What did the voters say?
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Ohio voters said a marriage was between one man and one woman.
At this point though, it seems to be less what the voters say, but what the judges say!
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It doesn't matter what the voters say if what they said is unconstitutional.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"At this point though, it seems to be less what the voters say, but what the judges say!"
I don't care one way or another on the question same-sex marriages. But it's what the voters say not some judge.
unconstitutional and what does that mean!
What does the far left or far right have to do with same-sex marriages?
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Religious entities can deny whatever marriages they want, but as long as government insists upon being in the marriage game (which they should not, but I digress), they have no leg to stand on when it comes to preventing consenting adults from getting married.
2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Yeah, yeah the left loves democracy when it works for them. Lucky for us, we have a Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. The problem is, the right only loves the Constitution when it works for them. Marriage isn't mentioned one single time in the document, therefore the answer to this question ought to be pretty clear.
Grant, not sure what you're saying when you state that marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Because all this crap is pushed (no pun intended) by Democrats. Along with the welfare state and a refusal to do anything at all to reduce spending."
what does that have to do with same sex-marriages?
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Still not sure what Grant meant when he said marriage wasn't mentioned in the constitution--all I know is that, Based on the constitution, plenty of laws and decisions have been made regarding marriage. Based on the right to liberty, the right to free association, the right the pursuit of happiness, equal protection, equal rights.
States have been able to make their own laws regarding marriage--age, waiting period, etc, but I believe our vote for "a marriage is between one man and one woman" will be overruled Based on the constitution. Article Six reads:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Might be wrong but I don't think the Constitution deals directly with marriage .
Believe what you may .But as long as we have Washington being controlled by money and the lobbyists .
As long as getting re-elected is the main goal nothing will change in the long term.
That all said, I still believe that a marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. As a Christian, I view marriage as not a contract for legal purposes, but a covenant between a man, a woman and God.
I'm guessing that what Grant meant was that since the right to marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution, it then is a civil matter, which is then a state issue.
The federal and state governments cannot deny a right that is clearly defined by the Constitution. Since same-sex marriage is not defined as a right within the Constitution, the issue is left to each individual state. It is just that simple.
But again, I don't believe that's the way it will be viewed.
I think it should be (should have been) possible to ensure that civil unions would get the same benefits of marriage and be protected from additional costs (death taxes) that those in a marriage are protected from.
I don't think that means the federal government needs to force everyone to accept a new definition of marriage.
36 minutes ago--The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider whether a New Mexico photography company had free speech grounds to refuse to shoot the commitment ceremony of a same-sex couple.
The company's owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin, are Christians who oppose gay marriage. Because taking photographs can be seen as a form of speech, the First Amendment protects them from being required to "express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs," their attorneys said in court papers. Elane Photography has previously declined requests to take nude maternity pictures and images depicting violence, its lawyers said.
It's not like there aren't other photographers, bakers, florists. Why would you even really one one that didn't want to serve you? only reason I can think of is to try to make it a court case.
And that's why we no longer pledge all. to the flag in schools or have a morning prayer
Why J.Boehner can't get anything done in the house.
Because a small group of citizens are going to tell the majority what to do .
And along comes the vote.
When 10% can shut the country down because of their opinions we will continue to fail.
0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Yea I forgot the republican party is perfect, BS to you too Amis.
You got it questioner. Marriage is a state issue, though I don't agree that any level of government should be involved. But you're right about what the Constitution does actually say, therefore as far as the federal government is concerned, gays should have the equal right to marry. You could even make the case that a state ban on gay marriage could be overturned federally because it doesn't grant equality under the law.
My personal opinion is that marriage is between two consenting individuals. That eliminated the "well then can I marry my dog?" argument, unless you can get the dog to consent to marriage. The state shouldn't be involved anywhere in that private arrangement. I can counter the "where do you draw the line" issue with asking if people would be alright with the government assuming the responsibility of saying who you can and can't marry. The universal answer would be no.
I think the republicans did a pretty bang up job during the Bush years of destroying things .
Oh we'll just tear those pages out of the history books
The professor speaks again.
Whats a matter genius not working yet ?
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |