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

[OKTexas]

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

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.

The 14th was designed to address problems with freed slaves, do you really believe the framers of the 14th envisioned it would be used to redefine marriage more than a 100 years later, you think they might have rephrased it if they had.

And since you brought up the 14th, when are you going to fight for my right to carry a firearm in all 50 States and our territories. Aren't they denying me liberty and my right to bear arms as confirmed in the 2nd Amendment, without due process? Or is the 14th only a good thing when it's used for regressive causes?

 

[martybegan]

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.

He's actually a UCLA law professor. that counters your Haaaaaavard quote.

 

[Misty]

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.

They address that by saying decisions should not be based on popularity but on constitutional law.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

I see the education I have you a couple of days ago did not take? The right to freely exercise your faith does not allow you to refuse to follow a law that applies equally to everyone else. Devout Mormons cannot marry ten women simply on the basis that their faith says they can. Devout Muslims cannot do so either. A a Muslim has to be divorced just like everyone else.

 

[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?

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.

redress against the GOVERNMENT yes, punishing your fellow citizens over trivial matters? do it yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The 14th was designed to address problems with freed slaves, do you really believe the framers of the 14th envisioned it would be used to redefine marriage more than a 100 years later, you think they might have rephrased it if they had.

And since you brought up the 14th, when are you going to fight for my right to carry a firearm in all 50 States and our territories. Aren't they denying me liberty and my right to bear arms as confirmed in the 2nd Amendment, without due process? Or is the 14th only a good thing when it's used for regressive causes?

So you want to pick and choose what the 14th Amendment protects, but you don't want others to do the same.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So some butthurt is more equal than other butthurt?

Oh protected classes, I keep forgetting about that.

I declare that I am a shirtless shoeless person, therefore I am a protected class, please use the pronoun no-shir-shoe when addressing me.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

He's actually a UCLA law professor. that counters your Haaaaaavard quote.

If you had bothered to read teh Harvard Law review, which I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand, you would have seen a similar discussion that concluded that while marriage has some of the elements of a contract, the law treats is as a status. A contract is a private agreement between two people or entities that contains terms that they have agreed upon. A marriage is a status given to a relationship by the state and the terms of that relationship are governed by the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You can't have constitutional disputes ending in a tie.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The 14th was designed to address problems with freed slaves, do you really believe the framers of the 14th envisioned it would be used to redefine marriage more than a 100 years later, you think they might have rephrased it if they had.

And since you brought up the 14th, when are you going to fight for my right to carry a firearm in all 50 States and our territories. Aren't they denying me liberty and my right to bear arms as confirmed in the 2nd Amendment, without due process? Or is the 14th only a good thing when it's used for regressive causes?

So you want to pick and choose what the 14th Amendment protects, but you don't want others to do the same.

Kind of like how you want to pick and choose how the 1st and 2nd apply.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So some butthurt is more equal than other butthurt?

Oh protected classes, I keep forgetting about that.

I declare that I am a shirtless shoeless person, therefore I am a protected class, please use the pronoun no-shir-shoe when addressing me.

Shirtless, shoeless and brainless.

 

[jillian]

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.

The 14th was designed to address problems with freed slaves, do you really believe the framers of the 14th envisioned it would be used to redefine marriage more than a 100 years later, you think they might have rephrased it if they had.

And since you brought up the 14th, when are you going to fight for my right to carry a firearm in all 50 States and our territories. Aren't they denying me liberty and my right to bear arms as confirmed in the 2nd Amendment, without due process? Or is the 14th only a good thing when it's used for regressive causes?

whatever it was designed for. it has been applied broadly, as it should be.

 

[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.

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.

The right to equal protection and the right to liberty also exist in the constitution. Try reading something other than the Second Amendment some day.

 

[jillian]

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.

So some butthurt is more equal than other butthurt?

Oh protected classes, I keep forgetting about that.

I declare that I am a shirtless shoeless person, therefore I am a protected class, please use the pronoun no-shir-shoe when addressing me.

you can exclude people for any reason and no reason at all but not for an illegal reason.

your shirtlessness and shoelessness is not a fundamental right.

you're heading into absurd depths again.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I see the education I have you a couple of days ago did not take? The right to freely exercise your faith does not allow you to refuse to follow a law that applies equally to everyone else. Devout Mormons cannot marry ten women simply on the basis that their faith says they can. Devout Muslims cannot do so either. A a Muslim has to be divorced just like everyone else.

I got bore of that thread, the only education given was your re-affirming my belief that you are a statist fascist asshat.

And those mormons can marry all the women they want, just not legally. Bad example.

 

[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.

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)

Nothing to consider. A law is not equal if it has different rules and applications for different groups of people. And if that different treatment is not meeting a compelling governmental need, it violates the EP clause.

 

[martybegan]

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.

He's actually a UCLA law professor. that counters your Haaaaaavard quote.

If you had bothered to read teh Harvard Law review, which I doubt you have the intellectual capacity to understand, you would have seen a similar discussion that concluded that while marriage has some of the elements of a contract, the law treats is as a status. A contract is a private agreement between two people or entities that contains terms that they have agreed upon. A marriage is a status given to a relationship by the state and the terms of that relationship are governed by the law.

If you had bothered to read my post, you would realize that the word contract is broad, you are applying it narrowly to suit your own interest.

Give up, you have been proven wrong, just give up.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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?

Considering they were being treated the same as their genetic equals, your claim is a lie. Government have been defining acceptable behavior from the first government ever instituted. So no, the court does not have the authority to overturn accepted behavioral law just because someone doesn't like it.

 

[jillian]

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.

your side?

no one is forcing you to marry a man.

you are however, required to leave others alone.

 

[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.

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.

Your point is nonsense. You blame the person who committed the act that violated the law. If, in pulling a trigger, the person doing so violated tech law, they are to blame; they are the one that will be held responsible.