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

[bodecea]

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

You still haven't demonstrated how it was selectively applied, marriage laws treated all men and women equally, there was no discrimination based on sex.

Yes there was.

You, a man could marry a woman.

Bodecea, a woman, could not marry a woman.

Bod was being denied a right that you had because she was a woman.

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Civil Rights, at least in this country, are not a popularity contest.

 

[bodecea]

Yes there was.

You, a man could marry a woman.

Bodecea, a woman, could not marry a woman.

Bod was being denied a right that you had because she was a woman.

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

No it wasn't. The Court set the precedent when they decided that interracial marriage was an equal right,

despite the fact that at the time miscegenation laws applied equally to both blacks and whites.

But not people of Asian decent or American Indians, white and blacks could marry either but not each other, so it was a clear racial bias, that was not the case with the laws in place before SCOTUS redefined marriage. So your comparison fails.

Whites could marry someone of their own race. Blacks could marry someone of their own race. That is what YOU call an equal right.

The Court said you were wrong.

Once again you're confusing genetics such as race and gender with behaviors. Marriage laws that were in place treated all races and genders equally, there was no discrimination.

There was race discrimination before Loving. There was gender discrimination before Obergefell.

 

[OKTexas]

You still haven't explained how men and women were being treated differently by marriage laws.

They aren't.....anymore.

They weren't before. You just refuse to admit it.

Same sex marriage is form of marriage that homosexuals choose.

To allow heterosexuals the right to their chosen form of marriage but to not allow homosexuals the same right was discriminatory.

Once again a desired behavior is not a protected right, laws criminalize them all the time. You can't chose a form of marriage that didn't exist under the law.

Homosexuality is not a criminalized behavior.

All sex acts that occur outside of a private setting are criminalized behaviors. I don't care who you chose to have sex with as long as they can legally consent.

 

[OKTexas]

You still haven't demonstrated how it was selectively applied, marriage laws treated all men and women equally, there was no discrimination based on sex.

Yes there was.

You, a man could marry a woman.

Bodecea, a woman, could not marry a woman.

Bod was being denied a right that you had because she was a woman.

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Will you allow that same vote on gun rights state by state?

Nope, they're actually protected in the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

They aren't.....anymore.

They weren't before. You just refuse to admit it.

Same sex marriage is form of marriage that homosexuals choose.

To allow heterosexuals the right to their chosen form of marriage but to not allow homosexuals the same right was discriminatory.

Once again a desired behavior is not a protected right, laws criminalize them all the time. You can't chose a form of marriage that didn't exist under the law.

Homosexuality is not a criminalized behavior.

All sex acts that occur outside of a private setting are criminalized behaviors. I don't care who you chose to have sex with as long as they can legally consent.

And......?

 

[bodecea]

Yes there was.

You, a man could marry a woman.

Bodecea, a woman, could not marry a woman.

Bod was being denied a right that you had because she was a woman.

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Will you allow that same vote on gun rights state by state?

Nope, they're actually protected in the Constitution.

As is Equal Treatment Under the Law.

 

[OKTexas]

You still haven't demonstrated how it was selectively applied, marriage laws treated all men and women equally, there was no discrimination based on sex.

Yes there was.

You, a man could marry a woman.

Bodecea, a woman, could not marry a woman.

Bod was being denied a right that you had because she was a woman.

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Civil Rights, at least in this country, are not a popularity contest.

So you want to invent civil rights based on behavior and deny others their rights based on their behavior, such as the bakers and photographers who wish not to facilitate your behavior. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?

 

[OKTexas]

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

No it wasn't. The Court set the precedent when they decided that interracial marriage was an equal right,

despite the fact that at the time miscegenation laws applied equally to both blacks and whites.

But not people of Asian decent or American Indians, white and blacks could marry either but not each other, so it was a clear racial bias, that was not the case with the laws in place before SCOTUS redefined marriage. So your comparison fails.

Whites could marry someone of their own race. Blacks could marry someone of their own race. That is what YOU call an equal right.

The Court said you were wrong.

Once again you're confusing genetics such as race and gender with behaviors. Marriage laws that were in place treated all races and genders equally, there was no discrimination.

There was race discrimination before Loving. There was gender discrimination before Obergefell.

BS all men an women were treated equally.

 

[bodecea]

Yes there was.

You, a man could marry a woman.

Bodecea, a woman, could not marry a woman.

Bod was being denied a right that you had because she was a woman.

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Civil Rights, at least in this country, are not a popularity contest.

So you want to invent civil rights based on behavior and deny others their rights based on their behavior, such as the bakers and photographers who wish not to facilitate your behavior. A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say?

Sounds like you want to discuss the state PA laws instead of Obergefell now?

 

[bodecea]

No it wasn't. The Court set the precedent when they decided that interracial marriage was an equal right,

despite the fact that at the time miscegenation laws applied equally to both blacks and whites.

But not people of Asian decent or American Indians, white and blacks could marry either but not each other, so it was a clear racial bias, that was not the case with the laws in place before SCOTUS redefined marriage. So your comparison fails.

Whites could marry someone of their own race. Blacks could marry someone of their own race. That is what YOU call an equal right.

The Court said you were wrong.

Once again you're confusing genetics such as race and gender with behaviors. Marriage laws that were in place treated all races and genders equally, there was no discrimination.

There was race discrimination before Loving. There was gender discrimination before Obergefell.

BS all men an women were treated equally.

Gender discrimination in that a man could not legally marry a man (gender designation) and a woman could not legally marry a woman.....it was discrimination based on gender.

 

[Arianrhod]

BS all men an women were treated equally.

Only if you believe 79 = 100.

 

[OKTexas]

They weren't before. You just refuse to admit it.

Same sex marriage is form of marriage that homosexuals choose.

To allow heterosexuals the right to their chosen form of marriage but to not allow homosexuals the same right was discriminatory.

Once again a desired behavior is not a protected right, laws criminalize them all the time. You can't chose a form of marriage that didn't exist under the law.

Homosexuality is not a criminalized behavior.

All sex acts that occur outside of a private setting are criminalized behaviors. I don't care who you chose to have sex with as long as they can legally consent.

And......?

You tell me, you're the one that brought up sex.

 

[OKTexas]

But not people of Asian decent or American Indians, white and blacks could marry either but not each other, so it was a clear racial bias, that was not the case with the laws in place before SCOTUS redefined marriage. So your comparison fails.

Whites could marry someone of their own race. Blacks could marry someone of their own race. That is what YOU call an equal right.

The Court said you were wrong.

Once again you're confusing genetics such as race and gender with behaviors. Marriage laws that were in place treated all races and genders equally, there was no discrimination.

There was race discrimination before Loving. There was gender discrimination before Obergefell.

BS all men an women were treated equally.

Gender discrimination in that a man could not legally marry a man (gender designation) and a woman could not legally marry a woman.....it was discrimination based on gender.

You claim discrimination, yet you haven't proved it, we have all kinds of restrictions in our society based on the differences in the genders, why should this one be exempt?

 

[OKTexas]

Right, she could marry any man she chose, so in fact there was no discrimination because it was applied equally to both genders.

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Will you allow that same vote on gun rights state by state?

Nope, they're actually protected in the Constitution.

As is Equal Treatment Under the Law.

Men and women were treated equally under marriage laws, but that wasn't good enough. You had to invent a new right and then claim discrimination.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

Meanwhile, five SCOTUS justices summarize how those other four are wrong.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[SwimExpert]

For those who marked "funny" on the OP: What is funny about children being forced as a new institution that they had no voice in, indeed were barred from representation at the Table, that systematically deprives them for life of either a mother or father?

What do you want to speculate on the preponderence of "gay" litigants petitioning the Court this year who grew up with regular contact with both a mother and a father? My best guess is that most if not all of them did.

Ironic.

What's funny is your rabid obsession with other people's marriages ruining your whole life.

 

[SwimExpert]

Men and women were treated equally under marriage laws, but that wasn't good enough. You had to invent a new right and then claim discrimination.

There is no discrimination. Heterosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the same gender as homosexuals.

 

[bodecea]

Same sex marriage is form of marriage that homosexuals choose.

To allow heterosexuals the right to their chosen form of marriage but to not allow homosexuals the same right was discriminatory.

Once again a desired behavior is not a protected right, laws criminalize them all the time. You can't chose a form of marriage that didn't exist under the law.

Homosexuality is not a criminalized behavior.

All sex acts that occur outside of a private setting are criminalized behaviors. I don't care who you chose to have sex with as long as they can legally consent.

And......?

You tell me, you're the one that brought up sex.

No I didn't...I brought up homosexuality. Then you went off on "all sex acts....."

 

[bodecea]

Whites could marry someone of their own race. Blacks could marry someone of their own race. That is what YOU call an equal right.

The Court said you were wrong.

Once again you're confusing genetics such as race and gender with behaviors. Marriage laws that were in place treated all races and genders equally, there was no discrimination.

There was race discrimination before Loving. There was gender discrimination before Obergefell.

BS all men an women were treated equally.

Gender discrimination in that a man could not legally marry a man (gender designation) and a woman could not legally marry a woman.....it was discrimination based on gender.

You claim discrimination, yet you haven't proved it, we have all kinds of restrictions in our society based on the differences in the genders, why should this one be exempt?

Is the government allowed to discriminate based on gender? If so, what in?

 

[bodecea]

So your argument is that a state if it so chose could in fact ONLY recognize same sex marriage as legal and that wouldn't be discriminatory and no one in that state should complain about it.

Sure, put it up for a vote.

Will you allow that same vote on gun rights state by state?

Nope, they're actually protected in the Constitution.

As is Equal Treatment Under the Law.

Men and women were treated equally under marriage laws, but that wasn't good enough. You had to invent a new right and then claim discrimination.

Are you saying that gay people don't have, shouldn't have, the same rights as straight people?