Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[JakeStarkey]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

No one is forcing you to marry a person of your own sex.

Marty, your bad old ways are over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage equality steps on no one.

Marriage equality hurts neither Marty nor Stephanie.

View attachment 32622

My owning a firearm harms no one, but progressives seem to ignore the 2nd amendment to make it harder for me to get one.

and that text is actually IN the constitution, and you assholes bastardize it every chance you get.

Show an analogy that shows light on the subject instead of the denseness that rules your logic.

 

[RKMBrown]

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected?
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.

Yes, you can sell to whomever you want. Yes, you can deny your property to certain people for their wedding, that is also protected.

No, I'm not against discriminatory private sales. You are confusing PUBLIC accommodation for PRIVATE sales.

No, the courts are confusing public accommodation with private transactions. You hide behind the "private sale" mantra, but the definition of a private sale that has been made basically precludes any real form of business to fall under it. Its a cop out, nothing more.

This another one of your "reality" statements? Nearly every single church in this country discriminates ... I'm not sure your reality is based on anything real.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, we know your opinion, but your opinion is not law.

 

[dcraelin]

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases. They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade. They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.

Well...not really. It's just going to be a slower process. The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit. Guess what? That's working, too. It's just taking longer. That's fine with me. The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight. Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country. The rest is bound to follow.

I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right". Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good..

 

[RKMBrown]

The Right to Refuse Service Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance Odor or Attitude legalzoom.com

In one more complicated case, a court held that a cemetery could exclude "punk rockers" from a private funeral service. A mother requested that the funeral service for her 17-year-old daughter be private and that admission to the service be limited to family and invited guests only. The cemetery failed to exclude punk rockers from the service. The punk rockers arrived in unconventional dress, wearing makeup and sporting various hair colors. One was wearing a dress decorated with live rats. Others wore leather and chains, some were twirling baton-like weapons, drinking, and using cocaine. The punk rockers made rude comments to family members and were generally disruptive of the service.

Ironically, the funeral business had attempted to rely on the Unruh Civil Rights Act, claiming that if they had denied access to the punk rockers, they would have been in violation of the Act. But the court held that the punk rockers' presence had deprived the deceased person's family of the services of the business establishment, which were meant to provide comfort to grieving family members. On that basis, the court stated that the funeral business could have legitimately denied access to the punk rockers.

You see marty... the issue is not whether you have liberties or whether your patrons have liberties, because you both have liberties. The question is who's being harmed in cases when two liberties cross each other.

 

[Czernobog]

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

Federal law trumps state law, but federal laws should only concern themselves with what the constitution gives them. We have sadly moved far away from that, with the feds getting into crap that they have no right interfering with. States rights may be a catch all for everything you detest about the right, but that does not make all federalists the same. For example NY State is in violation of the 2nd amendment with a lot of their gun control laws (i.e may issue instead of shall issue CCW) and here the federal courts SHOULD step in and fix it.

You keep making reference to something that does not exist. States do not have "rights". No where in the Constitution does it confer onto states "rights". States have "powers", individuals have "right". This issue was resolved over 100 years ago.

 

[JakeStarkey]

States have no rights.

 

[RKMBrown]

States have no rights.

That would depend on what you mean by state, and/or states rights. Sometimes people say states rights to refer to rights that are regulated at the State level vs. regulated at the Federal level.

 

[Czernobog]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.

Again, how, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry hurt you. You keep trouting out this rhetorical general claim. But, every time you are cahllenged to provide details, you just pretend the question wasn't asked...

 

[RKMBrown]

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

I would very much like to have people practice their religion and harm no one....but when they try to codify their religion into law, making law that discriminates against others....that IS harm.

The only harm codified by law is harming the religious people, not you.

Again, how, exactly, does allowing gay people to marry hurt you. You keep trouting out this rhetorical general claim. But, every time you are cahllenged to provide details, you just pretend the question wasn't asked...

I think he's saying... it's not himself that he's defending it's the rights of the bigots to choose whether gays can get married in their own state that he's defending.

I was at that stage myself a couple years back. The stage between being a bigot against gay marriage and thinking well it's ok for others to be bigots if that's how they want to live.

 

[Czernobog]

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...not really. It's just going to be a slower process. The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit. Guess what? That's working, too. It's just taking longer. That's fine with me. The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight. Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country. The rest is bound to follow.

I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right". Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good..

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

 

[Czernobog]

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Marriage is fundamental part of life. Life, liberty, and property are protected by the Constitution. Try again.

So the liberty to sell to whoever you want is protected? the right to deny your property to certain people for their wedding is protected?
I recall you being against that in the past. Oh wait, its only freedoms YOU like that are protected, got it.

N o it isn't. "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose". You're right to property ends at my right to property, and pursuit of happyness. You keep trying to suggest that your rights exist independently of anyone elses. Sorry, that is just not how it works.

 

[Czernobog]

Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.

Well, by not taking the case, they have set the precedent for those 7 circuits. Which will bring the count of states without same sex ban to 31. Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.

It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases during this session. As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...

Agreed. I think what they want to do, is wait till there is a more conservative bench that reflects the will of the people.

I would submit that the conservative judges want to wait until there is a more conservative court that represents the will of their ideology. Since Marriage equality has a majority support, it would seem that the will of the "people" is to put this silly restriction to bed.

 

[dcraelin]

I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right". Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

It includes the other 11 states, because all of those states fall within the circuit's jurisdiction, and those states are, therefore, subject to abide by those courts' rulings. That makes the bans in those states invalid. Well, those four people just dramatically changed the landscape of the marriage Equality fight, so, yeah. The fact is, contrary to your rant about "the law of the land", the lower courts already declared "gay marriage", as you put it, a right. By refusing to hear the cases, the Supreme Court tacitly agreed with their findings.

WE have a system where every state is guaranteed a Republican form of Government....that means the people SHOULD have the last say except where the Federal government has its area of power. Marshall said our case law is made BY CASES, it seems to me UNTIL each state has had a case brought to the courts, no matter the circut's "jurisdiction" the state law should prevail.

Why didnt the higher court.....in it's infinite wisdom....simply decide the matter then?...what made them put it off? Cause they are weasels....trying to get an outcome they know doesnt really mesh with the constitution, but that they feel is good

Again, the opinion of one man, who was in the minority dissent, fortunately does not get to dictate how the law works. The fact is the rulings of the lower circuit courts affect the laws of all of the states in their jurisdiction. That's the way the system was set up.

One man? Marshall?, in the minority?....Marshall was usually among the majority of the court I believe......

Marriage isnt one law.....it is usually a bunch of laws, slightly different in every state, I would think. Thus UNTIL a definitive ruling covering all aspects of marriage....from tax breaks to divorce law, comes form the Supreme Court....I dont see how circuit "jurisdiction" means anything except for direct cases brought before them.

 

[Czernobog]

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

Where in the part about equal protection is race specifically mentioned?

It's not, but we all know the intent of it. Interpretation is of course needed, but the 14th is being used so far outside it's intent that it can basically be used to make anything unconstitutional if you get a sympathetic court.

What do you think the intent was in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th. Did I miss something? They seemed like very very very broad statements, giving the states the right to take your life, liberty, and property with due process.. and the people will receive equal justice.. this means you can't discriminate against people because you don't like their sexual orientation, or skin color, or religion. Or maybe justice means something different to you?

It means all things being equal, you cannot change the intent of a law between one party and the other. Race does not make one person different from another when it comes to law, or even reality. A marriage between two people changes depending on the sex of the people involved, its just reality. If we want to make them equal as per certain laws, the constitution leaves that to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

Unless you are, again, going back to that silly "marriage is only for procreation" argument. How? How, exactly is the marriage, commitment, love, and desire for companionship "different" based on the gender of the two people involved? You keep making that claim, but you don't offer any details, or evidence to support it.

 

[Czernobog]

With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.>>>>

The problem is, WW, unless you are talking about an appointment only business where one does not allow the public access, there is no such thing as a "private business". That's the point. If you have a truly private business - one in which you have no access to the public, and potential customers can only avail themselves of your services by referral and appointment, then public accommodation laws don't apply to you. The only time you become subject to the public accommodation laws is when you are open to the public. See how that "public" thing is kind of important to the concept?

By "private business" I mean one owned and operated by non-government entities. It refers to ownership not whether they are open to the public or not.


>>>>

Except that it doesn't. The Courts have already ruled on this, and Public accommodation laws were determined to be constitutional.

 

[dilloduck]

Again, if it was passed by your state legislature, it should be legally equal. If it was created via judicial fiat, it is tainted by the use of courts to create something out of thin air.

The two forms of marriage are not the same thing. It's not bigoted to point it out, its realistic.

It's not the same thing. But it is bigoted to allow one form but not another for consenting adults.

Then do it the right way, by petitioning your state legislature to change the law defining the marriage contract, and not by whipping up some right out of thin air.

Since when is the right to marry ... "out of thin air?" Or any other human right for that matter? Do I need a law that allows me to breathe?

Where is the right to marry stated explicitly in the constitution? Rights exist regardless of laws, but they are only protected from government interference when explicitly given in a State's constitution or the Federal one.

Except that it was in the state statutes. This did not even become an issue until you right-wing bigots found out that "the faggoes" were daring to get married, and claim the same rights, and privileges as respectable, normal people. Then you ran to your legislations and changed the definition by adding a restriction. The right was always expressed. It was you fuckers that tried to remove that protection with the law. That was when you overstepped the Federal Constitution.

It was only expressed if one accepted YOUR definition.The definition is now being backed up by more liberal judges.

 

[Czernobog]

You're the bigot here, not me. You can't tolerate a differing view, like most of you assholes. There would be no state issue if you were right, it would be like a state legalizing slavery, it can't happen. There's nothing in the Constitution that defines what each state must define marriage as. Fail.

Wellll...except the states did, until the Federal government said you don't get to. You might remember from your high school history classes that we fought a little war over that.

Well the war wasn't just about that... it was more about federal power, control, and acquisition of the south.

Welllll...actually it was about slavery.

“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.” — Excerpt from South Carolina’s Letter of Secession; Adopted December 24th, 1860

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” — Excerpt from Mississippi’s Letter of Secession; c. January 9th 1861

“And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States” — Excerpt from Alabama’s Letter of Secession; February 4th, 1861
​

I could go on, if you like. There was letter, after letter, after speech, after speech making it abundantly clear that the "State Right" issue in question was clearly the State's right to own other people.