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

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, you did not read the article. Too many words, too many syllables.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Right back at ya hero. You seem to think the 14th can't be selectively applied and the 2nd can. You can't have it both ways.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Then you act only when there is a compelling government interest one way or another. Jim crow era discrimination was one, a few bakers not wanting to bake cakes isn't.[/QUOTE
Whether anti-discrimination laws are needed is up to voters. In the states that have included gay people among those protected, the people chose to include them.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Right back at ya hero. You seem to think the 14th can't be selectively applied and the 2nd can. You can't have it both ways.

Neither can be applied based on race or other distinctions.

 

[bodecea]

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?

No....because of safety and health laws............which, btw, you can't get out of following by crying religion either.

Some mohels beg to differ on that.

Some what?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

A regressionist opinion, laws are supposed to be applied a narrowly as possible, broad, ambiguous laws are unenforceable. Now answer my question, do you think the framers of the 14th would have done it differently if they knew how it would be bastardized today?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Right back at ya hero. You seem to think the 14th can't be selectively applied and the 2nd can. You can't have it both ways.

How can you selectively apply the 14th amendment when it applies to all American citizens?

 

[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.

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.

Tell me, what rights and liberties faghadist were being denied that didn't apply to their genetic equals?

 

[bodecea]

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.

A regressionist opinion, laws are supposed to be applied a narrowly as possible, broad, ambiguous laws are unenforceable. Now answer my question, do you think the framers of the 14th would have done it differently if they knew how it would be bastardized today?

How is the 14th being "bastardized" today?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Tell me, what rights and liberties faghadist were being denied that didn't apply to their genetic equals?

None now. We have equal access under the law...now.

 

[jillian]

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.

A regressionist opinion, laws are supposed to be applied a narrowly as possible, broad, ambiguous laws are unenforceable. Now answer my question, do you think the framers of the 14th would have done it differently if they knew how it would be bastardized today?

How is the 14th being "bastardized" today?

yes, his constitutional acumen is just so impressive... not.

 

[boilermaker55]

No, pointing out the reality of the SCOTUS.
If you don't understand, that is your fault.
Keep deflecting reality to make things fit your thoughts.
Kind of childish.

Just like all the states that wanted to keep slavery! Oh, right it wasn't about slavery, it was about state rights. RIGHT?

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.

Deflection much?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Except marriage laws applied to all men and women equally.

 

[Syriusly]

F
Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law.

You are not any kind of lawyer at all- you are an idiot when it comes to the law.

5 Supreme Court Justices- a majority- decided in favor of Obergefel- and against unconstitutional state marriage bans.

4 Supreme Court Justices- a minority- disagree- like every other minority viewpoint on the court.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Except marriage laws applied to all men and women equally.

Now they do.....yes.

 

[Syriusly]

Meh, I don't agree with that
For instance, the FEDERAL government is involved with marriage. How can their be discrimination at the federal level?
I will admit the govt should be involved at all.. but they are.

So when will polygamists and incest get married? Now, legally. Arguments from states that children's interests in marriage must be protected have now all been gagged. There is nothing more insidiously deprivating to a child than to be systematically denied either a mother or father as an institution. Any potential "harm" polygamists or incest could pose to children pales by comparison.

Silhouette- you are welcome to file suit arguing you have the right to marry your 5 brothers.

And what an idiotic statement:
Silhouette: Any potential "harm".... incest could pose to children pales by comparison

You really think that 'incest' by a father or older brother to children is 'harmless'?

Really?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

Conservatives think that the Supreme Court rules on Constitutionality based upon the 'will of the majority'?

Still upset about Loving v. Virginia eh?

 

[Syriusly]

From this link: Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court’s 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.

That's nice. Every Supreme Court decision except for unanimous ones have written dissenting opinions.

Yet one more thing "conservatives" fail to understand...

It's understood perfectly.

Ah, so the "conservatives" in this thread are deliberately misrepresenting it? That wouldn't be surprising.

No, your side keeps saying the "debate is over" every time you get qa 5-4 decision that favors your world-view, and the dissent on this case clearly shows how wrong you are.

Any idiot can continue to 'debate' against same gender marriage.

But the issue is settled legally for the moment.

As was pointed out- the idiots have two options- and they aren't actually pursuing either.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Tell me, what rights and liberties faghadist were being denied that didn't apply to their genetic equals?

None now. We have equal access under the law...now.

Exactly.

And what the hell is a 'genetic equal'?

Since no two people are exactly genetically the same(except identifical twins)- what the hell does he even think that means?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

They were not being treated equally. And the Court certainly does have the authority to overturn laws that intrude into the most intimate relationships people have. What problem do you folks have with the concept of liberty? With the concept that when it comes to important, personal and intimate decisions, like who to have sex with, whether to use contraception, whether to undergo a medical procedure, who to marry? Why do you want the government involved in that? Mind your own fucking business.

I will, just like you mind your own business when I decide to own or carry a firearm. You want to grant rights based on behavior, how about we just let nudist do their thing anywhere they please, after all their not infringing on anyone else, so what's the compelling government interest in requiring clothing? I can come up with thousands of behaviors that don't harm anyone that you can be arrested for, what make faghadist behavior so special?