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

[paddymurphy]

They are law. Ever hear the

You have no idea what you are talking about. Court decisions carry the force of law. Therefore it is law. No legislation is forthcoming or necessary. The laws previously passed by the states prohibiting same sex marriage are in the recycle bin. Plain and simple. Even if technically "on the books" they are unenforceable.

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

Then why is the above situation I describe possible?

Also, the US system is not completely common law, as you are implying.

I did not say or imply it was. But your claim that court precedent is not law is ridiculously wrong. More evidence of how profoundly uninformed you are.

it's not written law, passed law, and is only as strong as the decision it is based on. Get rid of the decision and the written passed law wins out.

It is written. In court opinions. Try reading one.

 

[martybegan]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

Sorry, but all your experience doesn't automatically make you right.

Never said it did. Your ignorance of basic legal principles, however, makes your opinion on the law as worthwhile as mine on quantum physics.

I am arguing the reasons behind the laws, not the mechanics of it. You are talking like a plumber, I'm talking like a person wanting to design a house, concepts vs. methods.

 

[martybegan]

They are law. Ever hear the

So where is the law? if Roe V Wade is overturned tomorrow abortion becomes illegal in a bunch of states, because the law is still in place, but in a place like NY is goes on, because NY got around to passing a law protecting it.

Decisions may have the force of law, but they are not law.

They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

Then why is the above situation I describe possible?

Also, the US system is not completely common law, as you are implying.

I did not say or imply it was. But your claim that court precedent is not law is ridiculously wrong. More evidence of how profoundly uninformed you are.

it's not written law, passed law, and is only as strong as the decision it is based on. Get rid of the decision and the written passed law wins out.

It is written. In court opinions. Try reading one.

I used the wrong phrase, I meant legislated.

 

[Faun]

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

Well that is about on level with the rest of your legal claims.

An exaggeration to be sure, but exaggerations are useful when trying to use an example. Please answer the question.[/QUOTE]
Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

 

[martybegan]

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

Well that is about on level with the rest of your legal claims.

An exaggeration to be sure, but exaggerations are useful when trying to use an example. Please answer the question.

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?[/QUOTE]

Who says I can't? A bunch of people decided they wanted gay marriage to be a right, and got some judges to agree with them.

 

[Silhouette]

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

You are an advocate for the church of LGBT, who successfully barred children from the marriage contract revision table last Spring, and who has pushed your agenda deep into our elementary schools teaching kids about how your deviant sexuality is "perfectly normal and OK" when it's in fact responsible for one of the deadliest epidemics in modern times (HIV/AIDS) on the increase with youth (correlation?)..and who recently "won" the "right" to institutionally deprive children of a mother or father for life...all under a false premise that your narrowly-defined and selective deviant sex behaviors-as-identity "have rights" (newly added to the Constitution by the Judicial Branch)..forcing Christians to their knees to bow before your rainbow altar under threat of jailing and in full defiance of their 1st Amendment civil rights..and you have the GALL to ask "Since when do you get to define what your rights are?"

I'm going to define what children's rights are. Fasten your seat belt because our two civil rights campaigns are going to collide head on..

Better start polishing up your arguments for "why behaviors are equal to race"...

 

[Pop23]

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.

No, you were never right. I'm showing you again how you're wrong.

And you'll never be rightbon this since you can't show why it was illegal for a brother and sister, with no possibility of procreation, to marry prior to Obergefell, so why that would change now for same-sex siblings since.

Now your just trying to retreat with dignity.

 

[Pop23]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

it's succinct and to the point.

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

So you are an attorney?

 

[Pop23]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

 

[mdk]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

The girl on girl jazz isn't really my cup of tea though. A color test might work though. If you refer to a light shade of pink as salmon than you're certainly a cock gobbler. lol.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

You are an advocate for the church of LGBT, who successfully barred children from the marriage contract revision table last Spring, and who has pushed your agenda deep into our elementary schools teaching kids about how your deviant sexuality is "perfectly normal and OK" when it's in fact responsible for one of the deadliest epidemics in modern times (HIV/AIDS) on the increase with youth (correlation?)..and who recently "won" the "right" to institutionally deprive children of a mother or father for life...all under a false premise that your narrowly-defined and selective deviant sex behaviors-as-identity "have rights" (newly added to the Constitution by the Judicial Branch)..forcing Christians to their knees to bow before your rainbow altar under threat of jailing and in full defiance of their 1st Amendment civil rights..and you have the GALL to ask "Since when do you get to define what your rights are?"

I'm going to define what children's rights are. Fasten your seat belt because our two civil rights campaigns are going to collide head on..

Better start polishing up your arguments for "why behaviors are equal to race"...

I tried to school you before on what idiocy this business about children is…….but you are so consumed by your bigotry that you can’t see it, or pretend not to

1. Children who are available for adoption already have been deprived of a mother and a father. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage
   
   
2. There are not enough homes with a mother and a father that are willing and qualified to adopt for all of the children in need of a stable and secure home. You can’t blame gays or gay marriage for that either
   
   
3. Gay individuals and couples have been adopting children since long before there was gay marriage. At least one state, NJ has been allowing gay couples to jointly adopt since 1997. You can’t blame gay marriage
   
   
4. There is NO CREDIBLE evidence that children do better with opposite sex parents than with same sex parents. If you think that there is, let’s see what you got.
   
   
5. I also demonstrated how the issue of children was carefully and thoroughly considered throughout the debate and in numerous court cases, but you keep moaning about how children were “barred from the table” Complete horseshit!

All of this is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance. Anyone who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together can see right through that. You don't know a god damned thing about children's rights or what children need, and I would guess that you care less. You just want to use children in your failed crusade against gay rights and marriage, and that is shameful. You sound a bit crazed actually.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

You are an advocate for the church of LGBT, who successfully barred children from the marriage contract revision table last Spring, and who has pushed your agenda deep into our elementary schools teaching kids about how your deviant sexuality is "perfectly normal and OK" when it's in fact responsible for one of the deadliest epidemics in modern times (HIV/AIDS) on the increase with youth (correlation?)..and who recently "won" the "right" to institutionally deprive children of a mother or father for life...all under a false premise that your narrowly-defined and selective deviant sex behaviors-as-identity "have rights" (newly added to the Constitution by the Judicial Branch)..forcing Christians to their knees to bow before your rainbow altar under threat of jailing and in full defiance of their 1st Amendment civil rights..and you have the GALL to ask "Since when do you get to define what your rights are?"

I'm going to define what children's rights are. Fasten your seat belt because our two civil rights campaigns are going to collide head on..

Better start polishing up your arguments for "why behaviors are equal to race"...

PS....I thought that you should get to know this guy. He is even more bizarre than you are. You might even learn a thing or two from him. Enjoy! Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[paddymurphy]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a
Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

Sorry, but all your experience doesn't automatically make you right.

Never said it did. Your ignorance of basic legal principles, however, makes your opinion on the law as worthwhile as mine on quantum physics.

I am arguing the reasons behind the laws, not the mechanics of it. You are talking like a plumber, I'm talking like a person wanting to design a house, concepts vs. methods.

You are talking like someone who thinks he knows what he is talking about but does not.

 

[paddymurphy]

They are law. Ever hear the
They are law. There is common law. A set of legal rules and principles established through case law. There is constitutional law which includes the constitution and the body of case law that interpret, construe and apply the constitution. Personal injury and tort law is based almost entirely on cases. Very little is addressed by statutes.

Then why is the above situation I describe possible?

Also, the US system is not completely common law, as you are implying.

I did not say or imply it was. But your claim that court precedent is not law is ridiculously wrong. More evidence of how profoundly uninformed you are.

it's not written law, passed law, and is only as strong as the decision it is based on. Get rid of the decision and the written passed law wins out.

It is written. In court opinions. Try reading one.

I used the wrong phrase, I meant legislated.

Still fucking wrong.

 

[paddymurphy]

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

Well that is about on level with the rest of your legal claims.

An exaggeration to be sure, but exaggerations are useful when trying to use an example. Please answer the question.

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

Who says I can't? A bunch of people decided they wanted gay marriage to be a right, and got some judges to agree with them.[/QUOTE]
They got just about every judge they presented the argument to to agree with them. And marriage already had been recognized as a right several times before.

 

[bodecea]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

Ok, now I clearly see your MO. You bring up incest and then after awhile start asking other posters why they talk about incest so much. Then you bring up a test for gay.....and after a few days you ask why other posters are so interested in a gay test.

Interesting schtick.

 

[paddymurphy]

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

You are an advocate for the church of LGBT, who successfully barred children from the marriage contract revision table last Spring, and who has pushed your agenda deep into our elementary schools teaching kids about how your deviant sexuality is "perfectly normal and OK" when it's in fact responsible for one of the deadliest epidemics in modern times (HIV/AIDS) on the increase with youth (correlation?)..and who recently "won" the "right" to institutionally deprive children of a mother or father for life...all under a false premise that your narrowly-defined and selective deviant sex behaviors-as-identity "have rights" (newly added to the Constitution by the Judicial Branch)..forcing Christians to their knees to bow before your rainbow altar under threat of jailing and in full defiance of their 1st Amendment civil rights..and you have the GALL to ask "Since when do you get to define what your rights are?"

I'm going to define what children's rights are. Fasten your seat belt because our two civil rights campaigns are going to collide head on..

Better start polishing up your arguments for "why behaviors are equal to race"...

Why would anyone care what some mentally ill fuck posting here is "going" to do?

 

[paddymurphy]

It is your ignorance of constitutional law, a

If the point is to demonstrate your ignorance, yes, it was.

The only ignorance is on the side that supports that crap just because it gets them the results they want.

To clear the air, I don't support any ban on abortion before viability, be it for birth control, medical reasons, or the voices in her head told the woman to do so. after viability I have zero issue with abortion for medical reasons. And if they want to go with the outdated 2nd trimester line for viability, that doesn't bother me either. What I don't see is a right to it in the constitution.

Your ignorance of the constitution and legal principles in general is what prevents you from seeing what is obvious.

Right back at you, skippy.

But I am not ignorant of the constitution and the law. It has been my profession for 25 years. My views are shared by the majority of those who practice law and who serve as judges. Your views are held by uneducated, ignorant dolts who presume to offer opinions on things they know little about.

So you are an attorney?

Yes. What do you do for a living? Has nothing to do with the law.

 

[paddymurphy]

I am still curious about this gay test of Pops. lol. What proof is he willing to accept? Will gays have to make out in front of him? Will there be a fashion component?

Thinking of what those tests might be are a huge turn on to you, isn't it.

Sly devil

You seem to be the one demanding that gay people prove their sexual orientation in your presence. Has that long been a fantasy of yours?

 

[Silhouette]

Since when do you get to define what your rights are?

You are an advocate for the church of LGBT, who successfully barred children from the marriage contract revision table last Spring, and who has pushed your agenda deep into our elementary schools teaching kids about how your deviant sexuality is "perfectly normal and OK" when it's in fact responsible for one of the deadliest epidemics in modern times (HIV/AIDS) on the increase with youth (correlation?)..and who recently "won" the "right" to institutionally deprive children of a mother or father for life...all under a false premise that your narrowly-defined and selective deviant sex behaviors-as-identity "have rights" (newly added to the Constitution by the Judicial Branch)..forcing Christians to their knees to bow before your rainbow altar under threat of jailing and in full defiance of their 1st Amendment civil rights..and you have the GALL to ask "Since when do you get to define what your rights are?"

I'm going to define what children's rights are. Fasten your seat belt because our two civil rights campaigns are going to collide head on..

Better start polishing up your arguments for "why behaviors are equal to race"...

Why would anyone care what some mentally ill fuck posting here is "going" to do?

Mentally ill if you keep a child from a mother or father as an institution.