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.
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.
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...
DOMA banned federal cash and prizes to same sex marriages recognized by the states.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.
So..again, wrong.
Such is the ridiculous right.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*
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.
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.
Wanna bet he says Andrew Napolitano.Name one for us.Justices are not just appointed...they are approved by the Senate......part of our checks and balances. And who do you have in mind as a "better Justice"?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.
Yes, they are appointed. They are not elected. Approval is part of being appointed.
A better Justice to me a strict constructional federalist.
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...
No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
the thread title. "what does it matter that they are "un-elected?"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.
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?
Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal"
not according to the supreme court, the arbiter of such decisions.It's unconstitutionalthe supreme court ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional, so i guess that state or federal legislatures don't have final say over that., 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.
So plessey v fergueson was constitutional? Dredd Scott was constitutional?[/QUO
Dredd Scott was clearly constitutional. It took the 13th and 14th Amendments to reverse it. Slavery was enshrined in the constitution as was the inferiority of blacks.
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.
And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.
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.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
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.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
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.
And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.
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.
And I would have applauded for that decision wholeheartedly.
so you think a constitutional right can be denied in some states?
our system doesn't work that way.
No, it is not. It a relationship recognized in the law. General principles of contract law have no application.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...
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.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
And if you don't believe in God? Can't be married?It's a contract before God, not the State.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...
Big government lovers want State approval of their contract so they can acquire cash and prizes.
The majority on the Court, dufus. The Supreme Court had the authority to review any law that is alleged to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. These laws did. It did not matter that 75% of Kentuckians did not gays to marry any more than it mattered than 75 % of Virginians did not want blacks to marry whites.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.
"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.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.
you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.
that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.
again, you can rail about this but you lose.
The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.
At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?
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.
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...
No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.
feel free to provide a link.
but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.
i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.
there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.
but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.
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.
