I like how you take my argument and try to twist it.

I argued before that founders intent was to prevent tyranny of the majority.  It's something they wrote about several times.  They also wrote checks into the Constitution to help prevent it.

They never, as far as I know, wrote anything about same sex marriage (or gays).

Probably because they would have considered it an abomination?

Maybe.  They also might have considered interracial marriage an abomination.  They might have considered freeing the slaves an abomination.  Or allowing women to vote.  Or allowing blacks to vote.

But it doesn't matter what they personally thought about any of those issues, including same sex marriage.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):
I like how you take my argument and try to twist it.

I argued before that founders intent was to prevent tyranny of the majority.  It's something they wrote about several times.  They also wrote checks into the Constitution to help prevent it.

They never, as far as I know, wrote anything about same sex marriage (or gays).

We all agree that the Constitution should prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Is this a Tyranny issue? If there is a great injustice then let the Feds step in. Do you really make this an issue of Tyranny? 

Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 5:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/30/2012 5:04:00 PM (view original):

IOW, don't quote a court case that has based it's decision, in part, on a traditional union.    I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says white man/black woman is the same as white man/white man when it comes to a marriage.    Simply because, traditionally, when one wanted to procreate, they got married.

The decision was not based on a traditional union.

These words seem to indicate that it was:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"

Something that has long been recognized is based on tradition.    A traditional marriage was one man/one woman. 

But the decision was not based on the fact that marriage is traditionally man/women.

The decision was based on the fact that marriage is a right and in order for the state to take that right away from just some people, it needed a good reason to do it.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/30/2012 11:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/30/2012 9:02:00 PM (view original):
I like how you take my argument and try to twist it.

I argued before that founders intent was to prevent tyranny of the majority.  It's something they wrote about several times.  They also wrote checks into the Constitution to help prevent it.

They never, as far as I know, wrote anything about same sex marriage (or gays).

We all agree that the Constitution should prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Is this a Tyranny issue? If there is a great injustice then let the Feds step in. Do you really make this an issue of Tyranny? 

One important role of the courts is to protect the minority from the majority.  In prop 8, 52% of the voters took a right away from roughly 3% of the California population.  That is the definition of tyranny of the majority.

The issue of gay marrage is not getting married for the sake of getting married, they only want the govt. benefits that come with the licence.  If it were truly just about getting married they should agree to forgo any bennies.  Try that and see how their collective stance changes and the true agenda becomes obvious.  Most people in this country find what they do an abomination but tolerate it until it gets shoved in their faces, my lover this, my lover that.  Why not just shut up like hetero people do and go on with their day.

Yes, most heterosexual people never, ever talk about their significant others. Especially women.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 11:28:00 AM (view original):
But the decision was not based on the fact that marriage is traditionally man/women.

The decision was based on the fact that marriage is a right and in order for the state to take that right away from just some people, it needed a good reason to do it.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized"

The key words are bolded, italicized and underlined.   They indicate that there's a history, a tradition if you will, that comes with the freedom to marry.    Do you know what comprises a traditional marriage, historically speaking?

So what???

Yes, the freedom to marry has long been recognized as a right.

Does that give same sex marriage bans a legal grounding?

Long been recognized as a right for a traditional marriage.    Have SSM long been recognized?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/31/2012 1:07:00 PM (view original):
Long been recognized as a right for a traditional marriage.    Have SSM long been recognized?

The court didn't say anything about traditional marriage.

But I will freely admit that opposite sex marriage has been the tradition.  Not until just a few years ago, when states started legalizing it, did same sex marriage exist.

I still say so what?  Tradition alone isn't enough to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

A court case that uses "long been recognized" in it's ruling isn't a reason to allow SSM.  I'll go back to what I said a few days ago, that wording actually hurts your point.

You are failing to make your point.  The court said that marriage has long been recognized as a right.  It never restricted that right to opposite sex couples.

The point of Loving isn't that the court granted same sex couples any rights, it's that the court places the burden on the state to argue a compelling governmental interest when taking the right to marry away from subset of the population.