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

[kaz]

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.

After rewriting obamacare and upholding it ... twice ... Roberts claim to give a shit about the Constitution or anything in it is a joke, just like he's a joke as a Supreme Court justice

 

[kaz]

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?

nope, and the man/woman marriage laws didn't discriminate on gender, men and women were allowed equal access to marriage, there was no difference.

logic really isn't you or your chickie poo seawytch's strong suit. "discriminate on gender" made zero logical sense. Then again, I don't know what is

 

[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.

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?

Sometimes laws get a bit conflicted when you start inventing new protected classes and rights, but the point was behaviors you think are acceptable should be forced on others who disagree. You expect tolerance from everyone but yourself.

 

[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.

Your repeating yourself doesn't alter the FACT that the genders were already treated equally.

 

[my2¢]

I understood (and agree with) what the 1st three justices said. As for the first part of Alito's statement, it made me felt like I should have stopped after the 1st three.

 

[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.

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?

Sometimes laws get a bit conflicted when you start inventing new protected classes and rights, but the point was behaviors you think are acceptable should be forced on others who disagree. You expect tolerance from everyone but yourself.

Wait.....you think we are forcing you to behave in a gay way with Obergefell?

 

[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.

Your repeating yourself doesn't alter the FACT that the genders were already treated equally.

Not in marriage laws we were not. A man was discriminated against if he could not marry a man...a woman was discriminated against if she could not marry a woman. It was gender-based discrimination. But not any longer. Rightly, the Supreme Court struck that discrimination down.

 

[bodecea]

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?

nope, and the man/woman marriage laws didn't discriminate on gender, men and women were allowed equal access to marriage, there was no difference.

logic really isn't you or your chickie poo seawytch's strong suit. "discriminate on gender" made zero logical sense. Then again, I don't know what is

I wonder why that argument didn't hold up in Obergefell.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

And....is the government allowed to discriminate against one or the other in application of the law?

 

[SwimExpert]

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

So you agree that homosexuality is in the genes. Good to know. That should make it easier for you to see why supporting gay marriage is the only right and just thing to do.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

They already did. Demonstrate scientifically that gays are a distinct beings separate from the accepted norm then gay might be a legitimate argument.

 

[kaz]

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?

nope, and the man/woman marriage laws didn't discriminate on gender, men and women were allowed equal access to marriage, there was no difference.

logic really isn't you or your chickie poo seawytch's strong suit. "discriminate on gender" made zero logical sense. Then again, I don't know what is

I wonder why that argument didn't hold up in Obergefell.

Didn't read the ruling, did you? They didn't say it was "gender discrimination," they called it "sexual orientation discrimination."

It's ridiculous, orientation didn't effect who you could marry, but they didn't even say what you said.

Gender discrimination means the genders are treated differently, obviously they are not.

Can't make up the stupid that you people are

 

[kaz]

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

So you agree that homosexuality is in the genes. Good to know. That should make it easier for you to see why supporting gay marriage is the only right and just thing to do.

That's fine, but supporting the courts to do it through judicial fiat rather than the legislature to do it is justified by that argument in no possible way

 

[bodecea]

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?

They already did. Demonstrate scientifically that gays are a distinct beings separate from the accepted norm then gay might be a legitimate argument.

The "accepted norm"? Guess what....while gays are not the norm (if you mean by norm, the majority) but neither are left-handed people and gingers....and all are accepted as legal citizens even tho minorities.....

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Sometimes laws get a bit conflicted when you start inventing new protected classes and rights, but the point was behaviors you think are acceptable should be forced on others who disagree. You expect tolerance from everyone but yourself.

Wait.....you think we are forcing you to behave in a gay way with Obergefell?

No, of course you already knew that.

 

[bodecea]

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

So you agree that homosexuality is in the genes. Good to know. That should make it easier for you to see why supporting gay marriage is the only right and just thing to do.

That's fine, but supporting the courts to do it through judicial fiat rather than the legislature to do it is justified by that argument in no possible way

That's how our system works as per the Constitution. So your beef is with the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Sometimes laws get a bit conflicted when you start inventing new protected classes and rights, but the point was behaviors you think are acceptable should be forced on others who disagree. You expect tolerance from everyone but yourself.

Wait.....you think we are forcing you to behave in a gay way with Obergefell?

No, of course you already knew that.

Well good...because your comment I enlarged sure made it sound like you thought Obergefell was going to force you to behave in a gay way.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I think you're confused, men and women are not defined by choices, their defined by genetics.

And....is the government allowed to discriminate against one or the other in application of the law?

You have yet to demonstrate they were, all you got is a biased opinion, just like the 4 regressive judges and the liar Roberts.

 

[bodecea]

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?

nope, and the man/woman marriage laws didn't discriminate on gender, men and women were allowed equal access to marriage, there was no difference.

logic really isn't you or your chickie poo seawytch's strong suit. "discriminate on gender" made zero logical sense. Then again, I don't know what is

I wonder why that argument didn't hold up in Obergefell.

Didn't read the ruling, did you? They didn't say it was "gender discrimination," they called it "sexual orientation discrimination."

It's ridiculous, orientation didn't effect who you could marry, but they didn't even say what you said.

Gender discrimination means the genders are treated differently, obviously they are not.

Can't make up the stupid that you people are

Ah but....doesn't this also allow anyone to marry someone of the same gender? Do you think anyone is going to make some kind of sexual orientation test before handing out the marriage license? Yes, I see what you want to say...but ultimately, it was gender discrimination.