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

[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.

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.

It all depends on what you consider equal. and its interesting you take an absolutist view on the 14th only, and are fine with mulling the waters with things like the 1st amendment (and your other brethren are fine with gutting the 2nd)

 

[martybegan]

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?

Exactly.

 

[martybegan]

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?

You ask that when you go to government to ruin someone because they don't want to participate in your wedding? Without any harm besides your feelings getting hurt?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Nothing is imposed. Two gay people marrying imposes nothing on anyone else. And equal means, very simply, that the law has to apply with equal force to all citizens unless there is a compelling reason for it not to apply. Blind people can be denied a driver's license. There is a compelling reason for that. But there is no compelling reason to allow the law to treat couples differently because one couple is made up of two people of different genders and the other consists of two of the same gender. Liberty is also a pretty easy term to define. "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Explain how a law that does not allow two adults to choose to marry one another does not infringe on their liberty, their autonomy to make decisions in important matters in their lives.

 

[martybegan]

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.

marriage is a contract. not all contracts have to follow the UCC, those are for commercial contracts.

There actually can be MANY types of contract. marriage is one of them.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

That is moronic. She was ordered by a judge to do something. She refused to do it. She is in contempt.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Nothing is imposed. Two gay people marrying imposes nothing on anyone else. And equal means, very simply, that the law has to apply with equal force to all citizens unless there is a compelling reason for it not to apply. Blind people can be denied a driver's license. There is a compelling reason for that. But there is no compelling reason to allow the law to treat couples differently because one couple is made up of two people of different genders and the other consists of two of the same gender. Liberty is also a pretty easy term to define. "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Explain how a law that does not allow two adults to choose to marry one another does not infringe on their liberty, their autonomy to make decisions in important matters in their lives.

Imposing is all your side does. You want forced acceptance, not tolerance. and you will ruin anyone who gets in the way of that.

And your definition of freedom smacks in the face of your desire, shown in other threads, to punish people for their beliefs using the commerce end run.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

You ask that when you go to government to ruin someone because they don't want to participate in your wedding? Without any harm besides your feelings getting hurt?

There have been two or three such lawsuits and they can only be brought in the half dozens states that protect gay people from discrimination. You clowns keep talking about the same three for four people and claim that those isolated incidents mean that Christians are being oppressed. Bullshit. In states where it is illegal to discriminate you can follow the law, break the law and pay for move the fuck out.

 

[martybegan]

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.

That is moronic. She was ordered by a judge to do something. She refused to do it. She is in contempt.

My point is still valid.

 

[martybegan]

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?

You ask that when you go to government to ruin someone because they don't want to participate in your wedding? Without any harm besides your feelings getting hurt?

There have been two or three such lawsuits and they can only be brought in the half dozens states that protect gay people from discrimination. You clowns keep talking about the same three for four people and claim that those isolated incidents mean that Christians are being oppressed. Bullshit. In states where it is illegal to discriminate you can follow the law, break the law and pay for move the fuck out.

if is so isolated, where is the compelling government interest in forcing these people to comply?

And we all know it won't end there. Your side will go after churches sooner or later, by way of PA law or removing their tax exempt statuses.

Of course you will go after Christian Churches, not mosques, because you know, you are gutless.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

marriage is a contract. not all contracts have to follow the UCC, those are for commercial contracts.

There actually can be MANY types of contract. marriage is one of them.

And there you go, saying something that is demonstrably false without any proof. Marriage is a legal status. The relationship is governed by the law, not by what the parties have agreed to between themselves. When the parties divorce, they look to the statutes governing divorce to determine their rights, not some written agreement they entered into. Couples can enter into a written agreement, a pre-nuptial agreement, that will control the dissolution of their marriage. That would be a contract. The marriage is not.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

 

[martybegan]

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.

marriage is a contract. not all contracts have to follow the UCC, those are for commercial contracts.

There actually can be MANY types of contract. marriage is one of them.

And there you go, saying something that is demonstrably false without any proof. Marriage is a legal status. The relationship is governed by the law, not by what the parties have agreed to between themselves. When the parties divorce, they look to the statutes governing divorce to determine their rights, not some written agreement they entered into. Couples can enter into a written agreement, a pre-nuptial agreement, that will control the dissolution of their marriage. That would be a contract. The marriage is not.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I can quote someone as well, skippy

Is Marriage a Legal Contract? - The Volokh Conspiracy

So marriage is a contract, and has long been described as a contract, but it’s a very peculiar kind of contract that has its own special legal rules. To ask whether marriage is “technically” a contract doesn’t make much sense, because it presupposes a single unique meaning for the term “contract.” If by contract you mean “a contract as typically defined at law,” which is to say a contract that has most of the legal consequences that a typical contract has, then the answer is “largely not,” because marriage contracts have such specialized legal consequences. If by contract you mean “something the law has typically labeled a contract,” the answer is “probably yes,” simply because “marriage contract” has long been a common term. If by contract you mean “a mutual agreement that the law treats as binding as a consequence of the parties’ having agreed to it,” then the answer is “yes.”

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Nothing is imposed. Two gay people marrying imposes nothing on anyone else. And equal means, very simply, that the law has to apply with equal force to all citizens unless there is a compelling reason for it not to apply. Blind people can be denied a driver's license. There is a compelling reason for that. But there is no compelling reason to allow the law to treat couples differently because one couple is made up of two people of different genders and the other consists of two of the same gender. Liberty is also a pretty easy term to define. "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Explain how a law that does not allow two adults to choose to marry one another does not infringe on their liberty, their autonomy to make decisions in important matters in their lives.

Imposing is all your side does. You want forced acceptance, not tolerance. and you will ruin anyone who gets in the way of that.

And your definition of freedom smacks in the face of your desire, shown in other threads, to punish people for their beliefs using the commerce end run.

And you are just too fucking stupid to understand the difference between protection of the rights of people and forcing tolerance. The law cannot make you tolerate that which you disagree with. You can think and disapprove all you want. In most states, you can even discriminate against gay people. In other threads I shredded your claim that anti-discrimination laws are attempts to control what people think or believe. They are not. You can think or believe whatever you want. You cannot, however, engage in discriminatory acts.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Nothing is imposed. Two gay people marrying imposes nothing on anyone else. And equal means, very simply, that the law has to apply with equal force to all citizens unless there is a compelling reason for it not to apply. Blind people can be denied a driver's license. There is a compelling reason for that. But there is no compelling reason to allow the law to treat couples differently because one couple is made up of two people of different genders and the other consists of two of the same gender. Liberty is also a pretty easy term to define. "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Explain how a law that does not allow two adults to choose to marry one another does not infringe on their liberty, their autonomy to make decisions in important matters in their lives.

Imposing is all your side does. You want forced acceptance, not tolerance. and you will ruin anyone who gets in the way of that.

And your definition of freedom smacks in the face of your desire, shown in other threads, to punish people for their beliefs using the commerce end run.

And you are just too fucking stupid to understand the difference between protection of the rights of people and forcing tolerance. The law cannot make you tolerate that which you disagree with. You can think and disapprove all you want. In most states, you can even discriminate against gay people. In other threads I shredded your claim that anti-discrimination laws are attempts to control what people think or believe. They are not. You can think or believe whatever you want. You cannot, however, engage in discriminatory acts.

So no shoes, no shirt, no service signs are illegal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

You ask that when you go to government to ruin someone because they don't want to participate in your wedding? Without any harm besides your feelings getting hurt?

There have been two or three such lawsuits and they can only be brought in the half dozens states that protect gay people from discrimination. You clowns keep talking about the same three for four people and claim that those isolated incidents mean that Christians are being oppressed. Bullshit. In states where it is illegal to discriminate you can follow the law, break the law and pay for move the fuck out.

if is so isolated, where is the compelling government interest in forcing these people to comply?

And we all know it won't end there. Your side will go after churches sooner or later, by way of PA law or removing their tax exempt statuses.

Of course you will go after Christian Churches, not mosques, because you know, you are gutless.

The Constitution mandates equal protection under the law, no matter how few of any given sort are entitled to that protection.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

marriage is a contract. not all contracts have to follow the UCC, those are for commercial contracts.

There actually can be MANY types of contract. marriage is one of them.

And there you go, saying something that is demonstrably false without any proof. Marriage is a legal status. The relationship is governed by the law, not by what the parties have agreed to between themselves. When the parties divorce, they look to the statutes governing divorce to determine their rights, not some written agreement they entered into. Couples can enter into a written agreement, a pre-nuptial agreement, that will control the dissolution of their marriage. That would be a contract. The marriage is not.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/1-behind_the_law_of_marriage.2.15.11.pdf

I can quote someone as well, skippy

Is Marriage a Legal Contract? - The Volokh Conspiracy

So marriage is a contract, and has long been described as a contract, but it’s a very peculiar kind of contract that has its own special legal rules. To ask whether marriage is “technically” a contract doesn’t make much sense, because it presupposes a single unique meaning for the term “contract.” If by contract you mean “a contract as typically defined at law,” which is to say a contract that has most of the legal consequences that a typical contract has, then the answer is “largely not,” because marriage contracts have such specialized legal consequences. If by contract you mean “something the law has typically labeled a contract,” the answer is “probably yes,” simply because “marriage contract” has long been a common term. If by contract you mean “a mutual agreement that the law treats as binding as a consequence of the parties’ having agreed to it,” then the answer is “yes.”

The law does not treat marriage as a contract, regardless of some blogger claims.

 

[bodecea]

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?

You ask that when you go to government to ruin someone because they don't want to participate in your wedding? Without any harm besides your feelings getting hurt?

Wait...you don't think citizens should go to the courts for redress when they are not being served by the government they pay taxes to? Again, you show your inability to distinguish what our Constitution says and what our laws are for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Nothing is imposed. Two gay people marrying imposes nothing on anyone else. And equal means, very simply, that the law has to apply with equal force to all citizens unless there is a compelling reason for it not to apply. Blind people can be denied a driver's license. There is a compelling reason for that. But there is no compelling reason to allow the law to treat couples differently because one couple is made up of two people of different genders and the other consists of two of the same gender. Liberty is also a pretty easy term to define. "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Explain how a law that does not allow two adults to choose to marry one another does not infringe on their liberty, their autonomy to make decisions in important matters in their lives.

Imposing is all your side does. You want forced acceptance, not tolerance. and you will ruin anyone who gets in the way of that.

And your definition of freedom smacks in the face of your desire, shown in other threads, to punish people for their beliefs using the commerce end run.

And you are just too fucking stupid to understand the difference between protection of the rights of people and forcing tolerance. The law cannot make you tolerate that which you disagree with. You can think and disapprove all you want. In most states, you can even discriminate against gay people. In other threads I shredded your claim that anti-discrimination laws are attempts to control what people think or believe. They are not. You can think or believe whatever you want. You cannot, however, engage in discriminatory acts.

So no shoes, no shirt, no service signs are illegal?

Why don't you challenge them in court and find out?

 

[martybegan]

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?

You ask that when you go to government to ruin someone because they don't want to participate in your wedding? Without any harm besides your feelings getting hurt?

There have been two or three such lawsuits and they can only be brought in the half dozens states that protect gay people from discrimination. You clowns keep talking about the same three for four people and claim that those isolated incidents mean that Christians are being oppressed. Bullshit. In states where it is illegal to discriminate you can follow the law, break the law and pay for move the fuck out.

if is so isolated, where is the compelling government interest in forcing these people to comply?

And we all know it won't end there. Your side will go after churches sooner or later, by way of PA law or removing their tax exempt statuses.

Of course you will go after Christian Churches, not mosques, because you know, you are gutless.

The Constitution mandates equal protection under the law, no matter how few of any given sort are entitled to that protection.

The constitution also mandates free exercise of religion, and I don't see where it says "unless you are in business, then fuck off"

You are being absolutist in one case, and not in the other. typical of the "living document" idiocy found in progressive constitutional thought.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Nothing is imposed. Two gay people marrying imposes nothing on anyone else. And equal means, very simply, that the law has to apply with equal force to all citizens unless there is a compelling reason for it not to apply. Blind people can be denied a driver's license. There is a compelling reason for that. But there is no compelling reason to allow the law to treat couples differently because one couple is made up of two people of different genders and the other consists of two of the same gender. Liberty is also a pretty easy term to define. "Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.” Explain how a law that does not allow two adults to choose to marry one another does not infringe on their liberty, their autonomy to make decisions in important matters in their lives.

Imposing is all your side does. You want forced acceptance, not tolerance. and you will ruin anyone who gets in the way of that.

And your definition of freedom smacks in the face of your desire, shown in other threads, to punish people for their beliefs using the commerce end run.

And you are just too fucking stupid to understand the difference between protection of the rights of people and forcing tolerance. The law cannot make you tolerate that which you disagree with. You can think and disapprove all you want. In most states, you can even discriminate against gay people. In other threads I shredded your claim that anti-discrimination laws are attempts to control what people think or believe. They are not. You can think or believe whatever you want. You cannot, however, engage in discriminatory acts.

So no shoes, no shirt, no service signs are illegal?

How fucking stupid are you? There is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. Telling a person that they cannot take a shit on the table in your McDonald's is not illegal. Telling someone that they must wear shirts and shoes does not single out a particular group of people who share a characteristic like race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. I singles out people for engaging in conduct in your place of business that would be detrimental.