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

[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.

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?

Silly Syriuosly, I was responding to TNHarley.

You understand that marriage does not require sex, Right? And incest is illegal, Right.

You understand that the individual is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, Right?

You make an assumption that is simply absurd. Unless you can name a single other legal partnership that denied siblings participation in.

Can you?

 

[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.

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.

They do....equal treatment under the law solved both of those problems.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The Court said you were wrong.

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

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

BS all men an women were treated equally.

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

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

Because we also have all sorts of rights protections FOR genders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

How can you selectively apply the 2nd amendment when it applies to all American citizens?

The same reason we don't allow the 1st amendment to protect child pornography.

Expand on that thought please.

Does the 1st Amendment make an explicit exception for the publication of child pornography when it says that freedom of the press cannot be abridged?

If not (since it doesn't) where does that exception come from?

Why is it legitimate?

Because the behavior of making child porn is prohibited because there is demonstrable harm to others, as a child cannot legally consent to participating in it. Once again, you fail.

And what is the demonstrable harm to others that occurs when two women or two men get married?

 

[OKTexas]

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"?

Fag activist who want to force acceptance of their ways on every one else as normal, it's not, they're a very very small minority. Hell, not all gays agree with you.

 

[bodecea]

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?

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

They performed same sex marriages in states where it was legal and those states were not part of the court case....just like the other Justices have performed opposite sex marriages in states where it's legal and not part of the court case. So....since they did not participate in anything in any of the states in question....why recuse themselves? No conflict.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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"?

Fag activist who want to force acceptance of their ways on every one else as normal, it's not, they're a very very small minority. Hell, not all gays agree with you.

Again...you seem to be under the mistaken impression that gays and gay marriage will force you to become gay or have a gay marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 would be MUCH more interesting if there weren't 5 other judges on the court.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

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.

This is what judicial activism does, they use the ideological views of select majority in the Supreme Court to trump the individual states because the course of choosing the path of an "amendment" to stand up against all these individual state's constuutions as well as DOMA in order to establish this new interpretative view of marriage, could not be possible. This just doesn't support the argument that this is somehow stemming from a vast majority view of the people in this country. You just contradicted yourself. Rather than allow a select few and government "dictate" to us all, we should allow the people to have the overall decision. This is after all what by the people and for the people, through their representative states or federal legislatures is supposed to exemplify.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

 

[bodecea]

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

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.

This is what judicial activism does, they use the ideological views of select majority in the Supreme Court to trump the individual states because the course of choosing the path of an "amendment" to stand up against all these individual state's constuutions as well as DOMA in order to establish this new interpretative view of marriage, could not be possible. This just doesn't support the argument that this is somehow stemming from a vast majority view of the people in this country. You just contradicted yourself.

But that is how the Constitution set up the separation of powers. Plus the 14th amendment protects citizens from the over reach or discrimination of government. Equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens no matter how unpopular with the majority.

 

[bodecea]

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?

We had that, no problem, we've never accepted sexuality as a disability deserving protection.

Good. As I've said treat us all equally under the law. A win/win for us both.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Because we also have all sorts of rights protections FOR genders.

Examples?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Because we also have all sorts of rights protections FOR genders.

Examples?

Are you serious?

 

[OKTexas]

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?

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

They performed same sex marriages in states where it was legal and those states were not part of the court case....just like the other Justices have performed opposite sex marriages in states where it's legal and not part of the court case. So....since they did not participate in anything in any of the states in question....why recuse themselves? No conflict.

By officiating same sex marriages they clearly showed a bias in favor of it, it doesn't matter if they were in States where it was legal. At that time there were what 2 States and DC that had adopted SSM voluntarily.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

This is what judicial activism does, they use the ideological views of select majority in the Supreme Court to trump the individual states because the course of choosing the path of an "amendment" to stand up against all these individual state's constuutions as well as DOMA in order to establish this new interpretative view of marriage, could not be possible. This just doesn't support the argument that this is somehow stemming from a vast majority view of the people in this country. You just contradicted yourself.

But that is how the Constitution set up the separation of powers. Plus the 14th amendment protects citizens from the over reach or discrimination of government. Equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens no matter how unpopular with the majority.

That's not the original intent in representing true equality for all, if that was the case women's equal rights with regard to their equal right to vote without discrimination would be established without question. Because it was found they could not find equality through the interpretation of the 14th Amendmdnt, they pursued the course of establishing an Amendment to grant them such equal right without discrimination based on gender.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Because we also have all sorts of rights protections FOR genders.

Examples?

Are you serious?

As a heart attack, you keep throwing out theses generalized statements with no examples. That leaves me with no idea what I'm suppose to respond to.

 

[bodecea]

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?

They both participate in same sex weddings with the knowledge they would likely be hearing a case on it. That demonstrates a bias, and even the perception of bias should cause a judge to recuse themselves. No one can say they were neutral on the subject.

They performed same sex marriages in states where it was legal and those states were not part of the court case....just like the other Justices have performed opposite sex marriages in states where it's legal and not part of the court case. So....since they did not participate in anything in any of the states in question....why recuse themselves? No conflict.

By officiating same sex marriages they clearly showed a bias in favor of it, it doesn't matter if they were in States where it was legal. At that time there were what 2 States and DC that had adopted SSM voluntarily.

It matters very much if it was in states that WERE NOT PART of the lawsuits in front of the Court. That is the key right there.

 

[bodecea]

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.

This is what judicial activism does, they use the ideological views of select majority in the Supreme Court to trump the individual states because the course of choosing the path of an "amendment" to stand up against all these individual state's constuutions as well as DOMA in order to establish this new interpretative view of marriage, could not be possible. This just doesn't support the argument that this is somehow stemming from a vast majority view of the people in this country. You just contradicted yourself.

But that is how the Constitution set up the separation of powers. Plus the 14th amendment protects citizens from the over reach or discrimination of government. Equal treatment under the law for all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens no matter how unpopular with the majority.

That's not the original intent in representing true equality for all, if that was the case women's equal rights with regard to their equal right to vote without discrimination would be established without question. Because it was found they could not find equality through the interpretation of the 14th Amendmdnt, they pursued the course of establishing an Amendment to grant them such equal right without discrimination based on gender.

And how did that work out?