Justices rule on SSM

Originally posted by switch I'm pumped

There's a joke somewhere in that comment, but I'll refrain.  lol

Originally posted by switch I'm pumped

Why?

Obviously a very complex issue.  I do feel there were some legal issues that needed to be addressed because even if you take the sex out of it there were people who entered into lifelong partnerships that were getting hosed by the government.

I understand some think this is a moral issue, and laws can indeed address moral issues... but there is no way in the world SSM can be argued against legally or Constitutionally. It just makes no sense what so ever, regardless of what one might think of it. Either you are for individual rights and a Republic, or are you are for mob rule... careful what you ask for...

The SCOTUS made the proper "legal" ruling that indeed, the law was not constitutional based on what was before them.

Well said.

Everything has unintended consequences.  I don't have the time to really get into this topic today (lots of work to do) so I'll just leave it at that. 

SCOTUS issued rulings on two cases dealing with same sex marriage, but managed to avoid the issue of whether same sex marriages are protected by the Constitution.  

The DOMA ruling leaves many questions yet unanswered, which will decided in the coming years.  

Fair enough, but I think this is a very, very positive step, and I'm celebrating. 

I live in Iowa and we got this right before lots of states, though we're still waiting on the whole pot thing.  It makes me proud that SSM is alive and well in my hood.

i'm taking bets on which Confederate state will be the last one to eventually allow same sex marriage.

(could be a few decades, as after the SCOTUS decision on the VRA, minorities and liberals won't be allowed to vote)

They have a habit of doing that, which is a good thing. They do not legislate, and they should be very conservative in their actions. Webster definition, not political.

You can't get to a court and say give me this. They rule on your particular case based on the laws and facts pertaining to your case. I do not actually see how the SCOTUS can decide SSM is Constitutional... yet I find it impossible to do the opposite, go to SCOTUS and argue that denying SSM is legal and Constitutional.That no matter how you deny it, you are going to step on one legal toe somewhere.

The only way SSM will become "constitutional", is if we pass an amendment writing it so. But I honestly do not think it is needed. From a federal constitutional stand point. Simply because opposite sex marriages are not in the Constitution, yet they carry the full weight of the law. It will be sorted out in the states and eventually just be so.. with a lot of legal challenges. And the very fact opposite sex marriages exists, is what will make SSM legal. No way around that.

Seems pretty clear to me too - and it's about time. 

Our borders must be controlled.  We are in a war against Islamic terrorism.....we must have control over people who try to infiltrate our society and cause us harm.  That being said, remove most of the controls against people who want to come here for a better life for themselves or their family.  Make it easy to come here, easy to become a citizen, and easy to pay the taxes needed to run our country.  Our system is ridiculously complicated and scary for people coming to our country to enjoy our way of life.

And yes, any two people should be allowed to marry if they wish.  I see no reason for hetero couples to have all the "fun".

And legalize drugs.  Release all non-violent drug offenders from our prisons and replace them with anyone who commits and is found guilty of a SINGLE violent crime against another person.

What else.....oh yeah....bring back Moon Pies and Grape Nehi

Yeah, control may not be the right word...but they certainly need to be heavily patrolled.....and I'm good with another thread....I didn't go all fence on this one, I just joined in.