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

[Skylar]

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.

That's nice. Every Supreme Court decision except for unanimous ones have written dissenting opinions.

Yet one more thing "conservatives" fail to understand...

Actually gheys have a problem grasping what it means and what it has already led to. Jailtime for Christians for one.

Gheys thinks this will bring acceptance.

It will not.

It did bring about the protection of their rights.

 

[Skylar]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

Who says that elected officials are 'masters'? That's a strawman argument.

 

[Iceweasel]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

 

[paddymurphy]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

 

[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.

That's nice. Every Supreme Court decision except for unanimous ones have written dissenting opinions.

Yet one more thing "conservatives" fail to understand...

Actually gheys have a problem grasping what it means and what it has already led to. Jailtime for Christians for one.

Gheys thinks this will bring acceptance.

It will not.

Hun, acceptance is already here. It will never be 100%, no one is claiming that. But we have our equal rights and MOST Americans treat us as equal. Great Day!

 

[bodecea]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If there is no compelling reason, then we can expect to see that argued up the court chain soon, right?

 

[Skylar]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

 

[martybegan]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

 

[martybegan]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Why didn't you just name this thread "Sore Losers"?

 

[Skylar]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

 

[Skylar]

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

Why didn't you just name this thread "Sore Losers"?

These are all just thumbsucker threads. Sil is self soothing by acting as the Avatar of butthurt.

It has no relevance to the law, any marriage, or the outcome of any case.

 

[paddymurphy]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

 

[martybegan]

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

 

[Pop23]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If there is no compelling reason, then we can expect to see that argued up the court chain soon, right?

Yep

 

[bodecea]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

There you are again....complaining about a state's PA law. This thread is about the Obergefell decision. They have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Skylar]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

That's why you want incest marriage?

 

[Skylar]

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

There you are again....complaining about a state's PA law. This thread is about the Obergefell decision. They have nothing to do with each other.

His pony knows only the one trick. What else can he do?

 

[Skylar]

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

 

[Pop23]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Same sex advocates wanted the right to marry based on inheritance, taxes and the dignity of their children.

Same sex siblings could make the same claim and their could be no Compelling State Interest to deny these individuals this fundamental right.

If there is, point those out.