Gay marriage is constitutional 5-4

You have severely misunderstood something there, the legal system and the supreme court's function isn't to make laws. Their job is to look at one thing the law and uphold the laws, not to make politics.

Politics is for politicians and local and federal government. So if 65% of americans want something changed they can do it by voting for the right people for their local and federal government.

They didn't create a new law. Marriage already existed. What they decided was that denying it to gay couples was unconstitutional.

They didn't mke law, they interpreted pre-existing law to include gay rights.

and voting on issues like this are on the state level not federal, so through those means it would be 50 to solve the issue in ass backwards deep southern states, why not just solve it now? If this didn't happen, the house and senate would have passed exactly this within a decade.

Either way, this was within constitutional law. The supreme courts responsibility is to reinterpret laws.

Ehmm, that's what i said?

So what you are saying is that if people live in a state that disagrees with your political views, they have no right to democracy and to decide for themselves? because of course this is state and not federal , like Scalia and the other 3 dissende judges also said. This should never be up to a federal supreme court.

So no this was not well within constitutional law, you got lucky and had one judge more on your side nothing else.

@Jacanuk: cutting because big quote chain.

Actually that's how democracy works at the federal level, that's how it's worked since the union began; if a law is written on the federal level, it applies to all states. and reinterpreting the Constitution is the supreme courts job and again, this has been since the beginning of the U.S.

Yes it is, the judges ruled that the 14th amendment protects gay rights. Because that is the rule, then officially yes it is now within constitutional law. You not understanding civics and being salty about being on the losing side doesn't change that.

You clearly do not understand law, constitutional or otherwise, like you do also seem to lack basic understanding of democracy works and even how America works.

Just because the supreme court rules in favor, does not mean that their decision was correct, which is clear when you have 4 judges ruling against it. However does that mean the ruling is not valid, of course not, so please learn the difference between stating an opinion and stating a fact.

And as to democracy, No a decision like this is as Scalia put so well, making politics not just upholding and judging the law by its letter/merit. It´s a decision that is suited for each state´s local legislative power, not a federal court.

So you can be ever so happy for this decision and feel that it's correct, but if you really want to discuss law and constitutional law, please provide name of which law institution you got your law degree from and how long you have been a lawyer.

So what made their decision wrong? You are yet to say how they are making politics. From what I and everyone else can see, all they did was interpret pre-existing laws. They didn't write any new ones.

I'm going to assume (hope) you're in High school. If you go to college I highly suggest you take a civics class so you can understand how laws are made.

Actually, it does make it valid, they are literally the highest court in the land, and their interpretations are legally considered the correct ones.

No, that's not how the judicial system is set up. It's set up to be the final say all in the interpretation of law. Disagreeing with it doesn't make states have power over the Supreme court. Fact is, it's the final say all in legal interpretation whether you like it or not.

I don't need a law degree to understand this. This is 10th grade civics stuff, it's very simple and strait forward. anybody who paid attention in High School should know how laws are made in this country. The fact that you say something like this suggests that you need to do some reading on how laws are made in this country.

Here's a basic overview.

the legislative branch writes bills.

Then the executive branch make decisions on whether to sign the bill into law.

The judicial branch interprets and makes rulings on those laws.

This is how it has always been in this country.

Like I said previously, this doesn't become illegal simply because you're a bigot.

wait so does that mean it's legal in all the states now or is this just a symbolic thing?

@Storm_Marine: It's legal in all states =)

Oh well that's cool I guess.

Y a pas un forum pour français svp ? Merci d avance

@toast_burner: They redefined the meaning of marriage which means words have no meaning.

No what they said was that defining marriage as being exclusively for opposite sex couples is unconstitutional.

Why aren't you mad about how they changed the definition of marriage to allow two people of different races to marry?

@MakeMeaSammitch: 65% don' support it they just accept it there is a difference. Every time the gay marriage issue was put on the ballot it was defeated b a landside. if was supported by 65% of the people it would have passed every time. Maybe you should get your facts strait.

@toast_burner: Liberalism is o longer about individual rights but group rights. If it was about individual rights why was the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple for their religious convictions take to court. Liberal now put everyone in groups.

@toast_burner: You are right we are also no longer a representative republic.

What made the 5 judges decision wrong? Again as Scalia put it as part of the dissent, It is not up to the supreme court to make such decisions that go into what in reality should be up to the legislative branch. IE this should be up to each state to make and implement laws that redefine a term like Marriage or deem it to be inconsequential if its Man/man or Women/Women or Man/women..

I am all for equality but it should not be forced down over people's head and it should certainly not be up to a supreme court.

What arrogance.

But please learn to read and understand before you start to act all superior, it's kinda embarrassing to watch you dig yourself deeper and deeper.

So read what i wrote and if you do not understand pretty basic english, then either go back to school and learn it or ask your mom and dad.

@toast_burner: Why is the free exercise of religion always under attack?

I shouldn't have to point this out but Democrat and liberal are not interchangeable.

I see this with a lot of Americans where they seem to think that the two parties they have are at opposite ends of the spectrum where democrats are liberals and Republicans are conservatives (which also implies that liberal and conservative are polar opposites which is also not true). Both parties share features of both ideologies. Republicans for example tend to have a very liberal approach to guns but a conservative approach to drugs.

If you support individual rights, why do you oppose same sex marriage?

Give some examples

@toast_burner: It used to be called civil unions and I had no problem with it. Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing children which is the cornerstone of any culture. When the gay activists were able to get into schools teaching small children about the gay lifestyle I said enough is enough.

Separate but equal doesn't work.

What's wrong with letting children know that homosexuality exists? Won't be long until some of those kids discover they are gay, so it's important information to have. Are you ok with teaching kids about heterosexuality?

So you believe the courts and the federal government were wrong to end segregation? After all, they were imposing that on many states from on high. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what kind of system we have in the United States. This is a Democratic Republic, one of the MOST important functions of our government is to protect minorities from the whims and tyranny of the majority. In certain states, most situated in the backwards South, (and I live here so I can say it is in fact on many issues backwards, outdated, and hateful) homosexuals as a minority were being denied their full civil rights for ENTIRELY religious reasons. Much like when some states were dragging their feet on segregation, someone had to step in and tell them plainly "no more".

No logical reason beyond "Gawd sed gays are icky hee-yuck" was ever given. Every single measure to make them second class citizens was motivated 100% by Christians in a position of power imposing their religion on others through the law. It was oppression, plain and simple. Which is why I get so ticked when Christians play the victim card and try to act like THEY are an oppressed minority in the USA, it's absurd. They are not oppressed, (they are incredibly well represented on Capitol Hill by a massive political machine brimming with money) they have been throughout the history of our country the oppressors.

@toast_burner: Not before they even know what sex is to begin with. It wasn't for education it was for acceptance of a lifestyle. At kinder garden age they can't comprehend many things yet.

Christians are not allowed to impose the rules of their barbaric desert dwelling blood soaked monster on icky gay people through the law anymore, therefore they are oppressed by their inability to oppress.

So you oppose accepting people who are different?

It's not 1930 any more. Women don't belong in the kitchen, blacks can vote, and gays can marry. Sorry this stuff shocks you but those are the facts.

Young children have shown themselves to be incredibly able to adapt to the simple idea that some times instead of a mom and a dad, their is a dad and a dad, or a mom and a mom. They don't need to be taught about sex, they can readily understand the concept of what a gay person is. Unless they have already been filled with hate by their parents, (that is learned, it is never there by default… I really wish I could take back the way I treated the few kids in school who were brave enough to embrace who they were instead of hiding it) they quickly understand the concept and don't see it as a big deal.

Again the courts are NOT A LEGISLATIVE Branch. But could you please stay on topic and not try to put words into my posts? We are talking about marriage here not something even remotely as serious as Racism. So unless you stay on marriage, we have nothing further to debate.

As to your claim that the most important function of the government is to protect minorities you are dead wrong. The most important function of the government is to be "government of the people, by the people, for the people" It´s not to protect a certain group or political view. It's to protect all groups and represent all people. So if you live in a state that after your opinion is backwards or does not represent your views, you have two options, either move to another state that suit your political views or become politically active, either by using your vote and get others to vote or run for office. It's that simple.

Also i have never said or put my support on either side of this marriage issue. All i am saying is that i agree with Scalia and the dissent, that this is not a question that should be decided in the supreme court. This is an issue for the local states to decide,

What the supreme court did in this decision was by definition to act like a tyrant.

You are preaching equality for the equals and not equality for all.

- Women can vote

- Blacks don´t have to seat in the back of the bus and can attend to public schools and vote

- Homosexuals can marry

- Interracial relations and marriage are valid

- A black can be president of the nation

- A spic can be judge of the supreme court

What the hell do you know about the "gay lifestyle" ? how many gays you know personally ? I have gay friends, many gay clients and if you think that each and everyone of them is a drag queen or that every homosexual is a sex hungry wolf looking for fresh meat to **** all day long you are completely wrong. Why, when gay activists were able to get into schools to speak about "gay lifestyle", you didn´t attend to see what they were talking about ? Are you afraid of learning something new ? Or are you afraid that you may find out that gay people are not what you think you are ?

you heard it here first, folks

the supreme court doing the thing it was created to do is an act of tyranny

Would you like some reading material on exactly what kind of governmental system we have here in the states? Because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the judicial branch over here in the states, not to mention a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Democratic Republic is verses a simple minded mob rules Democracy. This is a civil rights issue, it is very comparable to what was happening in the 60's with segregationist states. Some states were allowing the majority to deny fundamental civil rights to a minority, and had to be told from on high "No, you can't do that".

They had to do it again in this case. Those states were clearly and simply wrong, they were denying people their civil rights for less than pure reasons and acting in a tyrannical manner by imposing private religious beliefs on others through the law. This was not an act of tyranny, it was the judicial branch of our government doing it's job.

Civil rights of a minority are not up for a vote by the majority, that simply isn't how our system is supposed to work.

Owned

I've already graduated college and I make a lot of money programming industrial robots, so I have not need to go back to school. On top of that I've take civics classes. Thanks though!

I just don't feel that you're understanding the basic process of creating laws. You said it's illegal, but the supreme court re-interprets laws frequently. For example they ruled that "separate but equal' was illegal under the 14th amendment and now it's illegal.

Similarly they ruled that the 4th amendment protects against phone tapping without warrant.

Decisions like this are made frequently, the constitution and laws are re-evaluated by not just the supreme court, but across all courts in the U.S. to different degrees every day, it is one of the core functions of the court system to do this.

People are just really salty about this decision, but being salty doesn't make this illegal. I'm willing bet something similar happened when the civil rights act was signed.

I think it's absolute hilarious that you somehow think that your opinion is anything but a opinion and to boot its a weak, feeble and very misguided one.

Again do you even know which branch the supreme court belongs to? because you seem to lack basic understanding of the 3 branches and their very simple jobs. It´s something one like you even under 18 should have been taught in kindergarten.

Also there is no such thing as America the democratic republic, America is constitutional republic. Which you hopefully with the mass knowledge you have tried to show , know what is.

It´s also absolutely insane that you are even considering putting same sex or any marriage into the same box as Segregation and racism and the oppression of coloured and native americans. Marrying someone is a privilege not a right and should never be confused as anything but that. So yes that makes it a matter for local state lawmakers not a supreme court and it's certainly not something that´s constitutional even with the 14th amendment.

So people who are infertile, over the age of 55, and those who don't want children shouldn't be allowed to marry?

What gay lifestyle? Have you ever met a gay person? Gays are just like everybody else, there is no "gay lifestyle".

Apparently the SCOTUS seems to think a bit differently than you. It's been the GOVERNMENT stopping gays from marrying. We wouldn't have such chaos if the government didn't openly discriminate on a daily basis. We always talk about being equal yet the government decided people should get tax breaks and such based on marriage, children, etc..., There isn't a need to continually cause divide amongst the people.

I do appreciate that all the gay marriage opponents have suddenly become constitutional law experts and so know the court's decision was wrong.

@MakeMeaSammitch: Since the definition of marriage has changed what will you now call a man and a woman who join together and have children since marriage no longer has the same meaning?

@JimB: family of x#

Yes, and it doesn't change straits ability to marry or what it means to them.

You realize gay marriage has been a thing all through history? Even the church allowed it during the dark ages calling it "brother marriage".

@JimB: but the reality of marrige didn't seem to matter much before so I don't see why it would affect your ability to have it be this narrow thing in your head.

I'm pretty sure everyone can share the word.

-Byshop

what did you call it before?

Since when was that the definition of marriage anyways

And what did you call marriages that don't result in children?

Not nearly as much as we appreciate comments like yours that seem to suddenly think this wasn't a split decision and there isn't a minority of Supreme court justices who also disagree with the majority and you.

So a fun fact, just because you agree with the majority, It will not not make the majority's decision suddenly become the absolute truth.

They are in the denial stage of the 5 stages of grief. Though some of them are in the bargaining stage now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/conservative-lawmakers-and-faith-groups-seek-exemptions-after-same-sex-ruling.html?ref=us&_r=1

Don't tell me what I understand when you just listed 3 lines of bullshit.

Do you not understand what Per a capita means? http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/T2N9DFEHMMLRRIQMC

Learn to educate yourself about basic facts before you continue to ramble. If group A has 100,000 people and 20,000 people commit a violent crime and group B has 30,000 people and 15,000 people commit a violent crime which group is more dangerous? Blacks kill more whites then whites kill blacks per a capita. Since one group has a much higher crime rate per a capita its not profiling its called not being an oblivious to whats around you.

Second of all i hope you were referring to America for whties because there are more Asians in the in the world then any race.

Third that is a complete and utter bullshit stat. Blacks have laws to help them get jobs even if they are under qualified. They are also less educated then whites per a capita as well so what proof do you have that they would be more qualified when they are the least educated race in the US?