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

[bodecea]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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

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

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

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

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

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

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

We don't elect Justices. They are appointed and approved. So much for your knowledge of the Constitution.

 

[jillian]

the court was always liberal... it was intended to be because it was intended to protect us from the torch and pitchfork crowd.

you'd have said the same about brown v board of ed. hence why these protestations are so absurd to normal people.

Actually your side has the torches and pitchforks out now, just ask those bakers and photographers.

You know the Obergefell decision has absolutely nothing to do with those bakers and photographers, right?

its two stops on the same train ride.

no.

one dealth with the fact that marriage is a fundamental right.

the other dealt only with the equal protection clause.

They both deal with making up things that you agree with, and punishing others who don;t agree with you.

there is nothing I've said that isn't true. you keep flailing and trying to change the way our courts operate because you don't like the outcome.

reality: any law passed that treats people disparately is going to be looked at. the standard for how closely the law is looked at depends on the level of right/activity, etc., that is being infringed. in the event of marriage, loving v Virginia held that marriage is a fundamental right. a fundamental right cannot be infringed absent a substantial governmental interest in doing so. That is the determination made by the court on the gay marriage issue as it was the issue in Loving.

but it's always funny that the small gubmint types want regulation of the most intimate issues touching peoples' lives but get bent out of shape if they can't buy a 30 ounce cup of sugar water.

 

[g5000]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...

It's a contract before God, not the State.

Big government lovers want State approval of their contract so they can acquire cash and prizes.

 

[jillian]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...

thanks for the intellectual analysis....

marriage is a fundamental right conferring over 1,000 rights and obligations.

 

[mdk]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is most definitely a contract and it is also a right.

 

[the_human_being]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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

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

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

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

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

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

What majority are you talking about? In Kentucky alone, 75% of voters voted against same sex marriage. The issue of marriage has long been a tradition of State's rights of determination. This was a power grab by a very small majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. The decision was by a single vote - not even by a 2/3 majority.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

 

[jillian]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...

It's a contract before God, not the State.

Big government lovers want State approval of their contract so they can acquire cash and prizes.

you mean hypocrites claiming they're for small gubmint want their religious beliefs codified

 

[g5000]

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

Wrong.

When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?

That's federal.

When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?

That's federal gifts you are accepting.

When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?

That's federal cash and prizes they are collecting.


The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family, and you big government types are loving it.

 

[jillian]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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

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

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

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

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

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

What majority are you talking about? In Kentucky alone, 75% of voters voted against same sex marriage. The issue of marriage has long been a tradition of State's rights of determination. This was a power grab by a very small majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. The decision was by a single vote - not even by a 2/3 majority.

I think that's high... but it's also meaningless since constitutional rights aren't subject to a vote... as you should know from brown v bd of ed...

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

We don't elect Justices. They are appointed and approved. So much for your knowledge of the Constitution.

Congrats, you got me in a typo.

change it to "appoint"

enjoy your "win".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it's not the system they set up, its the current crop of progressive justices that think they can change society by judicial fiat.

actually, they did...

the ones who "changed society" through judicial fiat is the rightwingnuts who ruled on citizens united and heller and hobby lobby.

but you like those decisions, so you don't care.

*shrug*

Such is the ridiculous right.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: if Obergefell is "wrong" then Heller is also "wrong" for the same reasons.

 

[jillian]

If you guys were the strict constructionists you claim to be, you would not have allowed the government to take over marriage a long time ago.

Did the original Founders believe the government should give you cash for having kids?

Nope.

Funny, I don't see you screaming in outrage that it does now.

You've been just fine with the government takeover of marriage. Until the gays suddenly decided they wanted some of that action.

Hypocrites.

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is most definitely a contract and it is also a right.

ok. fair enough. but the issue before the court was whether that right could be infringed based on discrimination against same sex couples.

 

[martybegan]

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

Wrong.

When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?

That's federal.

When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?

That's federal gifts you are accepting.

When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?

That's federal cash and prizes.


The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.

The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.

 

[martybegan]

it's not the system they set up, its the current crop of progressive justices that think they can change society by judicial fiat.

actually, they did...

the ones who "changed society" through judicial fiat is the rightwingnuts who ruled on citizens united and heller and hobby lobby.

but you like those decisions, so you don't care.

*shrug*

Such is the ridiculous right.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: if Obergefell is "wrong" then Heller is also "wrong" for the same reasons.

The RKBA is explicit in the document.

 

[jillian]

it's not the system they set up, its the current crop of progressive justices that think they can change society by judicial fiat.

actually, they did...

the ones who "changed society" through judicial fiat is the rightwingnuts who ruled on citizens united and heller and hobby lobby.

but you like those decisions, so you don't care.

*shrug*

Such is the ridiculous right.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: if Obergefell is "wrong" then Heller is also "wrong" for the same reasons.

obergefell is based on precedent... heller was decided out of thin air..

I always felt it was Scalia's "f.u." to the incoming democratic president.

 

[paddymurphy]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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

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

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

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

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

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

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

That's how the system works per the Constitution. What better plan do you have?

Appoint better justices than the 4.5 progressive asshats we have now.

You'll need to win a Presidential election first. That have proven difficult for you guys, having lost the popular vote in five of the last six, soon to be six of the last seven.

 

[g5000]

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

Wrong.

When you file federal income taxes, do you file a joint return?

That's federal.

When you file federal income taxes, do you accept child tax credits?

That's federal gifts you are accepting.

When a person dies, does their spouse collect Social Security survivor benefits?

That's federal cash and prizes.


The federal government is all up in your marriage and your family.

The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.

DOMA banned federal cash and prizes to same sex marriages recognized by the states. That's why one survivor of a dead spouse had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get the same tax breaks straight spouses get when their spouse dies.

So..again, you're wrong.

It's all about the cash and prizes. You let state and federal government take over our marriages and now it is blowing up in your face as it is coming into conflict with your bigotry.

 

[mdk]

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

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

Even if the Justices ruled no on the first question before the court, it was very likely they would have voted that states still had to recognize the marriages lawfully performed in other states via Full Faith and Credit.

 

[martybegan]

it's not the system they set up, its the current crop of progressive justices that think they can change society by judicial fiat.

actually, they did...

the ones who "changed society" through judicial fiat is the rightwingnuts who ruled on citizens united and heller and hobby lobby.

but you like those decisions, so you don't care.

*shrug*

Such is the ridiculous right.

Conservatives can't have it both ways: if Obergefell is "wrong" then Heller is also "wrong" for the same reasons.

obergefell is based on precedent... heller was decided out of thin air..

I always felt it was Scalia's "f.u." to the incoming democratic president.

What precedent? Loving was about race, not sexuality.

on the other hand my RKBA is explicit in the document.