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

[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?

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

Um...do you even know which Justices supported striking down anti-SSM restrictions? From your comment right there, it appears you do not even know which Justices to complain about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution; its rulings become the law of the land, binding on the states and local jurisdictions.

Whether Heller or Obergefell, these rulings are settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence, and they should be acknowledged as such in accordance with the rule of law, where the 'will of the people' has not been 'violated,' and an issue resolved because no resolution was possible via the political process.

This, then, is the original intent of the Founding Generation, the people enacting laws and addressing the issues of the day guided by the fundamental principles of democracy; and when the people err and enact measures clearly repugnant to the Constitution, those citizens disadvantaged have the right to seek relief in the courts, the Constitution, and its case law to have unlawful measures invalidated because they are in fact un-Constitutional.

 

[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.

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

The courts upheld constitutionally protected rights for equal protection under the law. That's not judicial "fiat." That is precisely the judicial power the courts are expected to exercise under the constitution. The legislatures of the states have no power to violate equal protection under the law, nor is there anything constitutional about leaving it up to said legislatures to decide whether they are willing to honor the constitution or not. When the case is brought before the court, the court is obliged to rule on the matter.

 

[OKTexas]

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.....

Their also not protected classes, what makes gays special?

 

[bodecea]

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.....

Their also not protected classes, what makes gays special?

I'm glad you don't think we are. We're equal. Especially under the eyes of the law.......finally.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That makes no sense in context within this string.

 

[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

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

Begging the question

strawman

 

[kaz]

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.

Then why didn't they say that?

And were men or women discriminated against in man/woman marriage?

 

[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

The courts upheld constitutionally protected rights for equal protection under the law. That's not judicial "fiat." That is precisely the judicial power the courts are expected to exercise under the constitution. The legislatures of the states have no power to violate equal protection under the law, nor is there anything constitutional about leaving it up to said legislatures to decide whether they are willing to honor the constitution or not. When the case is brought before the court, the court is obliged to rule on the matter.

How did being gay change who you could marry?

Are you claiming if you were straight you could enter into a same sex marriage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Leftists want no truck with that silly "will of the people", "democratic process" nonsense. They believe that the "obvious moral superiority" of their positions trumps any need to let people decide for themselves what they want. People are just stupid sheep, after all, who need to have what's "best" for them done to them whether they like it or not.

 

[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.

Um...do you even know which Justices supported striking down anti-SSM restrictions? From your comment right there, it appears you do not even know which Justices to complain about.

Don't know why, but I was thinking Roberts was in on the majority, I was mistaken, it was Kennedy. Of course if Sotomayor and Ginsberg had any ethics they would have recused themselves.

 

[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.

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.....

Their also not protected classes, what makes gays special?

I'm glad you don't think we are. We're equal. Especially under the eyes of the law.......finally.

BS

 

[SwimExpert]

How did being gay change who you could marry?

Exactly the same way same sex marriage changes your marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

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.

Which is exactly the same thing they said about restrictions on race. And the argument worked for 85 years.

 

[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.

Begging the question

strawman

It's a fact...it's how our system works as per the Constitution. You don't like how our system works...in this case.

 

[bodecea]

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.....

Their also not protected classes, what makes gays special?

I'm glad you don't think we are. We're equal. Especially under the eyes of the law.......finally.

BS

We are...but it sounds like you don't like that.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

People have rights- including marriage and owning guns. But both gun ownership and marriage can be regulated.

Welcome to 2015.

Meanwhile- American couples can get married- regardless of their race, gender, religion or national origin- no matter how much that bothers you.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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.

Just like mixed race marriage bans treated all races equally, the law treated all blacks and whites equally- blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites- just like men could marry women and women could marry men.

But no blacks marrying whites.
And no women marrying women.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.

 

[Syriusly]

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

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- Obergefell is just the last in the line that started with Loving v. Virginia.

Why do you believe mixed race couples should have had to wait 20 or 30 years before the legislators were ready to treat them equally?