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

[mdk]

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.

 

[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"...

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.

Mentally ill if you actually believe that gay people or gay marriage is keeping children from having a mother and a father, and just plain stupid if you believe that is more important than having two legal, married parents.

 

[francoHFW]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

They're still a RW hater bigot RW disgrace.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe, yet I'm still seeking how to keep family members from marriage since the law itself seems to apply arbitrary standards.

Tell you what Pops.....do this:

Take your mother down to the court house and tell them that you and she want to get a marriage license because, now that gays can marry, you two can also. One of two things will happen...

1. They issue a marriage license in which case you can post it here and we will say,...gee pops, YOU were right.

2. They hold you and/or your mom for psychiatric observation in which case you will just shut the fuck up with your inane horseshit.

Deal??

How bout this, have the Supreme Court do their job and fix the mess they created.

Oh, my mother is dead, let's try to keep family members out of this. So, no one is claiming you can marry the dead.

And you bringing mental illness into this is strictly deflection. I will not be pulled into your nonsense.

What mess has the Supreme Court created?

Iowa law seems to allow same sex family members to marry

Maryland law seems to allow male family members to marry

Wisconsin and several other states allow first cousins to marry if:

1. They have reached a certain age where procreation would be unlikely, or

2. They can prove infertility.

Now, it would be an undo burdon to make same sex cousins wait or prove infertility (duh) so it would appear they are free to do so at will.
.

An undue burden according to who?
Any state that believes that siblings should not marry, can of course change their laws to prevent same sex siblings from marrying if their current language is not gender blind. IF states choose not to do so- well apparently the states don't care.

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'

Really? You're really going to cite "but there are already laws against it" as your foundation? Even though homosexual "marriage" was illegal until the left decided to pre-empt the will of the people?

But God knows, no one could EVER consider using that as a precedent to do the exact same thing for their situation. Goodness, NO!

 

[Faun]

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.

Reality to Silhouette ...

You don't get to define shit. No one elected you to an office where your voice matters. No one appointed you to a court where your make believe gavel matters.

Reality check... you're a nobody posting in cyberspace.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I bet you think you're really being clever, don't you, well not so much.

2nd Amendment gives me the right to bear arms.
5th Amendment gives me that right not to be deprived of my life, liberty or property without due process.
Are nuclear weapons arms, no. The average person doesn't have the knowledge or resources to obtain and maintain them, nor do they have the expertise to be able to reliably predict the scale or consequences of their use. Nuclear weapon are not arms in the conventional sense and no they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

As for your last little ditty, see the 4th Amendment, it's pretty clear. Of course the courts have also bastardized it beyond all recognition with all their exceptions.

And it took the Supreme Court in Heller page after page to decipher the language of the Second Amendment; to explain what damn near every word meant. So much for black letter law that only needs to be applied. It has to be interpreted. Five justices have one interpretation and four have another. Just like in Obergefell.

Only lawyers say it needs to be interpreted, the folks that wrote it said it says what it says, plain and simple. Their intent was to keep it so simple even the least educated farmer could understand it, then lawyers got involved. Not for the good either.

Explain what due process means. Explain what cruel and unusual punishment is. Explain what probable cause is. If all you need to the plain language, why did it take Scalia pages and pages to explain what the Second Amendment means? While I understand why folks like you, uneducated in the law and not bright to begin with fear having to actually explain what the words in the constitution mean that is why we have law schools where folks can learn the process.

You confuse "understandable" with "comprehensive", for no reason I can understand. The Constitution was never intended to be the sum total of federal law. All it does it lay down the boundaries which lesser laws must fall into. And that certainly is not mutually exclusive to the words making plain sense as written. Quite the opposite, actually.

By the way, phrases like "due process of the law" and "cruel and unusual punishment" do have set definitions, despite your belief that they're somehow murky and unintelligible. "Due process of the law" means "laws shall not be unreasonable, Arbitrary, or capricious." (Those words also have definitions. Get a dictionary.) "Cruel and unusual punishment" means "torture, barbarity, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community." Neither of those definitions are things that a citizen of average intelligence and education would be incapable of understanding.

Why does it take pages for Scalia to explain his position? Maybe because dipshits like you have so twisted and confused things that it takes that long to untangle it, and to address any possible new messes you might be anticipated to make. While I understand that your ability to mangle the law - or more likely, quote someone who has done so - makes you feel smarter than other people, it really just makes you a weasely sack of crap . . . like most lawyers, come to think of it. THAT would be the process that law schools teach.

So, you use a dictionary, written today, to determine the meaning of the constitution. You think it is so easy that a moron like you can figure it out? It it sad that useless pieces of shit like you get to vote.

Dumbass, the meanings of those phrases hasn't changed, unless you'd like to provide proof that they meant something totally different in the 18th century. Good luck with that. I won't hold my breath.

I think the only thing confusing about Constitutional law is how difficult it is for weasely dipshits like you to twist it credibly to mean what you want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only lawyers say it needs to be interpreted, the folks that wrote it said it says what it says, plain and simple. Their intent was to keep it so simple even the least educated farmer could understand it, then lawyers got involved. Not for the good either.

Explain what due process means. Explain what cruel and unusual punishment is. Explain what probable cause is. If all you need to the plain language, why did it take Scalia pages and pages to explain what the Second Amendment means? While I understand why folks like you, uneducated in the law and not bright to begin with fear having to actually explain what the words in the constitution mean that is why we have law schools where folks can learn the process.

You mean the process established by lawyers for lawyers, couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest there.

So, learning about the law and legal process is not a good thing. Do you prefer your doctors to not have attended Medical School?

Yeah, because lawyers and doctors are absolutely comparable.

Maybe you should contemplate the fact that most people trust their doctors, and expect that they should be able to trust them, while very few people trust lawyers, and most people think a trustworthy lawyer is probably bad at his job.

like you speak for most people.

I don't have to "speak for" anyone. I just have to listen.

Or do you now want to tell me that lawyers aren't widely viewed as a bunch of lying opportunists? What else about the world would you like to claim is brand-new and surprising for you?

 

[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

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.

No, yours is the interesting stick

Because I object to incest, but because , using the 14th amendment argument your side won with, can't find how same sex siblings would lose, somehow it's about incest.

I would remind you

Incest is a act

Incest is illegal

Marriage requires no sex acts to be legal.

Iowa appears to allow same sex family members to marry.

Got it now?

 

[Pop23]

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.

So you are an attorney?

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

Not an attorney, did I mention that?

I love the argument about legal agreement. I deal with attorneys quite often. I can't get two in the same room that seem to agree on anything.

 

[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

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?

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

 

[Silhouette]

Test away. The test of a child's interest is coming next.

 

[Silhouette]

Reality to Silhouette ...
You don't get to define shit. No one elected you to an office where your voice matters. No one appointed you to a court where your make believe gavel matters.
Reality check... you're a nobody posting in cyberspace.

Actually registered voters like me DO get to "define shit". Not only that, we registered voters are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Legally disinfranchising a child from ever having either a mother or father is child abuse.
There, I just reported it.

Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan & Ginsburg are all guilty, therefore, of child abuse.

 

[mdk]

Test away. The test of a child's interest is coming next.

And when this prediction fails, like all the rest of them, you'll just craft some wild conspiracy for it not coming to pass. Too bad we can't harness impotent rage as an alternative energy source.

 

[mdk]

Reality to Silhouette ...
You don't get to define shit. No one elected you to an office where your voice matters. No one appointed you to a court where your make believe gavel matters.
Reality check... you're a nobody posting in cyberspace.

Actually registered voters like me DO get to "define shit". Not only that, we registered voters are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Legally disinfranchising a child from ever having either a mother or father is child abuse.
There, I just reported it.

Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan & Ginsburg are all guilty, therefore, of child abuse.

Have them arrested. I am sure the police in your imagination are barging down their doors as we speak. lol

 

[Silhouette]

Have them arrested. I am sure the police in your imagination are barging down their doors as we speak. lol

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

 

[Arianrhod]

...the left decided to pre-empt the will of the people?

The left preempted your marriage? Are you sure it wasn't the World Series?

 

[mdk]

Have them arrested. I am sure the police in your imagination are barging down their doors as we speak. lol

So are you saying you are FOR legally disenfranchising a child from a mother or father for life?

Don't give me that bullshit like you actually care about children. If you can't use them to smear gay people you toss them aside. I take immense joy in knowing that you can't do shit to stop gay people from getting married and raising their biological/adoptive children.

 

[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.

So you are an attorney?

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

Not an attorney, did I mention that?

I love the argument about legal agreement. I deal with attorneys quite often. I can't get two in the same room that seem to agree on anything.

Bet they would agree that you are a fucking idiot.

 

[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?

Oh dear, a pissed off an attorney! Never saw that one coming!

I demand nothing, that's what attorneys do. They also test.

Right. In the numerous discrimination cases I have been involved in they always demand DNA testing. You are hopelessly stupid.

 

[bodecea]

Reality to Silhouette ...
You don't get to define shit. No one elected you to an office where your voice matters. No one appointed you to a court where your make believe gavel matters.
Reality check... you're a nobody posting in cyberspace.

Actually registered voters like me DO get to "define shit". Not only that, we registered voters are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. Legally disinfranchising a child from ever having either a mother or father is child abuse.
There, I just reported it.

Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan & Ginsburg are all guilty, therefore, of child abuse.

Lots of gay Americans are registered voters. We learned to take part based on how we used to be treated by people like you.