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

[the_human_being]

I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

No, that is claim you're merely assigning to me and it is nothing more than a dirty tactic used by those unable to discuss issues honestly.

That's exactly what you are saying. Live with it.

Nope, not even close. That is a position you're assigning to me and nothing more.

In the meantime, gays continue to marry and all you can do is stomp your feet and claim the sky is falling. You're the very of impotent rage. Live with it.

That's not what I said stupid. I said the lawsuits gays and lesbians were wanting to file will now have no legal merit once this marriage "form" thing Alabama is putting forth is adopted. Did you complete the third grade?

 

[paddymurphy]

The feds don't set conditions for the State Contracts, which is why you can marry your 12 year old cousin (with parental permission) in one State and not another, but still apply as married when it comes to your taxes.

you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.

that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.

again, you can rail about this but you lose.

The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.

At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

The primary goal of gay people was to be treated equally under the law. They cannot be treated equally if government officials fail to obey the law and continue to try to deny them the same rights as straight couples based on the lie that their faith requires that they do so.

 

[the_human_being]

I think the majority of the people should rule. If 75% of any group of registered voters vote in favor of something then I say they should have the say - not the 25% who lost in the vote.

I think the NRA would tend to disagree.

Well, certainly the gay and lesbian community disagree. I'm sure many other disagree. So?

The Constitution is important to people. That's why.

Can I borrow that? Can I write that down? That is so very deep. I am totally in awe.

 

[mdk]

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.

 

[the_human_being]

you can regulate for any reason or no reason at all but not for discriminatory reason.

that's how that works. you're also talking about the difference between EXPANDING access to marriage and contracting it.

again, you can rail about this but you lose.

The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.

At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

the goal was to be treated like everyone else, wackadoodle.

That's not what I said. I said their little lawsuits would not be valid any longer.

 

[paddymurphy]

The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.

At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

As long as the law regarding marriage applies equally to all, they can change the means of getting married all they want. If Alabama wants to allow folks to get married simply by filling out a form, as long as the requirements are the same for all, it does not matter.

 

[the_human_being]

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.

Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.

 

[paddymurphy]

It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.

It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.

They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.

Then what's their problem? Why would they insist on minding someone else's business? You'd think that would get them a load of rock salt in their ass!

They were minding their own business. They exercised their right to vote their views.

Their view being " I have the right to tell you who you can and cannot marry based on my faith as written down five thousand years ago).

 

[the_human_being]

At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

As long as the law regarding marriage applies equally to all, they can change the means of getting married all they want. If Alabama wants to allow folks to get married simply by filling out a form, as long as the requirements are the same for all, it does not matter.

Finally. Someone who gets it.

 

[mdk]

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

No, that is claim you're merely assigning to me and it is nothing more than a dirty tactic used by those unable to discuss issues honestly.

That's exactly what you are saying. Live with it.

Nope, not even close. That is a position you're assigning to me and nothing more.

In the meantime, gays continue to marry and all you can do is stomp your feet and claim the sky is falling. You're the very of impotent rage. Live with it.

That's not what I said stupid. I said the lawsuits gays and lesbians were wanting to file will now have no legal merit once this marriage "form" thing Alabama is putting forth is adopted. Did you complete the third grade?

In this whole exchange we've had this is the first time you mentioned Alabama and it's 'form' thing. Be sure you do not throw out your back trying to moving those goal posts.

 

[paddymurphy]

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.

Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.

You might want to research things before calling someone else stupid;
According to the Notary Bulletin:

"Here comes the Notary. Maybe. Two states — Minnesota and Indiana — have recently proposed legislation that would permit Notaries to perform wedding ceremonies. If passed, those states would join Maine, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada as the only jurisdictions to allow Notaries to legally join two people in marriage." So, six states permit notaries to marry couples. Who feels stupid now?

 

[the_human_being]

It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.

It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.

They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.

Then what's their problem? Why would they insist on minding someone else's business? You'd think that would get them a load of rock salt in their ass!

They were minding their own business. They exercised their right to vote their views.

Their view being " I have the right to tell you who you can and cannot marry based on my faith as written down five thousand years ago).

Come on. All 75% were religious zealots? You're kidding me. I'll bet you they're no different than anyone else. I'll bet you over 1/2 of them only go to church on Christmas and Easter.

 

[konradv]

Can I borrow that? Can I write that down? That is so very deep. I am totally in awe.

Sure, it beats "majority rules", since we've been told many times on this board that we're a constitutional republic, NOT a pure democracy.

 

[the_human_being]

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

No, that is claim you're merely assigning to me and it is nothing more than a dirty tactic used by those unable to discuss issues honestly.

That's exactly what you are saying. Live with it.

Nope, not even close. That is a position you're assigning to me and nothing more.

In the meantime, gays continue to marry and all you can do is stomp your feet and claim the sky is falling. You're the very of impotent rage. Live with it.

That's not what I said stupid. I said the lawsuits gays and lesbians were wanting to file will now have no legal merit once this marriage "form" thing Alabama is putting forth is adopted. Did you complete the third grade?

In this whole exchange we've had this is the first time you mentioned Alabama and it's 'form' thing. Be sure you do not throw out your back trying to moving those goal posts.

No. It's the first time you've read the posts. Idiot.

 

[mdk]

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.

Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.

You have been reduced to nothing more than childish insults. Your desperation is at least comical to behold.

 

[the_human_being]

Can I borrow that? Can I write that down? That is so very deep. I am totally in awe.

Sure, it beats "majority rules", since we've been many time on this board that we're a constitutional republic, NOT a pure democracy.

I appreciate it. The thinking you must have put into that must have taxed you completely.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

So...the Court, instead of Loving v. Virginia should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow inter-racial marriage or not? And not force all states to recognize any valid marriage license from another state?

 

[the_human_being]

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.

Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.

You have been reduced to nothing more than childish insults. Your desperation is at least comical to behold.

At least I'm not an idiot.

 

[mdk]

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

Not in 47 states. Nevertheless, not a single notary has been forced to marry anyone couple in Florida, South Carolina, or Maine against their wishes.

Yes. You really are that kind of stupid. I didn't believe anyone could be but you have proven me wrong. What an idiot.

You have been reduced to nothing more than childish insults. Your desperation is at least comical to behold.

At least I'm not an idiot.

All evidence to the contrary. lol

 

[the_human_being]

Yes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"

Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.

They are un-elected b/c that is the system The Founding Fathers set up and it was explain rather nicely in The Federalist Papers why shouldn't be elected and serve life-terms.

The founding fathers also assumed we wouldn't elect justices who make up rights like in Roe V Wade and the current cluster-frack.

Many of The Founding Fathers were also wary of even putting in a Bill of Rights in the first place b/c they wisely predicted future generations would claim only those rights specifically mentioned were rights, to the exclusions of all others. The courts do not always get it right but in this case I am very glad they ruled the way they did. Our disagreement on this is issue is more philosophical. Sil's disagreement with the ruling is b/c she literally hates gays. So much so she feels compelled to lie constantly about gay people.

The court should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow SSM or not, but force all States to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, regardless of conditions applied IN the State.

So...the Court, instead of Loving v. Virginia should have allowed each State to decide via its legislature to allow inter-racial marriage or not? And not force all states to recognize any valid marriage license from another state?

That's the way it has been done for years. Why else do you think the issue has been on most all of the states ballots?