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

[Faun]

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.

And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.

You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

The marriage law is invalid in iowa?

Damn, you got a whole lotta pissed of brides then, cuz they thought they had s valid license!

I'll let you handle them!

Has it passed? Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009. Obergfell was in 2015

What compelling state interest will the state use to deny same sex siblings their constitutionally protected rights that were in place for six years.

Wake me up when it does.

Did I say it's law yet? Why, no, no I didn't. But it is on the docket to be voted on and is clearly the intent of Iowa to not allow any siblings from marrying. Which was the intent of the law as originally written before same-sex marriage was allowed.

 

[Silhouette]

595.19 Void marriages.

1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

But why? Exactly?

 

[Synthaholic]

Why is Silhouette obsessing over 4 unelected lawyers?

 

[Arianrhod]

595.19 Void marriages.

1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

But why? Exactly?

Autosomal recessive disorders.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why is Silhouette obsessing over 4 unelected lawyers?

He/she/it has an unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans.

 

[Pop23]

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

The marriage law is invalid in iowa?

Damn, you got a whole lotta pissed of brides then, cuz they thought they had s valid license!

I'll let you handle them!

Has it passed? Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009. Obergfell was in 2015

What compelling state interest will the state use to deny same sex siblings their constitutionally protected rights that were in place for six years.

Wake me up when it does.

Did I say it's law yet? Why, no, no I didn't. But it is on the docket to be voted on and is clearly the intent of Iowa to not allow any siblings from marrying. Which was the intent of the law as originally written before same-sex marriage was allowed.

Oh, I see

You were gleeful over something that proves I was right all along.

Got it

Interesting really, if it does pass, I win again because I oppose family marriage. But it doesn't answer the question.

What is the States Compelling Intetest in denying same sex siblings from their fundimental right?

I guess it could be argued that the change you posted is no different then the legislative bodies tried to limit access to only opposite sex couples. Is this Iowans new attempt at a DOMA style law?

We saw how that works when a state breaks the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and due process.

 

[Pop23]

595.19 Void marriages.

1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

But why? Exactly?

Yeah, it's weird, now they WANT to exclude pairs that can't procreate?

Damn, make up your minds already!

 

[paddymurphy]

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

You can prove ethnicity by DNA but you cannot defend a discrimination claim by proving that a persons DNA proves that they are not of the ethnicity you intended to discriminate against.

That wouldn't be the point. You can not discriminate based on ethnicity. And the point is not WHAT ethnicity, simply that you are ethnic.

If you claim you were discriminated because of a specific ethnicity, then yes you may have to provide the evidence that you are that

So, how long have you been a lawyer?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show us the evidence that siblings have married in Iowa and Maryland. Proof of any actual marriages of siblings.

And of course, your argument is that SSM recognition would lead to sibling marriage. But the laws you're claiming to quote predate the SSM ruling by years.

You....you realize that cause precedes effect, right? It doesn't follow it by years.

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

The marriage law is invalid in iowa?

Damn, you got a whole lotta pissed of brides then, cuz they thought they had s valid license!

I'll let you handle them!

Has it passed? Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009. Obergfell was in 2015

What compelling state interest will the state use to deny same sex siblings their constitutionally protected rights that were in place for six years.

Wake me up when it does.

Sibling couples had the same argument before same sex marriage won in court that they have now.

The point you think you have does not exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

You can prove ethnicity by DNA but you cannot defend a discrimination claim by proving that a persons DNA proves that they are not of the ethnicity you intended to discriminate against.

That wouldn't be the point. You can not discriminate based on ethnicity. And the point is not WHAT ethnicity, simply that you are ethnic.

If you claim you were discriminated because of a specific ethnicity, then yes you may have to provide the evidence that you are that

So, how long have you been a lawyer?

Ever since the outhouse became vacant.

 

[Pop23]

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

Yet the discrimination at all is the illegal part, perceived or not.

You were being fired because one though you were disabled is enough. The law on ethnicity or national origin is simply you can't discriminate against ANY. And yes I can prove your ethnicity through DNA, birth records, school records and alike.

And I can test for disability.

You can prove ethnicity by DNA but you cannot defend a discrimination claim by proving that a persons DNA proves that they are not of the ethnicity you intended to discriminate against.

That wouldn't be the point. You can not discriminate based on ethnicity. And the point is not WHAT ethnicity, simply that you are ethnic.

If you claim you were discriminated because of a specific ethnicity, then yes you may have to provide the evidence that you are that

So, how long have you been a lawyer?

Nah, not a lawyer, so for whatever reason you need legal representation, you'll have to look elsewhere

But I am flattered nonetheless

 

[Pop23]

Why would someone doing something legal be newsworthy?

Why would it have to be 'newsworthy' for you to have evidence? Marriages are a matter of public record.

If you have no evidence of any sibling marriage in Iowa or Maryland....just admit it.

Go search the records, I don't care how you waste your time. All I had to do is prove its legality.

Iowa Code 595

AND BOOM! I just did troll

Poor, demented, perv.

So your proof that same-sex siblings can marry rests upon a state whose marriage laws have been invalidated by Obergefell because they haven't updated their marriage laws yet?

Imbecile, that law did not specifically list same-sex marriages which would be void because no marriage was allowed between two people of the same gender. So it wasn't necessary for the law to invalidate a marriage between two brothers or two sisters, for example, since section 1 didn't allow them to marry regardless of what their relationship was.

But here's the best part .... the law is being rewritten which will accommodate the Supreme Court ruling. Here's one bill already submitted...

HF253

An Act relating to eligible parties to a valid marriage.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 595.2, Code 2015, is amended to read as follows:
595.2 Gender == age Eligible parties to a marriage == age.
Only a marriage between a male and a female is valid
A party who otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter for a valid marriage is eligible to marry any other such party regardless of gender.

[...]

595.19 Void marriages.
1. Marriages between the following persons who are related by blood are void:
a. Between a man and his father's sister, mother's sister, daughter, sister, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, brother's daughter, or sister's daughter.
b. Between a woman and her father's brother, mother's brother, son, brother, son's son, daughter's son, brother's son, or sister's son.
a. Between a party and the party's aunt or uncle, child, grandchild, sibling, niece, or nephew.
c. b. Between first cousins.
​

The marriage law is invalid in iowa?

Damn, you got a whole lotta pissed of brides then, cuz they thought they had s valid license!

I'll let you handle them!

Has it passed? Iowa has had same sex marriage since 2009. Obergfell was in 2015

What compelling state interest will the state use to deny same sex siblings their constitutionally protected rights that were in place for six years.

Wake me up when it does.

Sibling couples had the same argument before same sex marriage won in court that they have now.

The point you think you have does not exist.

AND then there was the successful challange to DOMA laws that paved the way.

Why do you want deny anyone the protection afforded all under the 14th amendment?

Strange

 

[bodecea]

Pop still shilling for incest?

 

[martybegan]

144 pages, basically the thread has devolved into this:

Nah, I just don't accept you citing yourself as legal evidence of anything.

I. don't. give. a. rats. ass.

 

[martybegan]

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

it's succinct and to the point.

 

[martybegan]

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!". It doesn't say that rights can spring out of thin air and the federal government automatically protects them.

I think I have the right whip out my dick and piss in the storm drain outside your house, does the 9th protect that?

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

And there we go. Any ruling Marty doesn't like...he ignores. Any legal definition he doesn't like.... he ignores. Any amendment he doesn't like...he ignores. Any legal standard he doesn't like......he ignores.

Um, Marty....willful ignorance isn't a legal argument. And none of these standards vanish because you don't like them.

Are you starting to see how utterly irrelevant your arguments are to any actual case?

I don;t ignore it. I don't go around stopping abortions, or preventing gay couples from getting marriage licenses. I am saying the ruling sucks, because of the same reason most rulings I disagree with suck, that they are floated on a sea of bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." There are rights not explicitly identified that, nevertheless, are protected from government intrusion. Privacy is one of those. The right to privacy includes rights that are fundamental to ordered liberty. What is more fundamental to a persons liberty than the choice of who to spend your life with; who to create a family with?

A whole lot of opinion and extrapolation from the source document, nothing more.

That is from Roe v Wade. You know a Supreme Court Opinion that declares what the law is.

Roe V Wade was shit.

That your expert legal conclusion? Fucking moron.

Its merely why debating with Marty is pointless. He's the avatar of Confirmation Bias. As the only cases that he recognizes as valid....are those that agree with what he already beleives. Any that don't are 'invalid' and ignored.

Its like holding a pile of M&Ms, refusing to acknowledge anything red, brown, green or yellow....and then insist you've only got a handful of blue.

Then why do you keep coming back?

And it's not confirmation bias, I know why your side thinks the way they do, its a combination of thinking "if I wish for it, it's the truth" and a real desire on your part to do what you think is right.

 

[martybegan]

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

Prior to the Loving decision there were some states that defined Civil Marriage based on the race composition of the couple, some did not as there were states that did allow interracial marriage.

Prior to the Obergefell decision there were some states that defined Civil Marriage based on the gender composition of the couple, some did not as there were states that did allow same-sex civil marriage.


>>>>

Yes, but again, only in the past 30 years or so was this even considered a possibility. Again, we are talking about incremental differences, race, divorce status, familial relation, age, parental consent, vs. a huge change, going from only 2 people of opposite sexes, to 2 people of the same sex.

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

a literalist wouldn't think computers or digital expression are covered under the 1st amendment. A literalist wouldn't allow the "fire" exception to the 1st amendment.

Where is this literalist school of constitutional philosophy/interpretation taught?

Don;t know, I've never met a real constitutional literalist before.

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

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.

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?

It is if people cannot agree on it .. the distant past ones

Wrong. The constitution is based on a set of ideas, if one wants to change those ideas, one doesn't find a judge that agrees with you, you find a way to pass an amendment.