These iceholes have violated others fargen rights!

[svauto-erotic855]

Anyone notice a similarity?

That they are correct most of the time?

And Racrguy if you believe that is a racist statement I would suggest that you give an interracial relationship (that is not a homo one) a shot to find out for yourself.

This is one of the times I agree with the "liberal" viewpoint. There should not be any interference from state or federal government in how two adult humans choose to represent their relationship.

I'm glad this has come up. It takes an unconstitutional state law or judicial stance before the Supreme Court will do anything about it. But of course, debate will be ongoing, just like Roe v Wade.

I feel like we're just being childish when "dealing" with problems like this, when this country is full to the brim with real problems we should focus our energies on.

/thread.

[Big A]

There are two protests?

Of irrational, and small-minded people? Yes.

I don't think that gay marriage is "right" personally, but they should be able to have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. It is not the government's right to dictate sexual preference, or discriminate based on it.

Separation of Church and state.

[347Mike]

Anyone notice a similarity?

There are two protests?

[ram57ta]

Other than hating NC because of their JOKE of a Child Protective Service system I now have one more reason to hate that shit-hole, hillbilly white trash, crime ridden state that should be burned to ashes.

[Big A]

Continue showing your bigotry Forever_frost.

The only issue I have with gay marriage are those that are not romantically involved, that will take advantage of the system.

[racrguy]

Anyone notice a similarity?

[YALE]

A state used it's power to exact an amendment to their constitution which is legal under the 10th amendment. They are utilizing a power not granted to the federal government and thus, is reserved to them

The Feds aren't in this one, so let's pump the brakes. This doesn't have anything to do with the 10th amendment, until legislation on it goes before congress, at which point, it will fall under the Necessary and Proper Clause, just like every other piece of new business.

[jakesford]

This is one of the times I agree with the "liberal" viewpoint. There should not be any interference from state or federal government in how two adult humans choose to represent their relationship.

I'm glad this has come up. It takes an unconstitutional state law or judicial stance before the Supreme Court will do anything about it. But of course, debate will be ongoing, just like Roe v Wade.

I feel like we're just being childish when "dealing" with problems like this, when this country is full to the brim with real problems we should focus our energies on.

Completely agree... I'm pretty conservative on most issues but who gives a fuck... hell 50% of marriages end in divorce, maybe their community can do better haha

[Forever_frost]

What exactly does this have to do with the tenth amendment?

A state used it's power to exact an amendment to their constitution which is legal under the 10th amendment. They are utilizing a power not granted to the federal government and thus, is reserved to them

[Forever_frost]

The 14th amendment says .... equal protection of the laws. It doesn't apply to just rights.
Marriage is not a religious institution, it's a legal one. You don't have to go before a priest to get married, you can go before a justice of the piece and do it.

As far as I know, the only time someone can't get married without a person outside the relationships consent is when dealing with minors, and even then, it's shunned by society as a whole.

Tell me Racr, what was the original intent of the 14th?

[YALE]

What exactly does this have to do with the tenth amendment?

[Forever_frost]

Marriage is not a religious institution, it's a legal one. You don't have to go before a priest to get married, you can go before a justice of the piece and do it.

As far as I know, the only time someone can't get married without a person outside the relationships consent is when dealing with minors, and even then, it's shunned by society as a whole.

You cannot get married to multiple people, to different species, to people too closely related and so forth. If there are laws on marriage, it is a state power. It's kind of like the 1st amendment. You don't have to like what is said but you have to accept they did it right and are within their constitutional power.

Anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to a state with laws they like, as our Founders preferred.

[racrguy]

14th amendment doesn't apply as no one is being denied a right. Marriage is a religious institution with some legal ramications. It'd be like saying everyone who wants one must be permitted a Bar Mitzvah.

And the marriage laws have ALWAYS pertained to some and not others. Or are you saying there are no laws on who can and can't get married in every state in the union?

The 14th amendment says .... equal protection of the laws. It doesn't apply to just rights.
Marriage is not a religious institution, it's a legal one. You don't have to go before a priest to get married, you can go before a justice of the piece and do it.

As far as I know, the only time someone can't get married without a person outside the relationships consent is when dealing with minors, and even then, it's shunned by society as a whole.

[Forever_frost]

The only place marriage laws can exist constitutionally are at the state level. Strictly from a constitutional point of view.