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

[Pop23]

Because incest is illegal.

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

Or any time you discuss the topic. As its the only topic you'll discuss in any thread. You're obsessed with it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

And yet instead of answering any of my questions, you keep babbling about incest. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument and the truth of mine: you're obsessed with the topic. Watch. You'll do it again:

"Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more."

You'll ignore the question and continue with your obsession with incest. You can't help it.

Which might be why you're so awful at predicting any legal outcome.

Sick little bastards still trying to find someone to enable his sick twisted incest fantasies.

 

[Skylar]

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

Or any time you discuss the topic. As its the only topic you'll discuss in any thread. You're obsessed with it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

And yet instead of answering any of my questions, you keep babbling about incest. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument and the truth of mine: you're obsessed with the topic. Watch. You'll do it again:

"Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more."

You'll ignore the question and continue with your obsession with incest. You can't help it.

Which might be why you're so awful at predicting any legal outcome.

Sick little bastards still trying to find someone to enable his sick twisted incest fantasies.

See, exactly as I predicted. You ignored my question....and focus exclusively on incest. Its your personal obsession, the only topic you'll discuss on any thread.

And yet the law has never recognized your obsession as legally valid, constituting a marriage, or any of the other hapless pseudo-legal batshit you've made up.

Pop.....you quite simply have no idea what you're talking about. And every legal prediction you've made has been wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

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?

Tax benefits.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

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?

Tax benefits.

Tax benefits as a married couple.

 

[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"?

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.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

So of course you've never brought up that others supported the losing side of citizens United. AND you still bring it up.

Crybaby

I don't start threads stating the obvious: Justices on the losing side don't believe the winning side is correct.

Nope - I sure don't.

 

[Silhouette]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

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?

Tax benefits.

But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father. Now, the state gets less than nothing out of that revenue loss because children raised without either a mother or father are psychologically-stunted. That's even what the adult children raised in gay homes said in their amicus briefs too; but were flatly ignored by the Opinion rendered in June...

I don't start threads stating the obvious: Justices on the losing side don't believe the winning side is correct.
Nope - I sure don't.

But in this particular instance their points are coming home to roost less than six months out from the Opinion...cases in point: Oregon Christian bakers. Kentucky Clerk...

The blunders of June are going to be exposed very quickly and so, their pointing out precisely what those blunders are is the key difference in the minority opinion in this case..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But what does a state get out of people simply cohabitating by the loss of that revenue? States incentivized marriage so that children would have both a mother and father.

the stupid stuff you come up with

Were children being born without mothers and fathers so long ago that ... I can't continue.. you're a friggin kook

 

[Pop23]

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

Or any time you discuss the topic. As its the only topic you'll discuss in any thread. You're obsessed with it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

And yet instead of answering any of my questions, you keep babbling about incest. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument and the truth of mine: you're obsessed with the topic. Watch. You'll do it again:

"Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more."

You'll ignore the question and continue with your obsession with incest. You can't help it.

Which might be why you're so awful at predicting any legal outcome.

Sick little bastards still trying to find someone to enable his sick twisted incest fantasies.

See, exactly as I predicted. You ignored my question....and focus exclusively on incest. Its your personal obsession, the only topic you'll discuss on any thread.

And yet the law has never recognized your obsession as legally valid, constituting a marriage, or any of the other hapless pseudo-legal batshit you've made up.

Pop.....you quite simply have no idea what you're talking about. And every legal prediction you've made has been wrong.

I will not indulge your sick fantasies.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

So of course you've never brought up that others supported the losing side of citizens United. AND you still bring it up.

Crybaby

I don't start threads stating the obvious: Justices on the losing side don't believe the winning side is correct.

Nope - I sure don't.

That's not the title of the thread either.

Dishonest much?

 

[Pop23]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

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?

Tax benefits.

Tax benefits as a married couple.

Inheritance benefits

Lowered health insurance

Survivors social security payments

Survivors pension payments and health insurance.

Shall I continue?

All by entering into a partnership that does not require sex as a qualification.

 

[Synthaholic]

But in this particular instance their points are coming home to roost less than six months out from the Opinion

And the same for Citizens United. There were warnings/predictions of single billionaires being able to fund a candidate, giving their "speech" a much louder voice. And we saw it in 2012 with Foster Friess backing Santorum, and Sheldon Adelson backing Newt Gingrich.

Absent their unlimited contributions, both of those candidates would have dropped out way sooner, because they were not supported by the public, just special interests.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

The four on the losing side of Citizens United all wrote dissenting opinions, and I'm pretty damn sure they thought that it was also "improper" and "illegal".

Silhouette is a crybaby.

So of course you've never brought up that others supported the losing side of citizens United. AND you still bring it up.

Crybaby

I don't start threads stating the obvious: Justices on the losing side don't believe the winning side is correct.

Nope - I sure don't.

That's not the title of the thread either.

Dishonest much?

I didn't say it was. Learn to read, dumbass.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

 

[OKTexas]

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 did not "hear a case" based on same sex marriage. They heard a case from a state that banned such marriages. They performed the marriages in a state where such marriages were legal. Should Thomas have recused himself because he was a member of an organization that lobbied against gay marraige? Attended weekly meetings of this organization? Had a wife active in lobbying groups that opposed gay marriage? Which is more evidence of a bias? A judge performing a legal wedding or a Judge who regularly attends meetings of an organization that lobbied against gay marriage?

What organization would that be, never heard that one.

Virginia Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't see where justice Thomas was a member. Next.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias.

Whether they personally thought that gay marriage was acceptable or not has nothing to do with recusal. The four in the minority made clear their disapproval of gay marriage before they were asked to rule on the case. You have no clue what governs a judge's recusal decision.

Well I guess the whole court should have recused themselves. If everyone had already formed an opinion or conducted themselves in a manner that demonstrated bias as you say.

The Windsor court had already ruled that States could CHOOSE to recognize same sex marriage. And that this recognition was fully constitutional.

Both Kagan and Ginsberg performed SSM in states that recognized it. And did so AFTER the Windsor ruling. The only 'bias' they demonstrated....was for precedent.

Which is what a judge is supposed to do. Its the entire basis of stare decisis, actually.

Previous cases are overturned or modified all the time in the SCOTUS, stare decisis is used or disregarded on a whim. Previous SCOTUS rulings are only binding on lower courts, not SCOTUS.

 

[Silhouette]

But in this particular instance their points are coming home to roost less than six months out from the Opinion

And the same for Citizens United. There were warnings/predictions of single billionaires being able to fund a candidate, giving their "speech" a much louder voice. And we saw it in 2012 with Foster Friess backing Santorum, and Sheldon Adelson backing Newt Gingrich.

Absent their unlimited contributions, both of those candidates would have dropped out way sooner, because they were not supported by the public, just special interests.

We agree then, both the June decision and Citizen's United are legal train wrecks. My main beef with CU was that it creates a loophole where supercitizen foreigners do not have to naturalize in order to wield supreme power over our governing process.. They get to run our elections without swearing an oath of allegiance or foresaking allegiance to their homeland. Gee, what could go wrong there? Shall we ask Prince Talal?

 

[Faun]

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.

Just think if you had just one more justice on your side, you wouldn't be so butthurt.

And who do we have to thank that you didn't have one more? Barack Hussein Obama.

He put two Liberal justices on the bench.

 

[Silhouette]

Previous cases are overturned or modified all the time in the SCOTUS, stare decisis is used or disregarded on a whim. Previous SCOTUS rulings are only binding on lower courts, not SCOTUS.

To that end, what do you think about the SCOTUS Massey Coal 2009 Decision? They aren't exempt, yet both Ginsburg and Kagan presided publicly over gay marriages while the cases made their way to their court asking the question "should the fed preside over states as to gay marriage?"... They are the embodiement of the fed. Their actions make them impeachable and necessitate a retrail just on Massey 2009 precedent alone..

Don't even get me started on the Whitehouse getting lit up with Rainbow lights the day of the Opinion's release. Those lights had to be set up before then and coordinated. We know the Whitehouse protocols don't allow any "spur of the moment" changes like that..

 

[Faun]

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.

So Scalia and Thomas, who have shown extreme anti gay bias in the past would also have had to recuse themselves. The ruling would have been the same.

Really, what did they do that had any bearing on a pending case? Would you wish to recuse anyone who was in a traditional marriage?

What did Sotomayor or Ginsberg do that had any bearing on the case?

You know, they officiated SSM's knowing a case was working its way to the court, they demonstrated a clear bias favoring SSM. The fact that they did it were it was legal is irrelevant to the demonstrated or perceived bias.

Here ya go... don't use 'em all at once.

 

[bodecea]

sex is not a requirement of a legal marriage.

No it is not, but its assumed that siblings who want to marry will have children. That is a public health interest.

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?

Tax benefits.

You

So was interracial sex. Yet the Courts overturned interracial marriage bans just the same.

If the recognition of same sex marriage has all the 'implications' you imagine it does.....why has the recognition of incest marriage and polygamy NEVER followed the recognition of same sex marriage in any state? No matter how long that State has recognized same sex marriage?

Your every prediction.....was garbage. Nothing you ever insisted must happen actually did. But this time its differently, huh?

You're the one hung up on incest. You're the one that keeps bringing it up.

No, you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Its virtually the only topic you'll discuss. In any thread. And I've cited incest marriage or polygamy.

And neither are legal anywhere. So much for your imaginary 'implications'.

As far a polygamy goes, it appears the legal logic is sound.

Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more.

This is the part where your argument always falls apart. As its based on your perception. And your perception is just garbage.....never actually reflecting the law or the outcome of any court case.

Only time I bring it up to indicate that it's illegal and that I oppose it.

Or any time you discuss the topic. As its the only topic you'll discuss in any thread. You're obsessed with it.

You have incest on the mind, and it's creepy how much you want people to talk to you about it.

You are a sick person. Of that there is little doubt.

And yet instead of answering any of my questions, you keep babbling about incest. Demonstrating the absurdity of your argument and the truth of mine: you're obsessed with the topic. Watch. You'll do it again:

"Then how do you explain the fact that the legalization of neither incest marriage nor polygamy has ever followed the recognition of same sex marriage...in any State.

Ever. Even when same sex marriage has been recognized for 10 years or more."

You'll ignore the question and continue with your obsession with incest. You can't help it.

Which might be why you're so awful at predicting any legal outcome.

Sick little bastards still trying to find someone to enable his sick twisted incest fantasies.

Who is it who keeps harping on incest?