Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
They had their chance in conference to convince the other justices, but they failed.
Their arguments failed. The case for restrictions on Gays at the state level was a FAILURE.
That's how our country works. If you don't like it, get the fuck out.
Their writing multiple dissenting opinions was improper and showed their own prejudices.
I was just pointing out that you lied.Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.
I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.
I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.
Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?
"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune
First Lawrence v Texas, then homosexuals petition for "civil rights to marry". C'mon, you know how this dance goes. Don't act dumb because it is politically expedient for your dishonest agenda..
So, you disagreed with Lawrence v. Texas? You think that gay people should be arrested and imprisoned? You ought to move to Uganda.Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.
I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.
I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.
Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune
First Lawrence v Texas, then homosexuals petition for "civil rights to marry". C'mon, you know how this dance goes. Don't act dumb because it is politically expedient for your dishonest agenda..
I was just pointing out that you lied.Incest is illegal, whether it is within a marriage or not. You have this problem thinking siblings just want to pork each other.
I don't like the idea of sibling marriage at all, but being a good upstanding, non bigoted citizen, I struggle finding a 14th amendment sound argument against either. Especially since sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.
I'm not one to stick my head in the sand though.
Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now. What say you about polygamy marriage? I guess you could use the old LGBT talking points "that polygamy marriage harms the children implicitly part of those marriages"....or has that narrative now suddenly changed? Should the Supreme Court now grant polygamist-American petitioners from Utah and all states by extension the "civil right to marry" (which doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has)? Or would that be up to each individual state?"Polygamy isn't illegal in Utah now." Actually, it is. You are the perfect example of when stupid people only read headlines. The Federal Judge struck that portion of the bigamy law that made it illegal to cohabit with more than one person of the opposite sex. The decision had nothing to do with the laws that still make it illegal to be actually married to more than one person. Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Archive - The Salt Lake Tribune
First Lawrence v Texas, then homosexuals petition for "civil rights to marry". C'mon, you know how this dance goes. Don't act dumb because it is politically expedient for your dishonest agenda..
First Lawrence v Texas, then homosexuals petition for "civil rights to marry". C'mon, you know how this dance goes. Don't act dumb because it is politically expedient for your dishonest agenda..
You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.
I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.
The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.
32 years aye?
Good god dude, show some pride.
See Baker v. Nelson. Good god dude, show some knowledge of the topic.
Edit: My bad, it was 33 years. lol
You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.
I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.
The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.
32 years aye?
Good god dude, show some pride.
See Baker v. Nelson. Good god dude, show some knowledge of the topic.
Edit: My bad, it was 33 years. lol
So it took 46 years?
And my argument is invalid after what, 6 months.
You are one bizarre dude.
You're totally ignoring the state's interest in outlawing polygamy. You can do that, but ignoring it is not an argumentNo it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.
Are you saying siblings or close cousins wanting to receive marriage benefits from the state would promise NOT to have children? If so why would they be getting married? For what reasons?
Why would they promise anything?
In the United States of America (come visit it sometimes). The State has the burdon of proof, not the individual.
It is no more likely that two siblings would break the law within a marriage, then in an LLC. You assume otherwise? That's your problem, not theirs.
No they are not. One is a state law that was in effect way before Obergefell even started going thru the court system. One is about Public Accommodation in businesses at the state level...the other is a federal court ruling striking down government restrictions on SOME citizens. Not even close.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.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.Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.
We elect our servants, not our masters.
Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.
They are related, and my point was in response to a comment made by paddy.
You are off topic of this thread. This thread is about Obergefell....not some state PA law.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.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.
You complaining about a 'dishonest agenda' may very well be the soul of irony. lol.
I always thought Sil and her cult like behavior when talking about the imaginary 'LGBT cult' was the height. Apparently its an entire range of irony.....with more peaks than the Rockies.
The funny thing is that gays petitioned to marry 32 years before Lawrence v. Texas was decided.
32 years aye?
Good god dude, show some pride.
See Baker v. Nelson. Good god dude, show some knowledge of the topic.
Edit: My bad, it was 33 years. lol
So it took 46 years?
And my argument is invalid after what, 6 months.
You are one bizarre dude.
This thread isn't about PA laws...totally different topic.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.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?
Their rights are being infringed, just like a felon's 2nd amendment rights are being infringed. However in the 2nd case there is a valid reason that almost everyone agrees with that causes the infringement, i.e. being convicted of a felony.
PA laws can be valid when a compelling government interest is shown, besides hurt feelings.
In other words, you can't answer the challenge. The fact is that there's no reason to deny 3 brothers marrying except societal norms. Exactly what you assholes scream about until you get your way. Once you have a favorable law, the law is the law, period.Well you have the right to go argue your right to marry your 3 brothers in court.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.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.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.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.
Meanwhile- in the real world- you have your own opinion- citing your own opinion, spoken from firmly within your rectum.
It's typical of leftists, dishonest, inconsistent and self righteous.
What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?
Then pursue it in the courts....just like gays did. If there is no argument against it, should be a slam dunk. I wish you well in your legal endeavor.There's no argument against it. That's the point. You're just denying people equal rights that love each other. Bigot.If you believe that incest and polygamy should be legalized, make your argument. It seems.....you won't touch your own question with a 10 foot pole.
This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol
This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol
Actually, I always glean at least one useful tidbit of information from such threads....it may be very little but I always learn something new.This thread is an exercise in futility. It is literally the same bullshit rehashed over and over and over again. I am out. lol
It's very sad, yet amusing that you apparently have no clue what you are talking about. You can conflate the race based laws and the same sex based laws, with the incest based laws all you want. But doing so does not make for a compelling argument or a rational one.You're totally ignoring the state's interest in outlawing polygamy. You can do that, but ignoring it is not an argument
Are you arguing that the State must demonstrate its interest?
You don't understand what happens when the argument is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, in which the STATE MUST SHOW A COMPELLING ARGUEMENT TO DENY THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL.
what you are arguing is the exact argument made by Virginia to keep races from marrying and the exact same argument made to stop same sex marriage.
Are you saying that NOW you are a racist and a bigot?
Not when reality is taken into the context here. But if you are why not stop being such a friggin' disingenuous douchebagh and come out and make the claim?Are you saying that NOW you are a racist and a bigot?
