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

[martybegan]

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

 

[martybegan]

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

So that's why Obergefell came about....or else the Supreme Court would have just said..."look at Loving, guys". Duh.

Yet you guys use it as a basis. can't have it both ways.

 

[mdk]

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Sea, I think are being a bit unfair. Marty has never once expressed, at least to my knowledge, an animus towards gay people. He has stated on numerous occasions that he would be fine with SSMs so long as they went through the referendum or legislative processes and that is the basis for his disapproval of the ruling. I staunchly disagree with him on that point but his rationale is not rooted in some deep-seeded mistrust or hatred, Silhouette on the other hand, fits that description to a tee. lol.

 

[bodecea]

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

 

[bodecea]

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

So that's why Obergefell came about....or else the Supreme Court would have just said..."look at Loving, guys". Duh.

Yet you guys use it as a basis. can't have it both ways.

Sure you can....The Loving decision is a precedent that leads to Obergefell....A Precedent does not mean "the same thing". Pretty much obvious.

 

[martybegan]

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Sea, I think are being a bit unfair. Marty has never once expressed, at least to my knowledge, an animus towards gay people. He has stated on numerous occasions that he would be fine with SSMs so long as they went through the referendum or legislative processes and that is the basis for his disapproval of the ruling. I staunchly disagree with him on that point but his rationale is not rooted in some deep-seeded mistrust or hatred, Silhouette on the other hand, fits that description to a tee. lol.

The only thing you can use against me is I do use the "OP is a fag" thing when replying to troll posts, but I would never use the word in person when referring to an actual gay person for being gay, just for a troll being a fag. (South park logic FTW).

 

[martybegan]

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

Why do people need to find some excuse when other people disagree with them? What happened to just disagreeing and not having to resort to the other person being stupid/evil/sheeple or any combination thereof?

 

[martybegan]

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

So that's why Obergefell came about....or else the Supreme Court would have just said..."look at Loving, guys". Duh.

Yet you guys use it as a basis. can't have it both ways.

Sure you can....The Loving decision is a precedent that leads to Obergefell....A Precedent does not mean "the same thing". Pretty much obvious.

The concepts being determined in those cases are not remotely equivalent, as I have implied previously.

 

[mdk]

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Sea, I think are being a bit unfair. Marty has never once expressed, at least to my knowledge, an animus towards gay people. He has stated on numerous occasions that he would be fine with SSMs so long as they went through the referendum or legislative processes and that is the basis for his disapproval of the ruling. I staunchly disagree with him on that point but his rationale is not rooted in some deep-seeded mistrust or hatred, Silhouette on the other hand, fits that description to a tee. lol.

The only thing you can use against me is I do use the "OP is a fag" thing when replying to troll posts, but I would never use the word in person when referring to an actual gay person for being gay, just for a troll being a fag. (South park logic FTW).

Christ, that can be used against me as well and I don't believe anyone could accuse me of an animus towards gays. lol

 

[martybegan]

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Sea, I think are being a bit unfair. Marty has never once expressed, at least to my knowledge, an animus towards gay people. He has stated on numerous occasions that he would be fine with SSMs so long as they went through the referendum or legislative processes and that is the basis for his disapproval of the ruling. I staunchly disagree with him on that point but his rationale is not rooted in some deep-seeded mistrust or hatred, Silhouette on the other hand, fits that description to a tee. lol.

The only thing you can use against me is I do use the "OP is a fag" thing when replying to troll posts, but I would never use the word in person when referring to an actual gay person for being gay, just for a troll being a fag. (South park logic FTW).

Christ, that can be used against me as well and I don't believe anyone could accuse me of an animus towards gays. lol

In our current victim based society, I am not surprised by anything.

 

[paddymurphy]

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

 

[paddymurphy]

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

I guess your like Ben Carson; Brilliant in one discipline and a fucking moron is others. You trying to lecture me on the law would be like me trying to lecture you on chemical engineering. I do not have the arrogance that you have that allows you to presume to be an expert in a field you have no education in and have never applied in the real world. Stick to your field. When you venture into mine you make an ass of yourself.

 

[bodecea]

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

Why do people need to find some excuse when other people disagree with them? What happened to just disagreeing and not having to resort to the other person being stupid/evil/sheeple or any combination thereof?

Wait a minute....who said "I guarantee I am far smarter than you are"?

 

[paddymurphy]

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

 

[martybegan]

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

Why do people need to find some excuse when other people disagree with them? What happened to just disagreeing and not having to resort to the other person being stupid/evil/sheeple or any combination thereof?

Wait a minute....who said "I guarantee I am far smarter than you are"?

It was in response to him calling me an idiot, not as a retort to his position on a given topic.

 

[paddymurphy]

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

You read it incorrectly. The numerous justices, in about half a dozen cases, who have found that the right to choose who you marry is a fundamental liberty right got it correct. How can you defend granting the government the power to decide who you can marry?

They already can, when it comes to polygamy, incest, age, and parental consent. Your issue isn't with government deciding, it's with where to draw the line. My issue is with who gets to draw the line in this specific case.

Yes, it is where to draw the line. It is drawn where there is a compelling governmental interest. Like, for example, not allowing children to wed. Not allowing plural marriages. Not permitting people who are already related according to the law to create another legal relationship. You cannot provide a rational reason why two consenting gay adults should not be permitted to marry.

 

[martybegan]

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

Again, its because those other changes were incremental, and SSM is a much greater change due to the fact that it was not even considered as a concept until 30-40 years ago.

So, how many millions of Americans have to have their rights denied until it is TIME to recognize what you seem to recognize, that there is no good reason to prevent gay people from marrying?

Again, it's not a federal right, and considering the magnitude of the change, it's up to the people via legislative action to decide.

 

[Pop23]

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

nah... you've already proven you have zero understanding and your "views" are governed by your bigotry.

but it's actually "equal protection", not due process. and it doesn't say the government can't regulate. it says there has to be a good reason for the limitation.

now run along wackadoodle.

You could attempt an adult conversation, but that would mean you would need to be an adult I guess.

1. The states of Iowa and Maryland both allow same sex family members to marry. Maryland requires vaginal penetration as the basis of incest, so same sex male family members to Marry

Here is the iowa statute, find the excluded pairs, all opposit sex:

Iowa Code 595

2. These marriages must be recognized in all 50 States

3. No state requires sex as a requirement of a valid marriage.

So tell me the societal harm (which is far different than individual harm) that gives the State the right to deny same sex siblings the right to marry? And because the right to marry was declared a fundamental right, the States compelling interest to do so.

And Icky or tradition has already been rejected by the courts.

It would not be equal application of the law to only allow same sexed siblings to marry.

I really think you should try though since you seem to think you've got a case. We're all behind you 100%.

Go for it...but you're all talk. You're nothing but a bloviating bigot using the same tired arguments the racist bigots used.

Who said it, Pops or R.D. McIlwaine III?


“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)

Darn SeaWytch doesn't know how to read.

Both iowa and Maryland already allow it. It's already legal.

Now for your equal protection nonsense.

Equal protection must be on the basis that excluding all from due process protects all from a great societal harm. Prior to Obergfell it worked as only male/ female pairs could Marry. Now we've include male/male and female/female, neither of which can cause that great societal harm.

If you think there is, make your case. Remember, sex is not a requirement in marriage.

Why do you hate the equality you brought to the country.

Reread your quotes, those appear to be from you.

Whatever you say R.D. McIlwaine the 3rd. I thought for sure you'd gone beyond the veil by now. Oh, it's not him, it's just Pops using the same bigoted rhetoric as the guy who argued against interracial marriage? Silly me.

Silly Seawytch, get your head out of your twat and understand this.......

I am now the progressive arguing for marriage equality and you are.......

The bigot arguing in the same manner that kept blacks and gays from marriage equality.

Geez

 

[paddymurphy]

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

Uh huh.......

Why do people need to find some excuse when other people disagree with them? What happened to just disagreeing and not having to resort to the other person being stupid/evil/sheeple or any combination thereof?

You presume to discuss topics that you know very little about. Your comments on the constitution reveal a poor understanding of that document and the 200+ years of supreme court jurisprudence that has applied it.