Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So he would've been statistically better off with these two? Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two StrokesHey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father.
.....Who turned sith and murdered his father.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....You said,
"Now back to the argument that the court actually made: The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.
Good luck claiming they don't exist",
clearly stating that the debate is about the equal protection clause.
See how that works?
I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.
Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.
The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....I clearly stated that the Obergefell court cited an equal protection clause. And a due process clause. And that both exist in the 14th amendment....exactly as the Obergefell court found.
Keep running. It doesn't matter either way. Its just fun to watch you come up with excuse after excuse to avoid acknowledging that the Obergefell ruling cited the Equal Protection and Due Processes clauses.
The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i think you may be in for a shock some day.....it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....The cited the 14th Amendment as, "States are required to issue licenses to same sex couples". Where does The 14th Amendment day that?
Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
i think you may be in for a shock some day.....it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....Where did the court claim that the 14th 'says' this?
Instead, the court held that the Equal protection clauses and Due Process clauses of the 14th amendment created the requirement for states to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples.
Keep running. Like I said, you ignoring what the court actually held about the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses.....doesn't matter. But its fun to watch the excuses.
You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
the people of this country have been against 'gay marrriage' in almost every election.....forcing it through a biased court system won't stand the test of time....
i think you may be in for a shock some day.....it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
the people of this country have been against 'gay marrriage' in almost every election.....forcing it through a biased court system won't stand the test of time....
The advocates of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing.
How'd that turn out again?
i think you may be in for a shock some day.....it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
the people of this country have been against 'gay marrriage' in almost every election.....forcing it through a biased court system won't stand the test of time....
The advocates of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing.
How'd that turn out again?
Is the Deed Scott decision still law?
i think you may be in for a shock some day.....it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
the people of this country have been against 'gay marrriage' in almost every election.....forcing it through a biased court system won't stand the test of time....
The advocates of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing.
How'd that turn out again?
Is the Deed Scott decision still law?
There's no such thing as a 'Deed Scott' decision. If you're referring to Dred Scott v Sandford, that was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.
Good luck with an amendment to overturn Obergefell. I wouldn't hold your breath.
i think you may be in for a shock some day.....Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
the people of this country have been against 'gay marrriage' in almost every election.....forcing it through a biased court system won't stand the test of time....
The advocates of interracial marriage bans said the exact same thing.
How'd that turn out again?
Is the Deed Scott decision still law?
There's no such thing as a 'Deed Scott' decision. If you're referring to Dred Scott v Sandford, that was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments.
Good luck with an amendment to overturn Obergefell. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Hence, there's no such thing as, "case law" welcome to the real world.
So he would've been statistically better off with these two? Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two StrokesHey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father.
.....Who turned sith and murdered his father.
God you are a bigot.
A hateful bigot who uses the news report from 2 months ago- of a child suffering horrible abuse- just so you can attack homosexuals.
You ignore all of the terrible child abuse that has occurred in the last two months.
Because if you can't use a kid to attack homosexuals- you don't give a damn about him.
So he would've been statistically better off with these two? Midwest Lesbians Beat Son With Hammer & Kicked His Groin Until He Suffered Two StrokesHey, look...your avatar shows a boy with *drum roll*.... BOTH a mother and father.
.....Who turned sith and murdered his father.
God you are a bigot.
A hateful bigot who uses the news report from 2 months ago- of a child suffering horrible abuse- just so you can attack homosexuals.
You ignore all of the terrible child abuse that has occurred in the last two months.
Because if you can't use a kid to attack homosexuals- you don't give a damn about him.
Sil is really diluted when it comes to this stuff. She's blaming lesbians for something that white people did.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....You get caught lying and you double down on the lie.
How sweet!
Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.
Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?
'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
A couple hundred million you say? Hardly. Poll after poll after poll states the exact opposite. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, gays are continuing to marry in every state and all you can do is stomp your feet.
If those polls were accurate, the gay marriage proposition in California wouldn't have been voted down.
it's a pretty smug position you are taking when the court only ruled 5 to 4......that means there were 4 esteemed dissenting opinions....Laughing....oh look. Yet another excuse why you're going to refuse to acknowledge the Obergefell court cited the Equal Protection and Due Process clause as creating the requirement of States marriage licenses to issue same sex couples.
Keep those eyes screwed shut. It doesn't matter
Chief Justice Roberts.....Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause.[127] Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment.[128] Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage
Justice Scalia......Scalia stated that the Court's decision effectively robs the people of the liberty to govern themselves, noting that a rigorous debate on same-sex marriage had been taking place and that, by deciding the issue nationwide, the democratic process had been unduly halted.[136] Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[137] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law."[137] Lastly, Scalia faulted the actual writing in the opinion for "diminish[ing] this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis" and for "descend[ing] from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
Justice Thomas......Thomas rejected the principle of substantive due process, which he claimed "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."[139] Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint."
Justice Alito......Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[144] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its settled caselaw now. The court is loathe to go back and forth retrying the same issue. Plus, one of the people you're quoting is dead.
There is no such thing as settled case law, try looking at the link below, it shows 14 pages of court rulings that were subsequently overturned by later rulings.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf
And when did the court recognize a fundamental right.....and then indicate a couple of years later that the right didn't actually exist? Most all of the cases you're citing are procedural or jurisdictional issues.
Obergefell v. Hodges is on the same scale as say, Roe V. Wade, Loving V. Virginia, or Heller v. DC. The court might nibble at their edges over decades. But they rarely if ever outright overrule them. And withdrawing a fundamental right 2 years later?
'Unlikely' doesn't begin to describe it. Especially when the primary opponent of the Obergefell is dead.
On thing you regressives are always reliable about, moving the goal posts after you've been proven wrong. Another thing you're wrong on is Scalia being the primary opponent of faghadist marriage, he was one opponent on the court and his observations in his dissent were spot on, but there are a couple hundred million American citizens that share his opinion.
