Biden 'absolutely comfortable' with same-sex marriage

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
DOMA changed nothing as far as Baker goes.
The original federal question : Did the MN Supreme court err in claiming a ban on same sex marriage did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. SCOTUS found no error in the claim, hence no federal question.
At the time, 28 U.S.C. 1257(2) provided:
Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a
decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court as follows:
(2) by appeal, where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of any state on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United
States, and the decision is in favor of its validity.

Minnesota had no intermediate appellate review at the time so it was automatic that the state's high court decisions were reviewed by the scotus. Its called "mandatory review" and it has different rules...

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
So why isn't same-sex marriage legal everywhere?

Government finds little benefit from same sex marriage, unlike heterosexual marriage which tends to produce future taxpayers. Not a requirement but nature often takes its course.. That makes government so happy and content.

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Skinner v. Oklahoma
316 U.S. 535 (1942)

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
You'll notice that they mention "God" but nothing about the Bible, or any specific religion. "God" can be the god of any religion, and he/she/it is assumed to be the Creator of Life in any religion, not just Christianity.

You want them too?

"and to cause the benign religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth...."
John Hancock -Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."
Alexander Hamilton- Signer of the U.S. constitution

"My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins".
George Mason - Father of the Bill of Rights

"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."
Daniel Webster


"I beg leave to remark that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION... But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is the religion of JESUS CHRIST".
Dr. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence


"I believe that there is only one living and true God --- That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.
Roger Sherman -signer the U.S. Constitution

Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God.
William Samuel Johnson-Signer of the U.S. Constitution


Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....
Fisher Ames - Author of the final wording of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment

I believe [that]... once restored to an independent government & no longer persecuted they [the Jews] would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character & possibly in time become liberal Unitarian Christians for your Jehovah is our Jehovah & your God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our God.
John Adams

The Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth.[and] laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
John Quincy Adams

"The rights of the colonists as Christians ... may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
Samuel Adams

"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."--
John Marshall -Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

"Unto Him who is the Author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son."
John Jay -first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed.
Patrick Henry

DO NOT believe the polls which place 50/50 for or against gay marrige.

Believe the states in numbers who forbid it and there are 39.

That is Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 50% disaproval

I liken it to being in a Fortress and Knightly manning the walls as hords of the morally bankrupt lay seige.

Incrementally a breach in the wall here..and there..the bastion of which holds intact humanity's moral sphere.

An apt descrition for the Fortress is not mere mortar and stone rather the very foundation of human existence even though through thousands of years aborhant anomalay's have appeared what held sway and saved the day for the 'progressive' evolution of Mankind were the tenants which bore moral outcomes first considered in ethical outlay.

The 'hords' have the mass media in the entertainment industry to 'put to sleep' the masses by making the appearences of their forms seem normal or natural.

From Broke my back on a moutain...to the Ellen degeneration show...the hords incessant challange to the wholesome and natural world ..and the Fortress of the Moral Sphere needs both viligant and diligent attendence to.

A breach in the wall here..one there..yet the Sanctity of bonding through the spiritual impulses naturally occuring in members of the opposite sex has yet to be championed.

have you ever heard the expression .."there's something in the water?"

Whooooooooopie! The Birth Control Pill ( among hudreds of other things)

In 1972 the 'sexual libertation' got under way with the advent of the birth control pill. Timely as it is 'then' the rise in breast cancers began to occur. That aside, when a woman is on the pill she excretes many times more female hormones in her urine..urine which goes down the toilet with the incresed amounts of female hormones and into the water supply everyone drinks. This increases through the water people drink the likelihood of little boys becoming more effeminate.

Don't believe me? Yahoo's top story 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Reality wrote:

you are incapable of posting here.
And you dont(sic) even understand why...

Still trying to make that dog hunt, are you?

Well, her's yet another post that proves your absurd assertion incorrect. Conversely, you are not capable of indicating a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the laws to marry. You haven't thus far.

Making absurd claims that others are "incapable of posting here", which are clearly untrue only serve to make you look foolish.

Ovomit 10 dollar a gallon wrote:

<quoted text>
you dont know what you are talking about
even your affirmative action harvard law professor in chief agrees with me
you are a clueser

Then explain the loving decision... Instead of acting like a little child tell me how the loving decision did not say that states did not have the final say in who could and could not marry....

Ovomit 10 dollar a gallon wrote:

<quoted text>
quote that case where it states
"marriage is not a states rights issue"
or
"marriage falls under the jurisdiction of the constitution"
or the federal government
prove your claim with facts
quote the exact words in the case with a link...

goole loving v virginia...

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
Then explain the loving decision... Instead of acting like a little child tell me how the loving decision did not say that states did not have the final say in who could and could not marry....

Douglas, Brennan, Stewart and White were Supreme court justices for Loving v Virginia (1967) and also Baker v Nelson(1972) which upheld Minnesota's claim that restricting same sex marriage did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. SCOTUS dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question," which is the equivalent of a ruling on the merits.

In referencing Loving v Virginia (1967), the MN Supreme Court stated:
"But in common sense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same."

Apparently SCOTUS found no constitutional errors with the MN supreme Court decision

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Still trying to make that dog hunt, are you?
Well, her's yet another post that proves your absurd assertion incorrect. Conversely, you are not capable of indicating a compelling state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the laws to marry. You haven't thus far.
Making absurd claims that others are "incapable of posting here", which are clearly untrue only serve to make you look foolish.

Since homosexuals have never been considered a 'suspect" class,like women and blacks, by SCOTUS ,the state does not need a compelling state interest to deny same sex marriage, merely one that meets a rational review, which might be a claim that same sex marriage will make traditional marriage weaker. Now it may or may not be true, but it is a rational argument and that is all that is required under rational scrutiny. States are traditionally understood to have the authority to make laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their communities and under rational review almost anything qualifies. That is why proponents of same sex marriage argue for heightened scrutiny when it comes to the courts and SSM.

McGruff wrote:

by the most liberal overturned court in the land. And 31 states have banned it. In fact the gays have never ever won a single vote. How's that feel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposit...

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 General Election.

This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution got 48.2% of the vote with 51.8% voting against, making Arizona the only U.S. state to vote down a state marriage amendment.

No big O wrote:

Then explain the loving decision... Instead of acting like a little child tell me how the loving decision did not say that states did not have the final say in who could and could not marry....

Simply put, Loving found that "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification."

Can you indicate any legitimate purpose served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? I doubt that you can.

downhill246 wrote:

Since homosexuals have never been considered a 'suspect" class,like women and blacks, by SCOTUS ,the state does not need a compelling state interest to deny same sex marriage, merely one that meets a rational review, which might be a claim that same sex marriage will make traditional marriage weaker.

This is a lovely run on sentence, but it’s length does not add to its validity. Being a suspect class is irrelevant. A suspect class is necessary to gain extraordinary protection of the law, or specific protection for a group that has specific needs. It is fallacious to imply that homosexuals require a suspect classification in order to attain equal protection of the law, as required by the US constitution, to marry as this is legal in every state in the union.

downhill246 wrote:

Now it may or may not be true, but it is a rational argument and that is all that is required under rational scrutiny.

Rational scrutiny? Do you mean a rational basis test?

downhill246 wrote:

States are traditionally understood to have the authority to make laws to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their communities and under rational review almost anything qualifies. That is why proponents of same sex marriage argue for heightened scrutiny when it comes to the courts and SSM.

Well, the argue for heightened scrutiny, and rightly so, because the issue at hand is the constitutional right of equal protection of the laws.

At the end of the day, you can’t even provide a rational basis to denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. I am certain you can provide any number of rationalizations, but not a legitimate and rational reason.

Wat the Tyler wrote:

<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposit...

Arizona Proposition 107 was a proposed same-sex marriage ban, put before voters by ballot initiative in the 2006 General Election.

This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution got 48.2% of the vote with 51.8% voting against, making Arizona the only U.S. state to vote down a state marriage amendment.

well congratulations. The score is now 32 for banning gay marriage and 1 against.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
You want them too?
"and to cause the benign religion of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to be known, understood, and practiced among all the inhabitants of the earth...."
John Hancock -Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"I have tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me."
Alexander Hamilton- Signer of the U.S. constitution
"My soul I resign into the hands of my Almighty Creator, whose tender mercies are all over His works, who hateth nothing that He hath made, and to the justice and wisdom of whose dispensations I willingly and cheerfully submit, humbly hoping from His unbounded mercy and benevolence, through the merits of my blessed Savior, a remission of my sins".
George Mason - Father of the Bill of Rights
"If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."
Daniel Webster
"I beg leave to remark that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION... But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is the religion of JESUS CHRIST".
Dr. Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
"I believe that there is only one living and true God --- That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.
Roger Sherman -signer the U.S. Constitution
Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God.
William Samuel Johnson-Signer of the U.S. Constitution
Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....
Fisher Ames - Author of the final wording of the religious clauses of the 1st Amendment
I believe [that]... once restored to an independent government & no longer persecuted they [the Jews] would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character & possibly in time become liberal Unitarian Christians for your Jehovah is our Jehovah & your God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our God.
John Adams
The Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth.[and] laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.
John Quincy Adams
"The rights of the colonists as Christians ... may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
Samuel Adams
"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."--
John Marshall -Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
"Unto Him who is the Author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son."
John Jay -first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed.
Patrick Henry

These quotes do not make U.S.A. a theocracy. It is irrelevant if the majority of U.S. citizens are Christian; no religion can be made into U.S. law. If that were the case, our prisons would be full of liars, adulterers and those who are jealous of what others have!

Ovomit 10 dollar a gallon wrote:

<quoted text>
I knew you couldnt back up your lies.
you dint quote the words from the law as stated
you are a backpedaling liar
dont post to me
I dont have time for backpedaling lying losers like you who cant back up their lies
have someone with a brain explain the post you replied to
you are too dumb to understand

What you do not have time for is to educate yourself to fact that would go against your narrow bias.

But ok if you need to be spoon fed read
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_...

In reading it (get someone to help you with the big words) you will see that the State of Virginia said whites could only marry whites. This goes along with your incorrect assertion that marriage is a states issue. When the case went to SCOUTUS, they unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional.
""fundamental freedom" of marriage "on so unsupportable a basis" as race "is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

So they said that states could not regulate marriage, there for it is NOT a purely state issue.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Simply put, Loving found that "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification."
Can you indicate any legitimate purpose served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? I doubt that you can.
<quoted text>
This is a lovely run on sentence, but it’s length does not add to its validity. Being a suspect class is irrelevant. A suspect class is necessary to gain extraordinary protection of the law, or specific protection for a group that has specific needs. It is fallacious to imply that homosexuals require a suspect classification in order to attain equal protection of the law, as required by the US constitution, to marry as this is legal in every state in the union.
<quoted text>
Rational scrutiny? Do you mean a rational basis test?
<quoted text>
Well, the argue for heightened scrutiny, and rightly so, because the issue at hand is the constitutional right of equal protection of the laws.
At the end of the day, you can’t even provide a rational basis to denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry. I am certain you can provide any number of rationalizations, but not a legitimate and rational reason.

Can you indicate any legitimate purpose served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? I doubt that you can.

In arguing against discrimination, it falls on the state to show purposes why it is in their interest to allow for unequal treatment and discrimination.
The question is not purposes served, but what reason is there to deny the same freedom that others enjoy. We have laws on the books protecting homosexuals from discrimination. Laws that have passed legal scrutiny. You can not not hire someone based on sexual orientation. In interviewing them for ha job you can not ask the question of S.O. You can not deny access to a public place do to their S.O. So what purpose does a state have in denying the same rights others have simply because of the citizens S.O.?

No big O wrote:

<quoted text>
What you do not have time for is to educate yourself to fact that would go against your narrow bias.
But ok if you need to be spoon fed read
http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Loving_v_...
In reading it (get someone to help you with the big words) you will see that the State of Virginia said whites could only marry whites. This goes along with your incorrect assertion that marriage is a states issue. When the case went to SCOUTUS, they unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional.
""fundamental freedom" of marriage "on so unsupportable a basis" as race "is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."
So they said that states could not regulate marriage, there for it is NOT a purely state issue.

states have the power to LEGISLATE the requirements of marriage, but they must do so in accordance with the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION...
thats how it works, and its called federalism...
next issue.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
states have the power to LEGISLATE the requirements of marriage, but they must do so in accordance with the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION...
thats how it works, and its called federalism...
next issue.

Reality thank you for proving my point. The issue I was replying to was someone who said t hat states had pure power to legislate... period... Thank you for proving my point.

Now with the 14th how does anti gay marriage laws differ from loving?.

At essence, loving was about who could marry whom. Now how do you see that as different with gay marriage?.... what is the states interest in denying the rights of one group of people. They must show a compelling interest... and that would be...