Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[paddymurphy]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

Actually the five are the ones that ignored the majority, faghadist marriage was defeated at the polls in the vast majority of the States that voted on it, including CA.

Where did you receive your degree in Constitutional Law?

Read Article 1 Section 8, if you have any questions see the 10th Amendment. That tells you all you need to know, the federal government is supposed to limited in their scope, that includes the supreme court. And bastardizing subsequent amendments for purposes they were never intended to address is no excuse to violate the Constitution. It's so simple a third grader could easily understand it.

Have someone explain to you the difference between powers and rights. Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth address what "powers" the states have. In exercising those powers, however, the state cannot pass laws that conflict with the constitution. Google Supremacy Clause if you don't know what that is true. The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from passing laws that deny equal protection to all citizens. It also prohibits states from depriving citizens or their right to liberty without due process. The right to liberty includes the right to make important decisions about one's life without the government intruding.

 

[martybegan]

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?

Gay people mostly, because they now get to deal with gay divorce.

And that idiot clerk is Kentucky was punished, you may agree with the punishment, but you can't deny the punishment.

 

[paddymurphy]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

Actually the five are the ones that ignored the majority, faghadist marriage was defeated at the polls in the vast majority of the States that voted on it, including CA.

Where did you receive your degree in Constitutional Law?

US Message Board School of Law

 

[martybegan]

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?

our system doesn't work that way.

It's not a constitutional right, unlike gun ownership, which is.

 

[bodecea]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

Actually the five are the ones that ignored the majority, faghadist marriage was defeated at the polls in the vast majority of the States that voted on it, including CA.

Where did you receive your degree in Constitutional Law?

Read Article 1 Section 8, if you have any questions see the 10th Amendment. That tells you all you need to know, the federal government is supposed to limited in their scope, that includes the supreme court. And bastardizing subsequent amendments for purposes they were never intended to address is no excuse to violate the Constitution. It's so simple a third grader could easily understand it.

The Supreme Court was appealed to for legal decisions by citizens who were not being treated equally by the law in their states. Are you going to assert that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in such cases?

 

[paddymurphy]

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?

Gay people mostly, because they now get to deal with gay divorce.

And that idiot clerk is Kentucky was punished, you may agree with the punishment, but you can't deny the punishment.

She was not punished because gay marriage is legal; she was punished for contempt of court.

 

[martybegan]

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

To be perfectly honest, I would have been fine with that decision albeit slightly disappointed. I am not so sure the states that had to recognize such marriages would be cool with it though.

They would have to be cool with it, because they recognized marriages before that didn't meet their requirements, be it cousin marriage, age of marriage, or other requirements like blood tests.

 

[paddymurphy]

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?

our system doesn't work that way.

It's not a constitutional right, unlike gun ownership, which is.

So, there is no right to equal protection of the law? No right to liberty? What constitution are you reading from?

 

[bodecea]

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?

Gay people mostly, because they now get to deal with gay divorce.

And that idiot clerk is Kentucky was punished, you may agree with the punishment, but you can't deny the punishment.

It's not gay marriage and gay divorce. It's simply marriage and divorce. Why do you insist on pointing out irrelevant differences between law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

 

[martybegan]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...

No, it is not. It a relationship recognized in the law. General principles of contract law have no application.

Marriage is a contract between two people, recognized by the issuing government.

 

[bodecea]

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?

our system doesn't work that way.

It's not a constitutional right, unlike gun ownership, which is.

It most certainly IS a constitutional right to for law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to be treated equally under the law. Note the 14th Amendment.

 

[Timmy]

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?

our system doesn't work that way.

It's not a constitutional right, unlike gun ownership, which is.

Well u are right about that . In theory ALL marriage laws can be repealed . But you can't have a barrage law and put unconstitutional restraints on them.

 

[OKTexas]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

Actually the five are the ones that ignored the majority, faghadist marriage was defeated at the polls in the vast majority of the States that voted on it, including CA.

that's pretty irrelevant. although one could say the same for the 5 that decided heller.

Right, except Heller was about a right that actually existed in the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?

Gay people mostly, because they now get to deal with gay divorce.

And that idiot clerk is Kentucky was punished, you may agree with the punishment, but you can't deny the punishment.

It's not gay marriage and gay divorce. It's simply marriage and divorce. Why do you insist on pointing out irrelevant differences between law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

Why do you continue to claim protected class status as a LGBT person?

You want to be separate when it helps you, but not when you can use it to piss off people who don't agree or condone your lifestyle.

Pick one or the other.

 

[martybegan]

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?

our system doesn't work that way.

It's not a constitutional right, unlike gun ownership, which is.

So, there is no right to equal protection of the law? No right to liberty? What constitution are you reading from?

There isn't a right to have it imposed on others just cause some judges feel like it. And equal is a term that has to be defined.

 

[martybegan]

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?

Gay people mostly, because they now get to deal with gay divorce.

And that idiot clerk is Kentucky was punished, you may agree with the punishment, but you can't deny the punishment.

She was not punished because gay marriage is legal; she was punished for contempt of court.

Do you blame the person pulling the trigger, the gun, or the bullet?

Its all part of the same chain.

 

[paddymurphy]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...

No, it is not. It a relationship recognized in the law. General principles of contract law have no application.

Marriage is a contract between two people, recognized by the issuing government.

It is not a contract. You can repeat that all you want, but is not governed by contract law. States have laws that govern contracts. They are largely based on the Uniform Commercial Code. Nothing in the UCC has any application to marriages. Marriage and marriage dissolution is governed by marriage law or matrimonial or law of the divorce code. You will not find the word "contract" in any states law government marriage or its dissolution.

 

[martybegan]

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

Wrong.

When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?

That's federal.

When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?

That's federal gifts you are accepting.

When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?

That's federal cash and prizes.


The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.

The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.

ANd you can bet those states that allow parents to sell their 12 year olds into a marriage with what could only be described as a pedophile also banned two consenting adults from marrying if they were gay to "preserve the sanctity" of marriage

Not material to the conversation.

 

[bodecea]

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

Nope. Who is punished by legal gay marriage?

Gay people mostly, because they now get to deal with gay divorce.

And that idiot clerk is Kentucky was punished, you may agree with the punishment, but you can't deny the punishment.

It's not gay marriage and gay divorce. It's simply marriage and divorce. Why do you insist on pointing out irrelevant differences between law-abiding, tax-paying citizens?

Why do you continue to claim protected class status as a LGBT person?

You want to be separate when it helps you, but not when you can use it to piss off people who don't agree or condone your lifestyle.

Pick one or the other.

I am not. There is nothing "protected class" about treating gay Americans like straight Americans under the law. Why do you want to treat us differently?

 

[bodecea]

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.

so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?

our system doesn't work that way.

It's not a constitutional right, unlike gun ownership, which is.

So, there is no right to equal protection of the law? No right to liberty? What constitution are you reading from?

There isn't a right to have it imposed on others just cause some judges feel like it. And equal is a term that has to be defined.

Oh?