bogus case of equal protection in order to cater to one person's personal choice while completely ignoring the personal choice (with 'equal protection' rights attached) of another.

I suppose some animals are more equal than others.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

@sneakypete

You would think that people who haunt political bulletin boards,most of whom are over 40 years old,would understand this, wouldn't you?

I think they do understand it.  But their goal isn't to discuss actual policy -- it is to reargue, for the millionth time, the results of the primary.  "See, how bad he is!  We should have nominated someone else instead!!"

[TomSea]

This is not an abortion thread, so as to not get off-track too much on that but Rand Paul has introduced bills to give the unborn the rights of individuals. Justice Roberts in the earlier quoted piece said abortion is not in the constitution.

Paul introduces bill to give unborn children constitutional rights
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is adding new fuel to the battle over abortion rights.

The presidential candidate has introduced legislation that would give unborn children equal protection under the law as part of the 14th Amendment, giving them the same rights as "born" individuals.

Paul said the legislation "declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception."
"Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way," he said.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/266711-rand-paul-pushes-for-protection-of-unborn-children

A lot of this is just machinations of the law.

I'd say marriage is not in the Constitution only.

To me, it seems marriage was set up to collect taxes and license fees; leave a legal document.

Marriage really belongs to the Churches.

But you got tax breaks by having children and that is good public policy because they become citizens.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Maj. Bill Martin

You would think that people who haunt political bulletin boards,most of whom are over 40 years old,would understand this,wouldn't you?

Most of these dopes are non-thinking talk-radio listening church ladies.

[Hoodat]

I don't understand what you're saying.  Are you saying that equal protection of the law was a Constitutional imperative before the 14th amendment?

No, I am saying that existing marriage laws in California (and every other State) already offered equal protection before the Court intervened.  Marriage laws applied to everyone equally, regardless of sexual viewpoints and preferences.  But now that sexual viewpoints and preferences have been introduced, equal protection no longer applies.  Some viewpoints and preferences are now arbitrarily enforced while others are denied - all at the whim of the tyranny of a future Court.

And what's the "tyranny" in holding that a gay person has, under the Constitution,  the same right to marry who he/she wants to marry as you do?

A homosexual person already had the same limited right in terms of marriage that I did.

Isn't a "tyranny" when a right or freedom is taken away?

The only right or freedom that was taken away here is the right of the citizens of California (and now the other 49 states, as well as Congress for that matter) to establish their own marriage laws.

How are your rights affected by whether your neighbors can marry?

My neighbors had the same restrictions and privileges that I had regarding marriage.  As an insomniac, I personally wanted to marry a set of identical twins so that I could always have one of the two awake when I am.  Yet my federal government deemed that to fall outside the definition of legal marriage.  But it was equally applied since my neighbors couldn't do it either.

[Jazzhead]

Well that's rich.  You make this bogus case of equal protection in order to cater to one person's personal choice while completely ignoring the personal choice (with 'equal protection' rights attached) of another.

I suppose some animals are more equal than others.

Marriage is a unique form of contract.  It carries with it valuable benefits and protections,  but it also imposes certain obligations.   For example, marriage is a perpetual contract of mutual support, that can only be undone with the approval of a court which is charged with protecting the rights of the weaker party.   

There's no violation of equal protection if the price of gaining the benefits of the marriage contract is to assume its obligations.   Anyone can choose to assume or not assume those obligations (but, more to the point, it's necessary to find and persuade someone else to assume those obligations along with you.) 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex.  Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related.  Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

And that has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.  It's a matter of interpreting the Constitution as it is written, not as what we might wish it said.

[Hoodat]

Marriage really belongs to the Churches.

I'll go for that.  But it will require a lot of cleanup.

But you got tax breaks by having children and that is good public policy because they become citizens.

You get tax deductions by having children regardless of whether married or not.  You get tax credits for having children and not being married.

Marriage is a legal restriction - not a panacea of benefits.

[Hoodat]

Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex.  Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related.  Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

And that has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.  It's a matter of interpreting the Constitution as it is written, not as what we might wish it said.

Correctamundo.

[Jazzhead]

Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex.  Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related.  Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

And that has nothing to do with whether gay marriage is a good idea or not.  It's a matter of interpreting the Constitution as it is written, not as what we might wish it said.

So requiring an individual, to gain the benefits of marriage,  to marry someone they cannot be attracted to is consistent with equal protection?   You do know that most us choose to marry a sexual partner, don't you?   

[Hoodat]

So requiring an individual, to gain the benefits of marriage,  to marry someone they cannot be attracted to is consistent with equal protection?   You do know that most us choose to marry a sexual partner, don't you?

No one here is requiring anyone to get married.  Personal reasons for getting married have nothing to do with this.

[Suppressed]

Ahhhh,traditional marriage! Are you afraid you will find some hot 6 year old and not be able to marry her,even if you buy her with a whole damn herd of goats?

The Roman Catholic Church Canon Law used to allow age 7, and at the turn of the 20th Century, it was still at age 12, as most US states.

And at that time, Delaware was age 7, and many states were at 10 years.

[TomSea]

Those who would find against abortion as not being in the Constitution which most scholars agree with will likewise find "marriage", polygamy, same-sex marriage is not there either.

Hence, these laws should be governed by the states.

So, since Trump has made a point of saying he would nominate "constructionalists" to the Supreme Court, I just don't think he felt he needed to make a big deal about this issue.

One of Trump's supporters is Huckabee, who is very anti-SSM.

Constitutional Amendments are not needed in my view, just allow the state to run it as the Constitution allows.

[GrouchoTex]

Those who would find against abortion as not being in the Constitution which most scholars agree with will likewise find "marriage", polygamy, same-sex marriage is not there either.

Hence, these laws should be governed by the states.

So, since Trump has made a point of saying he would nominate "constructionalists" to the Supreme Court, I just don't think he felt he needed to make a big deal about this issue.

One of Trump's supporters is Huckabee, who is very anti-SSM.

Constitutional Amendments are not needed in my view, just allow the state to run it as the Constitution allows.

I agree and have been advocating this for years.

[Hoodat]

Those who would find against abortion as not being in the Constitution which most scholars agree with will likewise find "marriage", polygamy, same-sex marriage is not there either.

Hence, these laws should be governed by the states.

Not so fast.  Congress does indeed have the right to regulate abortion, marriage, etc.  It is because they have abstained from doing so that those decisions fall back on the States.

A prime example would be murder.  There is no general prohibition on murder at the federal level.  That doesn't mean that Congress can't pass a law against murder.  They can.  In fact they have passed specific laws about murdering federal agents, judges, etc.  But without some general prohibition, States have taken it upon themselves to outlaw murder.

Constitutional Amendments are not needed in my view, just allow the state to run it as the Constitution allows.

Damn right.

[Cripplecreek]

Lots of meaningless chatter in this thread.

Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6

Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So requiring an individual, to gain the benefits of marriage,  to marry someone they cannot be attracted to is consistent with equal protection?

Yes, if their attraction (which is always a matter of personal preference) is to a person they cannot legally marry under equally-applied laws.  The fact that your personal preferences aren't consistent with the right doesn't mean you don't have the right.  For example, most states prohibit marriage between siblings.  So if you want to marry your sister, you can't, even though every other male has the right to marry your sister. Are you are being deprived the equal protection of the laws because you don't have the legal right to marry the person you love, and every other guy does?