Arkansas Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 12 months ago to News
120 comments | Share | Flag

The ruling is expected to be appealed Arkansas' Supreme Court.

I wonder, how many more of these cases do we have to have before the Supreme Court just gets tired of it and passes a nationwide ruling?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You might want to read the Constitution....

    Either rights are never a federal issue...
    Or all rights are a federal issue.

    Read the 9th Amendment, the one everyone skips over in order to rush to the 10th and trade 1 tyranny for 50 tyrannies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It *shouldn't* be a gov't issue, but there are so many people who, in order to worship at the altar of "equality" are trying to legislate absurdity... insanity.

    If we could rely on SCOTUS, legislature and executive to throw the religion of equality in the toilet where it belongs, and use rational, sane, reason, there would be no issue, period.

    Unfortunately, because we can't rely on that, we have this battle on our hands.

    It's the left who made it a federal issue, for the purpose of destroying American culture.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll say it again...

    ALL CC LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    Unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd is an absolute:

    "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" - 2ND

    "Congress shall make no law respecting..." 1ST

    The 1st explicit restricts Congress, the 2nd restricts EVERYBODY.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Maphesdus:
    By a non-issue, I mean that it is not the province of the Feds or for that matter even the states. Marriages can be performed by those qualified to do so. If it is not recognized by the gov(s) that can be rectified with a will or other legal documents. Gay marriage is neither a life or death, nor an economic situation. If legislators want to use their time wisely, they should focus on those more imperative issues. Let's leave marriage, gay or otherwise up to the two people involved and the business of governing to those elected to do just that and that only.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Societal change affects everyone. It is a completely false argument to say that change to the fundamental structure and nature of society doesn't affect everyone.

    The question is more one of how any change to society gets effected and who has a say in the process. To that end, I'm with Robbie - because the Federal Government has no enumerated power to regulate marriage, it should keep its hands off - including the Federal Court system.

    Yes, I understand that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to arbitrate disputes between the states, but that is not what it has been doing. The Federal Courts have been assuming a responsibility to rule on a matter where they themselves have no jurisdiction - not to mention invalidating the duly passed laws of an individual state.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Disagree. A larger population base does lead to specialization. See Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". The reason is because with the higher population come a higher variety of demands and the specialization (either technological or skill-based) that allows one person to serve the similar needs of more people than they could without specialization. That means that the specialized individual can earn a higher return on investment. There is no doubt that technology simplifies and facilitates the process of specialization, but it is people that lead to technology - not the other way 'round.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    my point is still valid. This idea that 2/3 of the economy is driven by consumer spending is confusing cause with effect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ignorant statement. Increased farm workers does not lead to greater productivity, thus no increase in the available funds to spend on increases in consumer goods. Merely subsistence goods. Only technology leads to greater productivity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not true. About 2/3 of all spending is related to consumer spending - including the B2B transactions that occur in order to satisfy consumer goods demand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1) gov't bureaucracy.

    2) You should read my statement again. I said that this spending (deficit) is taking the place of future spending. Thus, we won't have the money in the future to spend as we will be paying off the debts being created today.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To show just how ignorant you are - your cited statement itself says that this is not a federal "right" that is dictated by the constitution.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not so. Only those enumerated in the Constitution. Please take a constitution course (and read some history - any history).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Gov't spending merely changes who spends and when. Our deficit spending has not only displaced spending from those with disposable income to those with none, but it has displaced it in time as well, as we have been spending our kids and grandkids money. They will be poorer as a result.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You haven't read my posts very carefully. There must be an increase in productivity which leads to an increase in wages. Then, with increased discretionary funds, increased consumption occurs. But the increased productivity is neither consumption nor production based. It is technology based. But demand (supported by increases in disposable income) will always drive supply.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Non-issue? Funny how the only ones saying that are the people it doesn't affect...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " and can only be naturally directed at other human beings.*of the opposite sex*"

    There, FIFY.

    Biology does make mistakes, but rational people don't insist that they are not mistakes. Lactose Intolerance, allergies, cleft palates, sickle-cell anemia, these are caused by biology, but they are not "natural".
    ---
    Actually no, you didn't fix it for me, you just denied scientific evidence. Sexual orientation is controlled by biology, which means it must be subject to mutation and deviation, just like every other aspect of biology.

    As for all those other things, actually yes, I would say they are all natural, as well. Abnormal, sure, but not unnatural. There is absolutely nothing "unnatural" about genetic mutations. In fact, nothing could be more natural. Mutation is the fundamental key to evolution. Without it, life could not exist. Just because a particular character trait is uncommon, that doesn't make it unnatural. That which is uncommon is every bit as much a product of nature as that which is common. The common and the uncommon are both controlled by nature, and are both derived from it.

    "I don't really have a word for 'unnatural.' I say, 'if nature permits it, it is natural. If nature doesn't permit it, you can't do it.' You may not be familiar with the fact that nature allows that, but the fact of your unfamiliarity doesn't make it unnatural."
    ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rights are always a federal issue. If a state is violating the rights of its citizens, the federal government needs to get involved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The issue here is not about a law, it's about a right, which means it falls under The Ninth Amendment:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by shivas 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you consider that wages are paid in exchange for the value people add to materials to produce goods and services and then consider that when the government gives out money it does not require that it be in exchange for any value (for the most part). Also consider that the money they use to pay for valueless service comes from a percentage of the value added by the rest of us.
    I believe that this is why government spending doesn't increase the turnover of money. They deflated the value to something earned to get it and often give it to those who have not exchanged the value of their labor or mind to get it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    if consumption leads production, then everyone would be infinitely wealthy because there is an infinite desire for goods and services. Rearden had plenty of wealth for his basic needs, he did not produce Rearden Metal because someone demanded it, he produced it because he wanted to create something. according to your theory O. Boyle could have also been the producer/creator. everyone has needs, that does not equate with those willing to produce. this is keynsian nonsense. President Obama is looking for advisers just like you
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo