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

[bodecea]

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.

So...you don't think the Supreme Court should be determining the the constitutionality of laws?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Why would they do that?

 

[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.

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.

The Supreme Court addresses constitutional questions- and whether the Court overturns unconstitutional gun laws or the court overturns unconstitutional marriage laws or the Court overturns unconstitutional campaign finance laws- that is what the Court is there to do.

 

[bodecea]

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.

You can certainly go the Amendment route now if you feel the Supreme Court was wrong.

 

[mdk]

Too bad we can't ship all these sullen tears to California.

 

[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.

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.

So...you don't think the Supreme Court should be determining the the constitutionality of laws?

I'll bet he doesn't have a problem when the Supreme Court overturns unconstitutional gun laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Too bad we can't ship all these sullen tears to California.

Too much salt in all of those tears- we would be flooded.

 

[Pop23]

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.

I have no problems with polygamy.
Incest is a terrible comparison. That hurts the general welfare of the country. Being gay, doesn't.
You mean all those kids they adopt come from families that are willing to take care of them? :/

Check the law. Sex isn't a requirement in marriage. And even so, incest would still remain illegal. To assume siblings can't marry because they MIGHT commit a crime deprives them of 14th amendment rights. Due process and all that good stuff

Look at the iowa and Maryland incest laws. Those two states indicate incest is male/female or vaginal penetration

I know, strange days.

I oppose family marriage, but we got that nasty 14th amendment to deal with and the Compelling State interest to deny a constitutional right.

A paradox. Cuz, marriage law doesn't require sex.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Wrong, faghadist wanted the right to chose something that didn't exist in this country, or anywhere else in the world till 1996 and still doesn't exist in the vast majority of the world. The court invented a right from thin air.

 

[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.

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.

Conservatives want no truck with that silly "Constitution" nonsense. They believe that the 'obvious moral superiority' of their positions trumps the rights of Americans. Conservatives think that people are just stupid sheep after all, and who need to have what's 'best' for them done to them- like telling Americans who they can marry- whether they like it or not. For Conservatives- Legislators are always right and Courts are always wrong.....unless of course someone passes a gun control law- and then the Courts are there to protect their rights.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Wrong, faghadist wanted the right to chose something that didn't exist in this country, or anywhere else in the world till 1996 and still doesn't exist in the vast majority of the world. The court invented a right from thin air.

What the heck is a "faghadist"?

 

[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.

I have no problems with polygamy.
Incest is a terrible comparison. That hurts the general welfare of the country. Being gay, doesn't.
You mean all those kids they adopt come from families that are willing to take care of them? :/

Check the law. Sex isn't a requirement in marriage.

Silhouette compared incest to gay parenting- let me help you- here was her sick quote:

Any potential "harm" .... incest could pose to children pales by comparison

So do you agree with Silhouette- that incest- as you point out- that means sex- with a child- by a family member- is better for kids than being raised by gay parents?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Wrong, faghadist wanted the right to chose something that didn't exist in this country, or anywhere else in the world till 1996 and still doesn't exist in the vast majority of the world. The court invented a right from thin air.

Well that is the logic of someone who uses a term 'faghadist' that he invented from his own bigoted imagination.

The courts recognized the rights of Americans- Americans you want discriminated against.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I don't like courts inventing rights out of thin air, when no discrimination existed based on accepted criteria. Is being gay some kind of disability that no one was aware of?

 

[bodecea]

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.

I don't like courts inventing rights out of thin air, when no discrimination existed based on accepted criteria. Is being gay some kind of disability that no one was aware of?

No right was invented out of thin air. The 14th Amendment has been around for about 150 years now.

 

[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.

You can certainly go the Amendment route now if you feel the Supreme Court was wrong.

Were there not a larger majority of states that put in place voting referendums and legislation that stated how they wanted marriage to be defined in their state constitutions? Referndums that were voted upon by the people among those states. I just want to know where this "out of step with the majority" among the individual states' governments is founded upon? It's fine if that's what you believe, it should just be based upon facts. There has been to much pushing of ideologies by judicial activists, which is why they judges decided based on their ideological "beliefs" and why their ideological views (over their overall experience and qualifications as a judge) is so much more important.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Funny, why are only regulations that please the regressives acceptable?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You can certainly go the Amendment route now if you feel the Supreme Court was wrong.

Were there not a larger majority of states that put in place voting referendums and legislation that stated how they wanted marriage to be defined in their state constitutions? Referndums that were voted upon by the people among those states. I just want to know where this "out of step with the majority" among the individual states' governments is founded upon? It's fine if that's what you believe, it should just be based upon facts.

Unconstitutional as they are currently written...that's what the Supreme Court was asked to look at. Now..there are two ways to fix that...Amendment to the U.S. Constitution designating marriage as only between a man and a woman....or gather enough evidence, get better lawyers and present another argument to the Supreme Court like was done in Brown v. Board of Ed.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Funny, why are only regulations that please the regressives acceptable?

You don't find laws treating all American citizens equally under the law regardless of their race, gender, religion or nation origin acceptable?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

One has nothing to do with the other.