Disclaimer:
Personally I have nothing against LGBT's and I do respect them just as everyone else.

But for me as a Belgian it just juts out that there is a giant gay proudness in the social media now. It's just too overwhelming as people send gay Rainbow colours in every style of discussion and leave gay erotic pictures behing. Even media is flipping out.

Honestly the attention of gays in America is just too damn high. They should more focus on the lives they're killing now in Iraq & solving their own debt and economy.

Did I dismiss something?

also I do not hate LGTB's

You know that the Supreme Court just ruled gay marriage legal? In all states. Now that is a once in history occurrence. (and it was a 5-4 vote. So the result was actually not guaranteed. Let peopel celebrate!)

Really ? That's great for America, although I expect some resistance from conservative sides. Thanks for explaining this case.

Honestly the attention of gays in America is just too damn high. They should more focus on the lives they're killing now in Iraq & solving their own debt and economy.

You mean put priority on real problems that affect the world or could damage us internally? Pffft, we have more social justice issues to deal with!

Put simply, the American public tends to put more attention to social issues. So matters of economy and foreign policy don't tend to get addressed as much as they should, or if they do it only lasts briefly.

^ Uh, we focus on foreign policy all the time.

Your grandma's chain e-mails about Benghazi - not a social issue

The whole debate over Netanyahu and Palestine - not a social issue

ISIS - not a social issue

Obamacare and public healthcare, the #1 focus of Obama's presidency - not a social issue

Job growth during Obama's term - not a social issue

The federal fucking budget - not a social issue

Farm subsidies - not a social issue

Keystone XL - not a social issue

The Great Recession - not a social issue

Most of what people are talking about and voting on has nothing to do with social issues. As for media, NYT doesn't have a whole section dedicated to Gay Marriage, nor does it track the Dow Jones Transexual Average along with NASGAY and Lesbian and Poor's on the top right of that section.

Social issues hit home hard for a lot of people, but they're definitely not the focus of public discourse or political activity.

But more importantly: MURICA FUCK YEAH

Edited 6/26/2015 18:42:16

Stop complaining. Millions of people can finally marry the loves of their lives. It's easy to take that for granted if it's never been illegal for you.

It's a great day to be an American.

... why do I suddenly find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Poon Squad comments?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE, EKLIPSE?

America is doomed

#RIPAmerica2015


I'm straight but Imma become Gay so I dont get killed.

^ Uh, we focus on foreign policy all the time

Most of what people are talking about and voting on has nothing to do with social issues. As for media, NYT doesn't have a whole section dedicated to Gay Marriage, nor does it track the Dow Jones Transexual Average along with NASGAY and Lesbian and Poor's on the top right of that section.

Social issues hit home hard for a lot of people, but they're definitely not the focus of public discourse or political activity.

The average American doesn't know or care nearly as much about the things you listed as they do about social issues. Where as in social issues everyone has a pre-made speech/rant ready to go at a moment's notice.

The media focuses far more heavily on social issues as well. It's easier to keep yourself up to date on the latest "controversy" than it is to track the situation with ISIS or Ebola. Sure, things like that do make big news, but only for certain periods at a time. On the other hand, if someone finds something OFFENSIVE it'll be on the news every night,non-stop, for weeks. Also with controversies there tends to be legal action taken quite swiftly. Now compare that to debt problems or foreign issues which our Congress can't make a solid decision on even after months.

I've been wondering about ebola actually. Has that gotten any better yet?

I don't see the history here tbh. Half of these gay people are just gonna get divorced, and their adopted kids will suffer just as a straight family.

I've been wondering about ebola actually. Has that gotten any better yet?

Somewhat. Liberia has supposedly been cleared of it, which means there's only two infected countries now. Don't know how the fight goes in those two said countries though.

Stop complaining. Millions of people can finally marry the loves of their lives. It's easy to take that for granted if it's never been illegal for you.

It's a great day to be an American.

Agree totally.

Not that I'm against gay marriage or anything, but was it really Supreme Court's job this time? Their job is to interpret the Constitution, which says marriage between a man and a woman. There's really no other way to interpret that.

I feel like getting an amendment written would be the legal way to go about this.

I personally think we have more pressing matters to worry about. LIKE THE FACT THAT THE WORLD'S CHOCOLATE SUPPLIES ARE UNDER ATTACK.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/fairtrade-partner-zone/chocolate-cocoa-production-risk



OH, AND THE WORLD'S MAPLE SYRUP RESERVE WAS PILLAGED. http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/09/02/sticky-situation-30-million-in-maple-syrup-stolen-from-canadas-strategic-syrup-reserve/

@Martian:

Their job is to interpret the Constitution, which says marriage between a man and a woman. There's really no other way to interpret that.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't say that because it leaves marriage to the states as long as their practices aren't unconstitutional.

Since 1888, the SCOTUS has ruled at least 14 times that marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Since the end of the Civil War, the US constitution has included the 14th Amendment, which requires state governments to respect all constitutional rights just like the federal government.

So:

Marriage is a constitutional right (stare decisis and the Bill of Rights)
+ states must respect constitutional rights just like the federal government (14th amendment)
+ all citizens of the United States have equal protection under the law and cannot be categorically denied their constitutional rights by any level or branch of the government (14th amendment)

= SCOTUS must rule that state bans on gay marriage are illegal as they're cateogorical infringements of a constitutional right, which state governments aren't allowed to commit

QueefBalls
Level 56
Stop complaining. Millions of people can finally marry the loves of their lives. It's easy to take that for granted if it's never been illegal for you.

It's a great day to be an American.

+1000000

btw, i hate homophobes, racists, becouse they have lower IQ than mine

Edited 6/29/2015 09:40:26

Since 1888, the SCOTUS has ruled at least 14 times that marriage is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed upon by the government.

Problem with all those rulings is that marriage isn't mentioned by the Constitution. It's the ever so common, "The Constitution says what we want it to say".

If marriage of any and every kind is a right than an Amendment should be passed.

Problem with all those rulings is that marriage isn't mentioned by the Constitution. It's the ever so common, "The Constitution says what we want it to say".

I feel like you've got a somewhat skewed view of the Supreme Court. Their job is explicitly to interpret the Constitution, which in itself (being an extremely short governing document) is a loose framework that was never intended to specify every little thing but instead provide a general basis for government behavior and civil liberties in the country. Fortunately, unlike India's constitution, the U.S. Constitution doesn't attempt to cover every single little thing directly but instead provides a set of principles that the government must obey. Furthermore, by specifying the role of the Supreme Court and judiciary system as interpretive, it specifically recognizes their authority to understand and enumerate the rights protected by the Constitution.

This is common in a common law jurisdiction- in fact, this power of judges is the basis for common law (which, of course, is the basis for government in the United States federal government as well as 49 out of 50 states- Louisiana being the exception as it has a mixture of common and civil law).

Simply put, these justices weren't making anything up. They were applying specific portions of the Constitution exactly as the Constitution demands they do.

Those 14 rulings were not them adding new content to the Constitution but instead comprehending the (deliberately vague) language of the Constitution. They specifically cited the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and identified the right to marriage as one of the liberties that the clause protects. Again, this was a power that was left entirely to them by the design of the Constitution and the wording of the Bill of Rights- it was their job to use their rulings to determine exactly what these liberties constituted. That is exactly the role of a judge in a common law jurisdiction- to interpret law (in accordance with existing precedents) and set precedents.

Regardless of whether you agree with their reasoning (and before you say you don't, I'd recommend you actually read the case briefs- they were written by people with far more training and expertise in constitutional law than you or I have- arguably the best interpreters of constitutional law in the country by the nature of their job, so the reasoning isn't as flimsy as you appear to think), the "it's not in the Constution" argument simply reveals a flawed understanding of the United States as a common law jurisdiction and the role of the Constitution within that jurisdiction. It's also demonstrably false on face because there were specific constitutional citations provided in each of those fourteen rulings- citations that passed the test of time through Courts of multiple leanings.

This is exactly how common law and stare decisis are supposed to work, and the judiciary branch doing its job.

Edited 6/29/2015 16:30:00

I feel like you've got a somewhat skewed view of the Supreme Court. Their job is explicitly to interpret the Constitution, which in itself (being an extremely short governing document) is a loose framework that was never intended to specify every little thing but instead provide a general basis for government behavior and civil liberties in the country. Fortunately, unlike India's constitution, the U.S. Constitution doesn't attempt to cover every single little thing directly but instead provides a set of principles that the government must obey. Furthermore, by specifying the role of the Supreme Court and judiciary system as interpretive, it specifically recognizes their authority to understand and enumerate the rights protected by the Constitution.

Yes, their job is to interpret what was written in the Constitution. However, there is a difference between interpreting established law and for all intents in purposes creating new law with very little to no ground in the actual writing. I'll try and make an example.

Freedom of Press can be extended to websites, for news websites are a modern extension of newspapers. The same wording of the 1st amendment logically extends here.

However, there is nothing at all in the Constitution regarding marriage. The ruling in question completely relied on reading into words that aren't actually there.

Yes, the Constitution was meant to be flexible, but that's why we are able to add amendments. The type of radical,liberal interpretation of the Constitution that we've seen here and in other cases sets a very bad precedent. With the kind of logic we're employing the Constitution could be bent to fit any type of agenda and justify anything that's not an obvious contradiction. All on the basis of, "Well, we think this what the founding father's would of meant, so it's law now."

Anything that adds such immense change to the law should go through the amendment process so that it can be properly added to the Constitution. Going through this process would also ensure that the decision is the will of the majority as intended with our type of government.

They specifically cited the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and identified the right to marriage as one of the liberties that the clause protects.

"....nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,without due process of law...."

Pretty much every law that exists deprives people of liberty in some fashion. However, laws exist for justified reasons and are debated upon and passed in legislatures by representatives of the people. Can laws be wrong? Yes, but if that is so than the same process should be used to change them. Only rights laid out within the Constitution are immune to legislation. (And even those are bent in some cases)

All due process guarantees is that a law is applied equally to all citizens. I.E: Theft is punishable regardless of who commits it.

Again, the problem with liberal interpretation is that it can be used to justify nearly anything. You can define nearly every possible action as a right or a personal liberty, but that doesn't mean it should be treated as such.

to interpret law

Law wasn't interpreted here, it was created. That is the issue, enforceable law was created by five people who are not even elected.

Regardless of whether you agree with their reasoning

The Supreme Court doesn't even agree with it's own reasoning in this matter.

"This court is not a legislature,whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution,judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."
-Chief Justice John Roberts

"Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."
-Justice Samuel Alito

Here's my whole point with posting these quotes: It's hard to say with certainty that the Supreme Court has the power to make these kinds of decisions when it's own justices can't even agree on the matter.

This is something that should of been decided on the state level or put to an Amendment which would of ended the argument once and for all. The way it happened however doesn't sit well for many and only serves to cloud the issue with more controversy.

Eklipse shhh, we already won 😛