Same *** Marriage Is a Right

[Senju Bean]

It is an unconstitutional ruling.

You must be registered for see links

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

There is no amendment granting the Federal Government authority over marriage.

Thus descends upon America the age of lawlessness.

You do know that there is no moral relativism in this case.

The ability to marry is an absolute right reserved for all consenting rational beings, determined by logic itself.
Therefore any law that goes against it is automatically immoral.

This is beyond even the constitution. This enters into the black and white world of ethics

 

[Sennin of Logic]

As time went on, various interest groups and political arguments led to people believing they could incentivize marriage and child development by giving tax breaks for individuals who were filing as married. This was especially the case as more women began to go to work and this led to more dual income families where both parties would be taxed equally.

Was this post WW2 during the "Baby Boomer" generation?

 

[Keimil]

Congratulations Americans!!

 

[Kiken]

You want simple?


Law is Law.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tell me.

Where in the Constitution is marriage a specified power of the Federal Government?

When you can cite where in the Constitution the power of marriage is given to the federal government, we'll talk.

If you read my posts, then you also read my opinion on how we should handle the issue of marriage equality.

If you have the time to type up the same opinion everyone else has, then you have the time to do some research on how law in this country is supposed to work. There is a due process. If you violate that due process then the law means nothing.

If the law means nothing then we live in a lawless society. If we live in a lawless society then it is simply an environment where might makes right.

How strong are you, kiddo?

See in no type of way that i said that the Federal Government had any right on the right of marriage. I was merely using the constitution as an example as an opposing view point. As for your apparent viewpoint on the matter, I really don't care XD. The "Right" of marriage is whatever a majority of people sees it to be. I cant help that people are starting to see that shaming people because of who they like isn't exactly a valid factor to be hating on. Society is constantly shifting and if I remember correctly this same debate more than likely occurred during the period of racial equality... Where people saw blacks as inferior... They are very much the same as both were denied right on something they had no control over and really didnt hurt anyone. I just see it as wrong to deny anyone that happiness that a man and woman can have. The nice house, the marriage ring...a symbol of eternal love. This debate is dumb because it violates the pursuit of happiness which is entitled to anyone within these lovely borders. So speak all the political jargon you wish about the subject it all falls down to what we see as ethical and right and Im sorry to say it but based on what just happened; Allowing marriage and this proud showing of love is for everyone regardless of sexual attraction. Get over it XD There are other things we should be worried about than if two men or women got married. People are starving on our soil.... sold into human trafficking..... and homeless only to count a small number of actually important issues that would need such jargon. Democracy is a pain? ... yes I know I know but hey look on the bright side you could always go to another country if it bothers you sir. ​

 

[Αizen]

Good for them, although it still won't be completely accepted.
I guess all that matters is happiness.

 

[Akemi]

There are two reasons.

First - it's because progressives always need to choose some taboo or another to shove up everyone else's ass (quite literally). They are always finding something considered socially objectionable and insist that virtue resides in 'accepting' and 'understanding' it.

Second - it does have some grounding in the way the U.S. tax system works.

Back in 1914, the progressives had the wonderful idea to implement an income based tax system that gave the federal government the authority to directly tax citizens based upon their income. As time went on, various interest groups and political arguments led to people believing they could incentivize marriage and child development by giving tax breaks for individuals who were filing as married. This was especially the case as more women began to go to work and this led to more dual income families where both parties would be taxed equally.

Thus - the exemptions for marriage were made.

This opened up a can of worms, though. The federal government relies upon the state's authority to determine marital status. The Tenth Amendment states that any power not expressly given to the federal government is reserved to the states. Since the institution of marriage appears nowhere in the Constitution - it is a power reserved to the States (and therefor denied to the federal government).

This means that some states can permit things like homosexual marriage while other states can not permit homosexual marriage. It also means that some states could theoretically not have any marriage at all (though all states do).

This means that it is impossible for the individual income tax code to be applied equally to all citizens it is intended to apply. Or - at least - not with equal outcomes, at least. Homosexual couples in a state that allows marriage between them would be able to benefit from the tax breaks granted to married families while those in states that did not would not be able to benefit from such things.

Thus - we end up with a conflict at the federal level regarding the equality of tax statuses that uses a federal tax as a grounds to support the violation of the Tenth Amendment that is intended to preserve the Separation of Powers between nation and state.

The only ruling the court could have made that is consistent with the Constitution is to dismiss the case, as the Supreme Court does not have the proper jurisdiction.

Technically - no state is actually compelled to obey this SCOTUS ruling, and should continue exactly as it was, prior. The Supreme Court doesn't have legal jurisdiction per the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land.

If the federal government wants to have the power to make laws regarding marriage - they must put forth and pass an amendment that grants them such authority.

Otherwise - the issue of what to do about marriage rests within the States and the States alone. The Federal Government can't touch it.

Which is why individual income taxes are a hideous idea and why they had to create an amendment to justify creating the federal income tax (because it was not constitutional within our original framework).

taxes?so it's about money now.
this decision hurts people:
first-the parents of the homosexual couple,the existence of someone means that their parents are straight,no matter what degree of tolerance they have,they will always be hurt when they know they have homosexual kids,and makes their sons and daughters go like :"c'mon government says it's legal,you can't say no."
and the parents will absolutely be hurt.

second-the adopted children
they will be hurt too,whether the thing they decide for themselves,imagine a kid is bullied in school because his parents are homos,and how they would get to live with this truth that will always be felt like "shame"

it shouldn't be about "money" or "***",it should be about the real feelings,the feelings that would connect a family.

 

[Kiken]

taxes?so it's about money now.
this decision hurts people:
first-the parents of the homosexual couple,the existence of someone means that their parents are straight,no matter what degree of tolerance they have,they will always be hurt when they know they have homosexual kids,and makes their sons and daughters go like :"c'mon government says it's legal,you can't say no."
and the parents will absolutely be hurt.

second-the adopted children
they will be hurt too,whether the thing they decide for themselves,imagine a kid is bullied in school because his parents are homos,and how they would get to live with this truth that will always be felt like "shame"

it shouldn't be about "money" or "***",it should be about the real feelings,the feelings that would connect a family.

Hello there ^^ This decision will only hurt people because the generations previous to this one has been coached to think that homosexuality is "abnormal" when it has been shown and even glorified like heterosexuality in many societies over the course of history. The only way to save those poor children is to become more accepting and tolerant and teach the future generations that you can truly be whom ever you wish to be in and love whom ever makes you happy. That right there is your solution.​

 

[Aim64C]

You do know that there is no moral relativism in this case.

The ability to marry is an absolute right reserved for all consenting rational beings, determined by logic itself.
Therefore any law that goes against it is automatically immoral.

This is beyond even the constitution. This enters into the black and white world of ethics

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States. There is no higher authority.

The black and white laws of ethics are what created the process outlined in the Constitution. A panel of 9 judges does not have the authority to use its sense of moral relativism to impose a viewpoint upon the 50 states and 380 million people of the Union.

That is why the Constitution was written. That is why it is ethical to follow its processes and to follow its law.

Was this post WW2 during the "Baby Boomer" generation?

Oddly, I'm having difficulty finding any mentions of specific acts related to the tax code - but, I believe it was some time around that era.

See in no type of way that i said that the Federal Government had any right on the right of marriage. I was merely using the constitution as an example as an opposing view point. As for your apparent viewpoint on the matter, I really don't care XD. The "Right" of marriage is whatever a majority of people sees it to be. I cant help that people are starting to see that shaming people because of who they like isn't exactly a valid factor to be hating on. Society is constantly shifting and if I remember correctly this same debate more than likely occurred during the period of racial equality... Where people saw blacks as inferior... They are very much the same as both were denied right on something they had no control over and really didnt hurt anyone. I just see it as wrong to deny anyone that happiness that a man and woman can have. The nice house, the marriage ring...a symbol of eternal love. This debate is dumb because it violates the pursuit of happiness which is entitled to anyone within these lovely borders. So speak all the political jargon you wish about the subject it all falls down to what we see as ethical and right and Im sorry to say it but based on what just happened; Allowing marriage and this proud showing of love is for everyone regardless of sexual attraction. Get over it XD There are other things we should be worried about than if two men or women got married. People are starving on our soil.... sold into human trafficking..... and homeless only to count a small number of actually important issues that would need such jargon. Democracy is a pain? ... yes I know I know but hey look on the bright side you could always go to another country if it bothers you sir. ​

You don't seem to understand.

This isn't about homosexuality in the slightest. It is about the separation of powers of the government.

We are now an oligarchy to be commanded by the political caste.

Or... I should say... you are.

I will be linking up with fellow secessionists and we will be declaring a region of the nation independent from federal jurisdiction. You all are welcome to join us - but there will be one rule, and that is that we follow the laws that are put forth in the Constitution. If you don't - we'll strip you of citizenship and boot you out. You've ruined this country, and you will not ruin a second one within our lifetimes.

 

[Kiken]

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States. There is no higher authority.

The black and white laws of ethics are what created the process outlined in the Constitution. A panel of 9 judges does not have the authority to use its sense of moral relativism to impose a viewpoint upon the 50 states and 380 million people of the Union.

That is why the Constitution was written. That is why it is ethical to follow its processes and to follow its law.



Oddly, I'm having difficulty finding any mentions of specific acts related to the tax code - but, I believe it was some time around that era.



You don't seem to understand.

This isn't about homosexuality in the slightest. It is about the separation of powers of the government.

We are now an oligarchy to be commanded by the political caste.

Or... I should say... you are.

I will be linking up with fellow secessionists and we will be declaring a region of the nation independent from federal jurisdiction. You all are welcome to join us - but there will be one rule, and that is that we follow the laws that are put forth in the Constitution. If you don't - we'll strip you of citizenship and boot you out. You've ruined this country, and you will not ruin a second one within our lifetimes.

Well thanks for your invite but ill stay in the country of ruin. We have cupcakes and sunshine over here if you are going to declare a region based strictly on the constitution then may the force be with you and tell me all about it when it's all set up ​

 

[Akemi]

Hello there ^^ This decision will only hurt people because the generations previous to this one has been coached to think that homosexuality is "abnormal" when it has been shown and even glorified like heterosexuality in many societies over the course of history. The only way to save those poor children is to become more accepting and tolerant and teach the future generations that you can truly be whom ever you wish to be in and love whom ever makes you happy. That right there is your solution.​

it will never be accepted as normal,homosexuality exists since forever,if there's a possibility,it would have been tolerated with time,or just a little more,only a little but guess what? it has never been accepted the slightest.
societies can glorify whatever they want in history but no religions have accepted homosexuality so far.

 

[Kiken]

it will never be accepted as normal,homosexuality exists since forever,if there's a possibility,it would have been tolerated with time,or just a little more,only a little but guess what? it has never been accepted the slightest.
societies can glorify whatever they want in history but no religions have accepted homosexuality so far.

Touche. I can't argue with that and I cant exactly argue on religion as I don't posses the knowledge of religion to do so but luckily for us we have to keep religion and the state separate and have laws to keep people from belittling others in the name of religion ​

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

You want simple?


Law is Law.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tell me.

Where in the Constitution is marriage a specified power of the Federal Government?

When you can cite where in the Constitution the power of marriage is given to the federal government, we'll talk.

If you read my posts, then you also read my opinion on how we should handle the issue of marriage equality.

If you have the time to type up the same opinion everyone else has, then you have the time to do some research on how law in this country is supposed to work. There is a due process. If you violate that due process then the law means nothing.

If the law means nothing then we live in a lawless society. If we live in a lawless society then it is simply an environment where might makes right.

How strong are you, kiddo?

I don't understand. It is constitutional or I guess you magically skipped the 14th amendment.

You must be registered for see links

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

So infact it not being legal is unconstitutional.

 

[HiddenSound]

No one gives a shit about your bigotry. We're winning the fight.

That's a gross overreaction to a non-biased, opinionated statement...
OT: Was only a matter of time. Good thing. It's a bit barbaric to say two people in their right mind can't get married because you yourself, who has nothing to do with it, doesn't like thinking about it.

 

[Punk Hazard]

That's a gross overreaction to a non-biased, opinionated statement...
OT: Was only a matter of time. Good thing. It's a bit barbaric to say two people in their right mind can't get married because you yourself, who has nothing to do with it, doesn't like thinking about it.

Nah, if you've seen his many other hatefilled, outdated, immature posts, you'd understand why I posted like that.

 

[ComplexCity]

Whenever the slippery slope fallacy turns up in a debate, it usually means that one side doesn't really have an argument.

And it appears on NB every time this topic does.

It's a shame that so many people totally unaffected by this court ruling are getting so riled up about it.

You're obviously not understanding the point based off this reply

 

[Norman Bates]

Mother and I are very happy for equality.

 

[Punk Hazard]

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States. There is no higher authority.

The black and white laws of ethics are what created the process outlined in the Constitution. A panel of 9 judges does not have the authority to use its sense of moral relativism to impose a viewpoint upon the 50 states and 380 million people of the Union.

That is why the Constitution was written. That is why it is ethical to follow its processes and to follow its law.



Oddly, I'm having difficulty finding any mentions of specific acts related to the tax code - but, I believe it was some time around that era.



You don't seem to understand.

This isn't about homosexuality in the slightest. It is about the separation of powers of the government.

We are now an oligarchy to be commanded by the political caste.

Or... I should say... you are.

I will be linking up with fellow secessionists and we will be declaring a region of the nation independent from federal jurisdiction. You all are welcome to join us - but there will be one rule, and that is that we follow the laws that are put forth in the Constitution. If you don't - we'll strip you of citizenship and boot you out. You've ruined this country, and you will not ruin a second one within our lifetimes.

I am ****ing dying oh my God. This Dude is really about to leave and make a new country because gay people can be married. How ****ing petty.

 

[Rιver]

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the United States. There is no higher authority.

The black and white laws of ethics are what created the process outlined in the Constitution. A panel of 9 judges does not have the authority to use its sense of moral relativism to impose a viewpoint upon the 50 states and 380 million people of the Union.

That is why the Constitution was written. That is why it is ethical to follow its processes and to follow its law.



Oddly, I'm having difficulty finding any mentions of specific acts related to the tax code - but, I believe it was some time around that era.



You don't seem to understand.

This isn't about homosexuality in the slightest. It is about the separation of powers of the government.

We are now an oligarchy to be commanded by the political caste.

Or... I should say... you are.

I will be linking up with fellow secessionists and we will be declaring a region of the nation independent from federal jurisdiction. You all are welcome to join us - but there will be one rule, and that is that we follow the laws that are put forth in the Constitution. If you don't - we'll strip you of citizenship and boot you out. You've ruined this country, and you will not ruin a second one within our lifetimes.

I bet it will be called the land of the free and home of the brave.

 

[Joker]

you know what's most weird about this?the homosexual people themselves who want to marry,like why do you want to marry each other?
they have always been doing what they want,from having *** to adopting children.
why do they need to (marry)?
you know why,because they think if their marriage is legalized society and world will accept them,while this will never happen because it's abnormal.
abnormal will always be abnormal and never will be accepted..

*Rolls eyes intensely*


Why do they need to marry? For the same rights as other spouses and couples. So if their significant other is injured, you CAN go see them.

"Abnormal will never be accepted"

But it got passed B, stay maaad.

 

[BSK]

Gays have no right to marry