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

[martybegan]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Loving applied to marriage.

There have been 4 cases now in which the Supreme Court overturned State marriage laws or regulations as being unconstitutional
Loving- overturned bans on mixed race marriages.
Zablocki- overturned bans on marriage for owing child support
Turner(?)- overturned state prison regulations which prohibited prisoners from marrying
Obergefel- overturned state bans on same gender marriage.

All of them based upon Americans right to marriage- and the 14th Amendment.

Loving applied to marriage as it was defined at the time, same as all the other decisions except Obergefel.

Not in the state of Virginia. Virginia didn't include marriage as including interracial couples. In fact, interracial sex was a felony. So much so that the police that raided Richard and Mildred's home to arrest them did so in the middle of the night.....in hopes of catching the couple engaging in coitus. Where they could have charged them with interracial marriage AND interracial sex.

 

[Skylar]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

 

[martybegan]

Loving held that in the example of race, not sexuality, and the reason is that marriage contracts have NEVER considered the concept of people of the same sex marrying. They have always allowed opposite sex people to marry each other, with things like race, divorce, age, familial relations being changed and changed back based on the morals and whims of the time. Such a major change as allowing something so different is not for a court to impose on people, but for the people to decide to allow it. What the courts CAN do is force one State government to accept the decision of another State government, and force the feds to treat all Marriage licenses legally issued as equal.

I have more faith in the ability of individuals to decide who to marry. You seem to think the government knows better. That is where we differ.

And you have the opposite view when it comes to my right to own a firearm, or for a baker to not be compelled to bake a cake they don't want. Evidently government force is A-OK as long as it's government force you like.

Don't tell me what I believe, dickhead. You do have the right to own a firearm. I never said you didn't. Though, since I know nothing about your criminal history or history of mental illness or abusive behavior towards women, that right may have been lost. I do support laws that ban discrimination in public accommodations. You, apparently, think that discrimination is fine. Some b and b owner does not like Jews, you would allow them to not rent to them. They don't like blacks, they need to have the freedom to discriminate. I think society has the right to restrict conduct that is harmful to society. Discrimination is harmful

So you think the NYC law that requires me to spend $3,000, 6 months and provide a reason to NYPD to get a CCW is wrong? I have no criminal record or history of mental illness.

I support laws that ban discrimination in true public accommodations, especially ones that provide timely or life necessary services. I also think government has an interest in preventing systemic discrimination is all types of transactions. What I don't support is using said laws in limited specific cases. Let the market handle that, and in this day and age, it will.

I have not offered any opinion on New York's law. If I ever have the interest in reading about it, I will form an opinion. Your distinction between systemic discrimination and limited specific cases is idiotic. You would ban discrimination but not if it only happens occasionally, in limited cases? So, as long as only one hotel in town is discriminating, that is OK. If the others join in, then you have a problem? Anti discrimination laws work because they apply to everyone providing a public accommodation or service. Limiting it to "essential services" makes no sense. Is someone's job at a plant "essential"? Maybe not to society, but it certainly is the employee. You think it is perfectly ok if every business in a community, all the restaurants, banks, bakeries, florists, stores etc. discriminate, but not if the hospital does or the funeral director? Again you cannot have PA laws that only apply to "essential services" as that would allow continued discrimination. Discrimination is damaging to society. It creates barriers and resentment. How can it be good to allow some businesses; businesses that benefit from the orderly society that government has created, to deny service to some people based on race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation? Why should a business be afforded the protections of our laws and still be permitted to deny services to people based on their own bigotry?

So keep ignoring the question because you don't like the answer you want to give. And hotels would be restricted in general when it comes to offering rooms due to timeliness factors, however the same hotel should be able to say it doesn't want to host a Same sex wedding.

and you don't think ruining a person over a wedding cake creates resentment? Oh sorry, since it screws over people you don't like, their resentment doesn't matter.

The issue to me boils down to where is the harm,and should the government get involved. If a whole town denies gays services then you have actual harm, and the government has to intervene, if its only one freaking baker, the use of government to fine them $138k and run them out of business serves no compelling interest except to please the people that feel they should be destroyed, ruined, and removed from society.

Freedom is messy, autocracy is clean, and you evidently like clean when it suits you.

 

[Skylar]

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And 'to me' isn't a constitutional standard of rights. I just looked. You're not mentioned anywhere.

The 14th amendment, specifically the due process clause and equal protection clause do mandate that the state issue marriage certificates to same sex couples just like they do opposite sex couples.

You disagree. So?

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And again, your standards of distinction aren't legal ones. They are ones of personal opinion. And they don't define the validity of any ruling. As your judgement, your personal legal standards, your legal definitions, your acceptance or rejection of any given ruling....

.....is meaningless to the actual validity of a ruling, any legal definition, any legal standard.

If you're going to make a legal argument, you'll need to cite legal evidence. If you're going to cite yourself, your battle is with relevance.

 

[martybegan]

because the side that wants the courts to decide it talk in terms like, love, and not impacting others, and other intangible concepts, all of which can be exactly applied to plural marriage, and other examples. You note I don't go the whole bestiality path, because that one is just stupid.

You know that's funny because that's what people were saying about "gay marriage" in the 1980s when the gay manifesto was published from Michael Swift. 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Give it a generation or two of "anything goes" from the LGBT cult. You may be surprised. Legal precedent is legal precedent and that lady wears a blindfold for a reason... An unstoppable unreflective momentum, given time, can accomplish anything its whims conjure up..

I read that thing, and to me, its pure satire.

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, it's hilarious how about 90% of it has manifested in reality in less than 30 years. Imagine where the church of LGBT will take us as a society in 30 more? That should be a real side-splitter.

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.

Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?

You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And 'to me' isn't a constitutional standard of rights. I just looked. You're not mentioned anywhere.

The 14th amendment, specifically the due process clause and equal protection clause do mandate that the state issue marriage certificates to same sex couples just like they do opposite sex couples.

You disagree. So?

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And again, your standards of distinction aren't legal ones. They are ones of personal opinion. And they don't define the validity of any ruling. As your judgement, your personal legal standards, your legal definitions, your acceptance or rejection of any given ruling....

.....is meaningless to the actual validity of a ruling, any legal definition, any legal standard.

If you're going to make a legal argument, you'll need to cite legal evidence. If you're going to cite yourself, your battle is with relevance.

Considering the supreme court can make shit up, I refuse to be held to a higher standard. They can quote things till they are blue in the face, it doesn't turn bullshit into truth any more than alchemists thought they could turn lead into gold.

 

[martybegan]

it's still satire, and only slightly better than quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (because that wasn't satire, it was a designed fraud).

Using bad sources for your arguments make them weaker.

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.

Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?

You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

 

[paddymurphy]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Nothing.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And to the majority of Supreme Court Justices and 75% of the other Federal and States Judges who addressed this issue, there is something in the constitution that requires that states apply their marriage laws equally to gay couples and that requires states not deny to citizens the fundamental right to liberty.

 

[paddymurphy]

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And 'to me' isn't a constitutional standard of rights. I just looked. You're not mentioned anywhere.

The 14th amendment, specifically the due process clause and equal protection clause do mandate that the state issue marriage certificates to same sex couples just like they do opposite sex couples.

You disagree. So?

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And again, your standards of distinction aren't legal ones. They are ones of personal opinion. And they don't define the validity of any ruling. As your judgement, your personal legal standards, your legal definitions, your acceptance or rejection of any given ruling....

.....is meaningless to the actual validity of a ruling, any legal definition, any legal standard.

If you're going to make a legal argument, you'll need to cite legal evidence. If you're going to cite yourself, your battle is with relevance.

Considering the supreme court can make shit up, I refuse to be held to a higher standard. They can quote things till they are blue in the face, it doesn't turn bullshit into truth any more than alchemists thought they could turn lead into gold.

They did not make shit up. They applied the plain language of the Constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.

Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?

You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

Your personal opinions are not of interest to anyone. What matters is that, as a matter of law and fact, gay couples can be, and are, married. In every state.

 

[OKTexas]

It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments.

So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.

And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.

And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?

Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

 

[Skylar]

You may not be familiar with Silhouette.

Silhouette abuses sources- she cites them- and then lies about what the sources say.

She has done this repeatedly with something she calls the Prince's Trust Study, and another that she calls a "Mayo Clinic" study- in both cases she cites them- and then blatently lies about what the studies are- and what they say.

The "Mayo Clinic" study is in actuality as paper by Dr. Hall and Dr. Hall- that was originally printed in the Mayo Proceedings- and that she claims shows that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest. The actual paper specifically says that the paper does not say that homosexuals have a higher likelihood to molest.

Silhouette misrepresents, misquotes, and lies all to further her anti-gay jihad.

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.

Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?

You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.

 

[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.

Loving applied to marriage.

There have been 4 cases now in which the Supreme Court overturned State marriage laws or regulations as being unconstitutional
Loving- overturned bans on mixed race marriages.
Zablocki- overturned bans on marriage for owing child support
Turner(?)- overturned state prison regulations which prohibited prisoners from marrying
Obergefel- overturned state bans on same gender marriage.

All of them based upon Americans right to marriage- and the 14th Amendment.

Loving applied to marriage as it was defined at the time, same as all the other decisions except Obergefel.

Not in the state of Virginia. Virginia didn't include marriage as including interracial couples. In fact, interracial sex was a felony. So much so that the police that raided Richard and Mildred's home to arrest them did so in the middle of the night.....in hopes of catching the couple engaging in coitus. Where they could have charged them with interracial marriage AND interracial sex.

back to 1691, actually one of the oldest laws in the books. However, as I have stated, race and sexuality are not the same thing.Race is a cosmetic difference, nothing more. Sex is much more of a difference, and wasn't even considered back then, or more recently when loving was decided.

 

[martybegan]

Then call her out on it, just as others (and I assume you) do when it comes to her positions.

Its already been done dozens of times. Sil merely repeats the same lies hoping to find....

....well, people like you. Those ignorant of the lies whom she can convince by reciting them.

She hasn't convinced me of anything. Again, there is no malice in my position except toward those who would restrict freedoms over nothing more than hurt feelings, and a hatred of the positions of others.

Restrict freedoms.....like the right to marry, as you insist should still be restricted?

You're confusing powers and rights. They aren't the same thing.

They can marry all they want, just like those nutter mormons do, the real question is of the State recognizing it. To me there is no right to SSM unless you can convince the State in question to change its law.

And I get that 'to you' there is no right to SSM unless the state grants permission. But the rights of federal citizens aren't dependant on the authorization of the state. And 'to you' isn't a legal standard. Its one of meaningless opinion that has no relevance to any law, ruling, or the outcome of any case.

There is no federal right to marriage, but there is one to firearms, so why can't I get a CCW in NYC?

 

[martybegan]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Nothing.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And to the majority of Supreme Court Justices and 75% of the other Federal and States Judges who addressed this issue, there is something in the constitution that requires that states apply their marriage laws equally to gay couples and that requires states not deny to citizens the fundamental right to liberty.

Screw those judges.

and stop being lazy, and respond to my posts individually.

 

[martybegan]

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And 'to me' isn't a constitutional standard of rights. I just looked. You're not mentioned anywhere.

The 14th amendment, specifically the due process clause and equal protection clause do mandate that the state issue marriage certificates to same sex couples just like they do opposite sex couples.

You disagree. So?

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And again, your standards of distinction aren't legal ones. They are ones of personal opinion. And they don't define the validity of any ruling. As your judgement, your personal legal standards, your legal definitions, your acceptance or rejection of any given ruling....

.....is meaningless to the actual validity of a ruling, any legal definition, any legal standard.

If you're going to make a legal argument, you'll need to cite legal evidence. If you're going to cite yourself, your battle is with relevance.

Considering the supreme court can make shit up, I refuse to be held to a higher standard. They can quote things till they are blue in the face, it doesn't turn bullshit into truth any more than alchemists thought they could turn lead into gold.

They did not make shit up. They applied the plain language of the Constitution.

They made shit up, just like they did in Roe V Wade, and plessey vs. fergueson.

 

[paddymurphy]

It's really simple, if you can't find it specifically mentioned in the Constitution, see the 9th and 10th amendments.

So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.

And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.

And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?

Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.

[/QUOTE]

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.[/QUOTE]
You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

 

[paddymurphy]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Nothing.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

So- you object to the Supreme Court deciding on State marriage laws- some of the time- specifically only this time.

But you rationalize why it was okay every other time.

Obergefel created no new situation- same gender couples have been marrying in the United States for 11 or 12 years. Obergefel recognized the rights of those couples just as Loving recognized the rights of the Lovings.

It forced onto other States a condition the other States did not want. To me there is nothing in the Constitution that forces the other States to issue SSM licenses, just to recognize ones from other States.

And again, OSM and SSM aren't the same thing unless the laws are changed by the States to recognize it as such, because it is such a notable difference, unlike race.

And to the majority of Supreme Court Justices and 75% of the other Federal and States Judges who addressed this issue, there is something in the constitution that requires that states apply their marriage laws equally to gay couples and that requires states not deny to citizens the fundamental right to liberty.

Screw those judges.

and stop being lazy, and respond to my posts individually.

Individually? What the fuck are you whining about now?