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

[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.

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.

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

 

[martybegan]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Nothing.

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?

You replied to sill and me in the same post, i prefer you respond to my opinions only, and not lump me with anyone else.

 

[Arizona Willie]

Just because 4 ultra right wing SC Judges agree with you doesn't make either you or them right.

5 judges disagreed with you and the 4 ultra right wingers.

That's the way this country works.

Majority rules

Don't like it?

I'm sure there is plenty of room for you in Somalia where there is no Supreme Court to stand in the way of your ultra right wing fantasies.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

as a matter of decision, not law. by law its only in the States that passed it legislatively or by proposition. All the other ones are by fiat with no law on the books to back it up.

With every comment, you reveal more ignorance. A supreme court decision settles a question of law. As a matter of law, gay marriage is legal. It is illegal (i.e. against the law) for any state to refuse to allow a gay couple that meet the other requirements of the law (i.e. age, not being married to another) to marry.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And by 'semantics', you mean applying your standard to the actual wording of the constitution? If your standard can't be used with the actual terms of the constitution or in any SPECIFIC instances....then what possible use is it?

Again, I don't think the word 'simple' and 'specific' mean what you think they mean. As the moment we ask you to apply your standard simply and specifically to the actual wording of the constitution....

....we get nothing but excuses why you can't.

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 lets get 'specific' and 'simple'. Where is a 'Bank of the United States' mentioned in the constitution?

You can show us, acknowledge that no such mention exists.....or demonstrate that even you don't believe your own literalist bullshit by running from the question for a 3rd time.

We all know which is coming. But I enjoy making you demonstrate why you're wrong.

 

[paddymurphy]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Nothing.

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?

You replied to sill and me in the same post, i prefer you respond to my opinions only, and not lump me with anyone else.

Oh, it is hard not to lump you in with the other faux con law scholars making asses of themselves here. It is hard to tell you clowns apart.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Who says there is no federal 'right to marry'?

 

[Arizona Willie]

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.

========
For some unknown reason, when 5 members of the Supreme Court agree with ultra right wingers --- then those 4 judges who don't agree are stupid know nothings and don't deserve any attention / importance whatsoever. Majority rules.

But ... when the 5 members of the Supreme Court DO NOT AGREE with the ultra right wingers, then those 5 judges should be immediately removed and only the opinions of those 4 ultra right wing judges should be considered. Minority rules ( they wish ).

 

[Skylar]

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Nothing.

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?

You replied to sill and me in the same post, i prefer you respond to my opinions only, and not lump me with anyone else.

Oh, it is hard not to lump you in with the other faux con law scholars making asses of themselves here. It is hard to tell you clowns apart.

Marty's standard isn't the law. Marty's standard is Marty. His argument requires that Marty define all legal terms, Marty define all legal standards, and that Marty gets to ignore any court ruling that he doesn't like.

If you don't accept all of these conditions, then Marty's argument is meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Skylar]

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.

========
For some unknown reason, when 5 members of the Supreme Court agree with ultra right wingers --- then those 4 judges who don't agree are stupid know nothings and don't deserve any attention / importance whatsoever. Majority rules.

But ... when the 5 members of the Supreme Court DO NOT AGREE with the ultra right wingers, then those 5 judges should be immediately removed and only the opinions of those 4 ultra right wing judges should be considered. Minority rules ( they wish ).

Well you have to understand how the winger's think. Validity is a product of agreement with them. Not a process.

 

[Pop23]

Iowa law restricts only opposite sex family members from marriage

Maryland only restricts those that vaginally penetrate.

Of course prior to Obergfell, neither state allowed any. It was due to Obergfell.

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

Backtracking?

LOL.

As I said-

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Same sex siblings appear legal in iowa, according to:

Iowa Code 595

Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.

Go test that out.

Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.

Kim Davis tried that and ended up in the slammer.

You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.

Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Yeah, actually he has and I'm being completely fair. He tries to argue the libertarian POV, but it's got a religious based anti gay bias.

When you can say all marriage rulings are fine...except Obergefell, because "well those were about men and women", you're operating from an anti gay bias.

 

[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.

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.[/QUOTE]

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.

 

[Skylar]

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

Backtracking?

LOL.

As I said-

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Same sex siblings appear legal in iowa, according to:

Iowa Code 595

Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.

Go test that out.

Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.

Kim Clark tried that and ended up in the slammer.

Who is 'kim clark'?

You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.

Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?

Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.

 

[Pop23]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.

What you call 'semantics' is the specific application of your standards on the actual wording of the constitution. Actual real world application.

And predictably, the moment we get specific.....your standard falls apart. This is why literalism is so hopelessly worthless. It simply doesn't work.

I ask you where the Bank of the United States is authorized, you run. Despite this being central to your interpretation. As the 1st Congress created the Bank of the United States. And there's no mention of it anywhere. Thus, per your understanding, the 1st Congress didn't understand the Constitution.

I've got a much simpler explanation: its just you that doesn't.

Keep running. Your every helpless rout only demonstrates how useless your 'simple and specific' standard is. And how worthless your literalism is. As even you can't make it work.

 

[Pop23]

Clearly you're backtracking.

Previously you said "why haven't these laws changed" faster then those for same sex marriage.

Iowa Code 595

Clearly they changed much faster, actually simultaneously with the legalization of same sex marriage

Another of your fails.

Interesting, these marriages would have to be recognized in all 50 states

Backtracking?

LOL.

As I said-

And if Iowa cares about siblings marrying- Iowa can change Iowa's law.

I don't even know what the hell you mean about Marylands law but you seem obsessed with sex...

Meanwhile- siblings are prevented marrying regardless of fertility in every state in the United States.

But First Cousins in many states are allowed to marry only if they can establish that they cannot procreate together.

Clearly procreation is not the basis for denying siblings from marrying.

And never was.

And Obergefel doesn't change any of that.

Either States had a valid reason before- and still do- or they didn't have a valid reason before- and still don't.

Meanwhile- you can go demand your day in court- for 'justice'

Same sex siblings appear legal in iowa, according to:

Iowa Code 595

Great- so you can go to Iowa and marry your same sex sibling now.

Go test that out.

Of course if Iowa thinks that is improper- it can make its marriage laws gender neutral as many other states do.
If Iowa doesn't care to make it illegal for same sex siblings illegal- well then your beef is with Iowa- not Obergefel.

Kim Clark tried that and ended up in the slammer.

Who is 'kim clark'?

You are of course simply being argumentative. I've shown your failed argument and I continue to get responses from you that can be best described as racist, bigotted and homophobic as you make the same losing arguments that bigots before you made.

Marriage equality be damned, right bigot?

Nah, you're merely trolling. And still can't back any of your claims with more than your own ineptly failed record of prediction. Where nothing you've insisted must happen....actually has.

Oops, Kim Davis

Oh, but I have. Same sex siblings are able to legally marry in both Iowa and Maryland.

Light years ahead of the "gay" marriage crowd.

 

[Skylar]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

And by 'semantics', you mean applying your standard to the actual wording of the constitution? If your standard can't be used with the actual terms of the constitution or in any SPECIFIC instances....then what possible use is it?

Again, I don't think the word 'simple' and 'specific' mean what you think they mean. As the moment we ask you to apply your standard simply and specifically to the actual wording of the constitution....

....we get nothing but excuses why you can't.

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 lets get 'specific' and 'simple'. Where is a 'Bank of the United States' mentioned in the constitution?

You can show us, acknowledge that no such mention exists.....or demonstrate that even you don't believe your own literalist bullshit by running from the question for a 3rd time.

We all know which is coming. But I enjoy making you demonstrate why you're wrong.

What was the purpose of the bank?

 

[Pop23]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

What relevance does 'gay' have with who is eligible to be married?

None, gays were always legally able to marry.

Do you have a point. It was "gays" saying they could not