Lavish wrote

FoxNews wrote Go educate yourself on the 10th amendment buddy. It should not have been their job.

Today's verdict was about the Constitution, you know, that thing local law doesn't have a choice but to abide by.
The ruling was that it violates the 14th Amendment to ban same sex marriage.

It does not matter what todays verdict was about. Todays verdict was against the 10th amendment. If gay marriage is against the 14th amendment the 10th amendment states that it should be resolved by each state not by the supreme law of the land.

USN wrote

Deathcore- wrote

Nyan wrote

Donatello wrote Equality is good, I could care either which way. I just get so "Boggled" as to why (-Say person is openly comitted) get married under god when somewhere in the depths of the bible, same sex is frowned upon or so its been emphasized. No flame intended just a genuine question?

People get so caught up with the harsh rules of the old testament that they forget that the new testament is all about forgiveness with faith and to love everyone as equals. Its sad.

LOL. The New testament was made for all the christian cherry pickers.


It's the 21st century, what a joke people still believe in an invisible old man

You're the guy that makes Athiests look bad. You're a joke, attacking religion through the Internet? Let people believe what people want, there is no need to attack anyone's religion, whatever it is.

Why? Is there some special rule that makes arguing against religion off limits? You're the guy who makes atheists look stupid because you don't like to debate, probably because of the lack of knowledge you contain. In fact some of the brightest atheists around (Bill nye, dawkins, etc) agree that religion shouldn't be this some sort of safe guard in which it can't be questioned or judged. Sorry, I'll stick with "attacking" people for their idiotic beliefs

And for the part about the internet, would you like me to drive to their home and debate with them?
I also debate in person at my college for fun.
In fact one of the main reasons gay marriage was ever a problem was because of all this religion nonsense, basing a whole diverse society on one book written 2000 years ago. I hate when people call their self an atheist but get mad when someone attacks. The goal is to push aside religion and let the truth shine, not have religion clog the truth. Their stupid beliefs are harming stem cell research and other MAJOR scientific research, I could go on for hours on why we should attack religion. But this isn't a religious thread so please don't quote me because I would like to be done with replying.

FoxNews wrote

Lavish wrote

FoxNews wrote Go educate yourself on the 10th amendment buddy. It should not have been their job.

Today's verdict was about the Constitution, you know, that thing local law doesn't have a choice but to abide by.
The ruling was that it violates the 14th Amendment to ban same sex marriage.

It does not matter what todays verdict was about. Todays verdict was against the 10th amendment. If gay marriage is against the 14th amendment the 10th amendment states that it should be resolved by each state not by the supreme law of the land.

Man why are you still blabbering on about this? People are now allowed to marry whoever they love. Which is right. Get over it.

Deathcore- wrote

USN wrote

Deathcore- wrote

Nyan wrote

Donatello wrote Equality is good, I could care either which way. I just get so "Boggled" as to why (-Say person is openly comitted) get married under god when somewhere in the depths of the bible, same sex is frowned upon or so its been emphasized. No flame intended just a genuine question?

People get so caught up with the harsh rules of the old testament that they forget that the new testament is all about forgiveness with faith and to love everyone as equals. Its sad.

LOL. The New testament was made for all the christian cherry pickers.


It's the 21st century, what a joke people still believe in an invisible old man

You're the guy that makes Athiests look bad. You're a joke, attacking religion through the Internet? Let people believe what people want, there is no need to attack anyone's religion, whatever it is.

Why? Is there some special rule that makes arguing against religion off limits?

Perhaps.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Forums/t=7208714/offtopic-discuss...rules.html

It has been said by staff members in the past that Religious discussions are acceptable unless they turn into flame wars.
While I do agree with you for the most part, I think it would be better if you took a less forceful approach.
You can debate religion and religious ideas without calling it/them idiotic.
That opinion is implied in your arguments anyway, it doesn't need to be openly stated because it will cause offence.

I understand that you obviously don't care about offending people, but the Moderators do, and they're the ones who control whether or not a topic stays open.

FoxNews wrote

Lavish wrote

FoxNews wrote Go educate yourself on the 10th amendment buddy. It should not have been their job.

Today's verdict was about the Constitution, you know, that thing local law doesn't have a choice but to abide by.
The ruling was that it violates the 14th Amendment to ban same sex marriage.

It does not matter what todays verdict was about. Todays verdict was against the 10th amendment. If gay marriage is against the 14th amendment the 10th amendment states that it should be resolved by each state not by the supreme law of the land.

Taken from reddit, really helped me understand as your laws are a little confusing.

I've seen a lot of people ask how the Supreme Court has the authority to decide this issue for states. For those interested, I am an American lawyer and I can answer that question with some insight.
Yes, the Supreme Court does have the authority to make sweeping decisions that invalidate any and all state laws which conflict with its ruling. The Supreme Court finds this authority in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and from the very significant court case of Marybury vs. Madison which more or less established the Supreme Court's absolute authority to literally "say what the law is."
States do have autonomy to decide certain issues for themselves. These are judicial notions of 'comity' and 'parity,' the idea that state governments are better equipped to deal with local, regional issues rather than a distant Congress in Washington. In fact, the laws of contracts traditionally belong to states, which is why every state in the U.S. has slight legal differences in how contracts are formed, enforced, written, etc. Marriage, in its most basic legal concept, is a contract entered into by two consenting adults, which is why marriage laws have been decided by state legislatures and state courts.
There's an important amendment to the U.S. Constitution though that strips away the right of a state to define marriage in their laws as a union between one man and one woman: the Fourteenth Amendment and, more specifically, the Equal Protection Clause, which states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Without getting too much into the nuances of the Supreme Court's varying standards of review (although I certainly can if you're interested), the Supreme Court traditionally reviews Equal Protection issues under what's called a 'rational basis review.' It is the most permissive standard the Court can adopt--that is, it is the least difficult standard to meet in order to successfully defend a law from being struck down. The review asks whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. With respect to marriage equality, the question is: Are state laws banning same-sex marriage rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting the institution of marriage?
To that question the Supreme Court said 'no.' The fact that the Supreme Court today could not find any rational basis for these state bans related to the stated goal of protecting the institution of marriage says a lot. The Court is literally saying there is no rational relationship between banning same-sex marriage and protecting marriage. Thus, same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, and every such law in the United States is immediately invalidated.
The Supreme Court has made sweeping judgments like this before, although decisions of this magnitude are quite rare. For examples, see Brown vs. Board of Education (which held that state laws enacting racial segregation were unconstitutional) and Loving vs. Virginia (which held that state laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional).

Yeah that's why I added the last little part in there so I wouldn't have to debate religion in this topic. Although I agree my points are obvious, It usually flies over their head like most logic. (lol)

Zeilio wrote

Although I find homosexuals a little irritating and snobby. However, the constitution should not regulate human emotion, such as love. If you love someone, you should be able to marry them whether you are both men, both women, or one of each.
So I also am happy for them.

I mean it isn't just homosexuals who are just snoby though and I've met many who aren't but hey whatever floats your boat.

I don't really see what anyones problem is.

If a homosexual couple marry tomorrow, what major impact does it have on your life? exactly.

Resistenza wrote I don't really see what anyones problem is.

If a homosexual couple marry tomorrow, what major impact does it have on your life? exactly.

It is just the same old stupid Religion angle. Anyone who's religious and some who aren't believe that if a homosexual person is allowed to marry it means their marriage isn't so sacred, but when you start talking about divorce those people are nowhere to be found.