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

[Syriusly]

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

Gays are getting married in all 50 states. Now, you are obviously free to sit there and wallow in denial and misery because you don't like that fact all you want, but regardless of what you claim, they can and will continue to get married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Who am I to argue with this?

The question I posed weeks ago is this:

What is the States Compelling interest in denying anyone their fundamental right to marriage:

Marriage does not include sexual contact as a qualification

Marriage does not include love, faithfulness, loyalty or any other emotion to qualify to marry.

Since this is a 14th amendment case, citing its equal protection clause, tell me how anyone could be excluded as participants.

Why should we repeat ourselves- since you refuse to accept what anyone says other than yourself?

You have asked- and been answered.

You just don't like the answers.

You failed to present a answer that would hold water. But you go on repeating yourself and thinking you have anything to offer

I quoted a judge- who stated very clearly the reasons she found bans on incest and polygamy different than the bans on same gender marriage.

You reject what judges say- you reject what anyone else here has said- you have brought up the same issue in thread after thread

By the evidence we do have- you are not likely to ever accept anything other than what you already believe.

 

[Syriusly]

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

No- you aren't 'seeking'- seeking would imply a willingness to find something.

And all you find is that what you allow yourself to find.

I seek justice for all.

Simple as that.

BS.

You seek to discriminate against same gender couples.

As you have said- you are against same gender couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

You don't seek 'justice'- you seek discrimination.

You want to prove me otherwise- file that lawsuit seeking justice.

But you won't do that- because you don't want 'justice'- you want discrimination.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

Gays are getting married in all 50 states. Now, you are obviously free to sit there and wallow in denial and misery because you don't like that fact all you want, but regardless of what you claim, they can and will continue to get married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Who am I to argue with this?

The question I posed weeks ago is this:

What is the States Compelling interest in denying anyone their fundamental right to marriage:

Marriage does not include sexual contact as a qualification

Marriage does not include love, faithfulness, loyalty or any other emotion to qualify to marry.

Since this is a 14th amendment case, citing its equal protection clause, tell me how anyone could be excluded as participants.

Why should we repeat ourselves- since you refuse to accept what anyone says other than yourself?

You have asked- and been answered.

You just don't like the answers.

You failed to present a answer that would hold water. But you go on repeating yourself and thinking you have anything to offer

I quoted a judge- who stated very clearly the reasons she found bans on incest and polygamy different than the bans on same gender marriage.

You reject what judges say- you reject what anyone else here has said- you have brought up the same issue in thread after thread

By the evidence we do have- you are not likely to ever accept anything other than what you already believe.

And I requested what the societal safety net she spoke of was.

You had no answer, you just got emotional and went off on one of your famous tangents.

Now, care to explain what that societal safety net is when the Obergfell decision was based on the 14th amendments equal protection clause that guarentees due process.

How this "safety net" can exist with a law that creates a partnership that does not require sexual contact at all?

I expect further deflection from you, but hey, you might surprise everyone.

 

[Pop23]

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

No- you aren't 'seeking'- seeking would imply a willingness to find something.

And all you find is that what you allow yourself to find.

I seek justice for all.

Simple as that.

BS.

You seek to discriminate against same gender couples.

As you have said- you are against same gender couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

You don't seek 'justice'- you seek discrimination.

You want to prove me otherwise- file that lawsuit seeking justice.

But you won't do that- because you don't want 'justice'- you want discrimination.

We will need to see a cite showing where I've ever said I don't want races to marry.

Can you do that?

 

[bodecea]

Reality disagrees with you

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

I'm sure you are.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, there are only marriage laws. No gay marriage law exists in any state in the unioun.

If I am in error, just cite it.

That is reality.

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

I'm sure you are.

Absolutely I am

 

[OKTexas]

Really, you got a link to those statements?

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia: Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

And?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, LMAO

So, the one blow job you gave your roommate in college made you gay forever?

There ya go, assuming facts not in evidence. You'd make a really bad lawyer.

I am, in fact, an excellent lawyer. And I am permitted to ask a question like that on cross examination. Interesting that you have not denied it and, in fact, referred to it as a fact, just not one in evidence yet.

No you would make a lousy lawyer, a decent lawyer would know you can only cover the subjects discussed in a direct examination, in a cross examination. OOPS YOU FAIL AGAIN! Where exactly did I say I ever had a roommate or even went to college for that matter? Like I said, you assumed facts not in evidence.

Cross examination is not limited to what was testified to on direct. You may cross examin to impeach.

Impeach what? There's nothing to impeach if the testimony hasn't been given. You fail again.

 

[jillian]

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.

what does it matter that they are "un-elected?"
what does it matter that they were lawyers - and are now supreme court jurists?

and their dissent does not mean they believe the decision to be "illegal," it just means they think it's wrong

Who said anything about it being illegal? It's unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to faze progressives when they go after something they want.

What it means that unless something is clearly unconstitutional, the State or federal legislatures have final say over laws.

hint... if the court says it's constitutional it is, by definition, constitutional.

you people need to stop

Only in your diseased mind is "Constitutional" defined as "whatever we can get five Justices to make up".

YOU people need to stop.

What was "made up"? You realize that all Supreme Court decisions have to be explained with the solid Constitutional basis explained. That's one reason why their Rulings are so darn long. They don't just "make stuff up".

well, to the braindead it might seem so.

that or she's applying scale's method.

 

[bodecea]

You are right...gay marriage laws do not exist in any state in the unioun [sic]. Just marriage laws.

I'm not sure why that's even debateable

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

I'm sure you are.

Absolutely I am

Of that I have no doubt.

 

[jillian]

So, the one blow job you gave your roommate in college made you gay forever?

There ya go, assuming facts not in evidence. You'd make a really bad lawyer.

I am, in fact, an excellent lawyer. And I am permitted to ask a question like that on cross examination. Interesting that you have not denied it and, in fact, referred to it as a fact, just not one in evidence yet.

No you would make a lousy lawyer, a decent lawyer would know you can only cover the subjects discussed in a direct examination, in a cross examination. OOPS YOU FAIL AGAIN! Where exactly did I say I ever had a roommate or even went to college for that matter? Like I said, you assumed facts not in evidence.

Cross examination is not limited to what was testified to on direct. You may cross examin to impeach.

Impeach what? There's nothing to impeach if the testimony hasn't been given. You fail again.

he's taking about cross-examination. that would mean there has already been testimony.

 

[jillian]

So much Butt hurt by Conservatives in this thread.

They still fear that someone will force them to marry a gay person.

No what we fear is a tyrannical government forcing the acceptance of a dirty disgusting life style.

except when it tells people what to do with their bodies and who to love.

what a bunch of BS.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays are getting married in all 50 states. Now, you are obviously free to sit there and wallow in denial and misery because you don't like that fact all you want, but regardless of what you claim, they can and will continue to get married and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Who am I to argue with this?

The question I posed weeks ago is this:

What is the States Compelling interest in denying anyone their fundamental right to marriage:

Marriage does not include sexual contact as a qualification

Marriage does not include love, faithfulness, loyalty or any other emotion to qualify to marry.

Since this is a 14th amendment case, citing its equal protection clause, tell me how anyone could be excluded as participants.

Why should we repeat ourselves- since you refuse to accept what anyone says other than yourself?

You have asked- and been answered.

You just don't like the answers.

You failed to present a answer that would hold water. But you go on repeating yourself and thinking you have anything to offer

I quoted a judge- who stated very clearly the reasons she found bans on incest and polygamy different than the bans on same gender marriage.

You reject what judges say- you reject what anyone else here has said- you have brought up the same issue in thread after thread

By the evidence we do have- you are not likely to ever accept anything other than what you already believe.

And I requested what the societal safety net she spoke of was.

You had no answer, you just got emotional and went off on one of your famous tangents.

Now, care to explain what that societal safety net is when the Obergfell decision was based on the 14th amendments equal protection clause that guarentees due process.

How this "safety net" can exist with a law that creates a partnership that does not require sexual contact at all?

I expect further deflection from you, but hey, you might surprise everyone.

Well feel free to ask her what that societal safety net is.

I have provided her answer- you don't accept it.

Nor do you accept any answer that is different from your own conviction.

 

[Syriusly]

Now it isn't. Might want to look at the OP with puzzlement on your face.

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

No- you aren't 'seeking'- seeking would imply a willingness to find something.

And all you find is that what you allow yourself to find.

I seek justice for all.

Simple as that.

BS.

You seek to discriminate against same gender couples.

As you have said- you are against same gender couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

You don't seek 'justice'- you seek discrimination.

You want to prove me otherwise- file that lawsuit seeking justice.

But you won't do that- because you don't want 'justice'- you want discrimination.

We will need to see a cite showing where I've ever said I don't want races to marry.

Can you do that?

Yes I can.

Do I care to go search for it because you ask for it.

Naah.

 

[bodecea]

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

And?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

Oh...why was she not authorized to do it?

 

[Syriusly]

Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In other words, Scalia just didn't give a crap about gay rights or their privacy that was being violated.

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

And?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

Why wasn't isn't she authorized? She is a judge.

Sometimes it better to look at the actual law...

Maryland Revised Statutes §2–406.
(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:
(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;
(ii) any clerk;
(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or
(iv) a judge.

GAM-Article - Family Law, Section 2-406

 

[OKTexas]

There ya go, assuming facts not in evidence. You'd make a really bad lawyer.

I am, in fact, an excellent lawyer. And I am permitted to ask a question like that on cross examination. Interesting that you have not denied it and, in fact, referred to it as a fact, just not one in evidence yet.

No you would make a lousy lawyer, a decent lawyer would know you can only cover the subjects discussed in a direct examination, in a cross examination. OOPS YOU FAIL AGAIN! Where exactly did I say I ever had a roommate or even went to college for that matter? Like I said, you assumed facts not in evidence.

Cross examination is not limited to what was testified to on direct. You may cross examin to impeach.

Impeach what? There's nothing to impeach if the testimony hasn't been given. You fail again.

he's taking about cross-examination. that would mean there has already been testimony.

No testimony was given on the subject of the inquiry. Do try to keep up.

 

[OKTexas]

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

And?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

Oh...why was she not authorized to do it?

Read the damn link.

 

[OKTexas]

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

And?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

Why wasn't isn't she authorized? She is a judge.

Sometimes it better to look at the actual law...

Maryland Revised Statutes §2–406.
(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:
(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;
(ii) any clerk;
(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or
(iv) a judge.

GAM-Article - Family Law, Section 2-406

From your link:

(a) (1) In this subsection, “judge” means:
(i) a judge of the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;
(ii) a judge approved under Article IV, § 3A of the Maryland Constitution and § 1–302 of the Courts Article for recall and assignment to the District Court, a circuit court, the Court of Special Appeals, or the Court of Appeals;
(iii) a judge of a United States District Court, a United States Court of Appeals, or the United States Tax Court; or
(iv) a judge of a state court if the judge is active or retired but eligible for recall.

I don't see that a Supreme Court Justice qualifies in their definition, do you?

 

[bodecea]

So you read judicial opinions as personal opinions, really?

So something that done as part of the official duties of a judge cannot be a basis for recusal? Like, for example, presiding over a lawful marriage ceremony.

Were they lawful? A judge only performs civil marriages, right?

Civil Marriages: Maryland no longer employs Justices of the Peace to perform civil ceremonies. Instead, Only a Clerk of the Circuit Court or an appointed, designated Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court may perform civil ceremonies. The hours, location and fees for a civil ceremony vary from county to county. Visit the circuit courts website to locate the Clerk of the Circuit Court in your county.

Maryland Marriage License Laws > MD Wedding Officiants

In DC a judge is good to go.

And?

Looks like Stotomayor officiated a sham marriage, according to the MD link, she wasn't authorized by the state to do it.

Why wasn't isn't she authorized? She is a judge.

Sometimes it better to look at the actual law...

Maryland Revised Statutes §2–406.
(2) A marriage ceremony may be performed in this State by:
(i) any official of a religious order or body authorized by the rules and customs of that order or body to perform a marriage ceremony;
(ii) any clerk;
(iii) any deputy clerk designated by the county administrative judge of the circuit court for the county; or
(iv) a judge.

GAM-Article - Family Law, Section 2-406

Maybe you should look too:

State Marriage Laws