Four Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on How June's Gay Marriage Decision Was Improper

[Silhouette]

the idiot doesn't even have a clue about the nature of a supreme court decision or why the case was decided the way it was.

I still can't believe the wingers are ranting about it.

Don't know who you're talking about. I'm a democrat, for now... Marriage is a contract. The contract's terms were decided by the separate states to define two key elements up until last June. Those elements are 1. a man and 2. a woman. But in some states they involved the democratic process to change that to two men or two women. But the democratic process determined those changes after deliberation of the Many. And even those were in error because they ostensibly did not bring the third party to the contract to the table: Children.

Instead, just 5 people in DC have decided to create entire family lines where there are generations of only men. Gay men over 90% of the time only want to adopt boys; since they cannot make children on their own. Lesbians just get pregnant and have what they have. 5 people just told 300 million "you have to accept this lot as normal now". Children's voices at the table be damned.

In fact, several adult children who were raised in gay homes tried to submit their voice to the Hearings and were systematically barred from the radical revision talks of the marriage contract. That would be like hiring a crew to construct a building under a contract that consisted of carpenters, plumbers and electricians (all implicit parts of a construction) and then holding a contract-revision meeting on relaxing safety standards around the installation of electrical ground fault interrupters, but barring the electricians from having any input at all on something that will affect them (and all the residents who use the building) the most into the future...

I'm telling you, contract case law will save the day here. Nobody can argue convincingly that children are not implicit and even the most important parties to the marriage contract. No tribunal, not even Kennedy would buy that argument. Of course children are implicit parties to that contract. And it was revised without them even having representation at the table. In fact, the Decision was to sever the relationship of states acting as children's guardians on the question of who may marry: which is why states even became involved in marriage at all: to protect children; the most important parts of the word "marriage".

June's decision severed states' abilities to set standards for children in marriage; or to even have a voice as guardians for children in their borders at all in that regard.. That is the argument I would use if I was a polygamist or incest person wanting to be legally married now. States no longer can set standards in the contract for the best regard for their wards. And since the only arguments in the past for keeping polygamy and incest illegal were "what it will do to the children involved"; they are both now also de facto legal marriages. All it will take is one lawsuit and an easy win.

Unless June's Decision, using two Justices in violation of Massey Coal 2009 to Uphold, is oveturned on some legal technicality...like that...or that the Judicial just created new federal legislation which makes marriage and who may marry up to the federal government. Because under the same clause they cited to Decide in June, the 14th Amendment, if one sexual kink behavior can marry, they all can. Anything else would be arbitrary and discriminatory based on June's Decisions..

..and y'all thought this was only about gay marriage... It's about much, much more than that...

 

[jillian]

the idiot doesn't even have a clue about the nature of a supreme court decision or why the case was decided the way it was.

I still can't believe the wingers are ranting about it.

Don't know who you're talking about. I'm a democrat, for now... Marriage is a contract. The contract's terms were decided by the separate states to define two key elements up until last June. Those elements are 1. a man and 2. a woman. But in some states they involved the democratic process to change that to two men or two women. But the democratic process determined those changes after deliberation of the Many. And even those were in error because they ostensibly did not bring the third party to the contract to the table: Children.

Instead, just 5 people in DC have decided to create entire family lines where there are generations of only men. Gay men over 90% of the time only want to adopt boys; since they cannot make children on their own. Lesbians just get pregnant and have what they have. 5 people just told 300 million "you have to accept this lot as normal now". Children's voices at the table be damned.

In fact, several adult children who were raised in gay homes tried to submit their voice to the Hearings and were systematically barred from the radical revision talks of the marriage contract. That would be like hiring a crew to construct a building under a contract that consisted of carpenters, plumbers and electricians (all implicit parts of a construction) and then holding a contract-revision meeting on relaxing safety standards around the installation of electrical ground fault interrupters, but barring the electricians from having any input at all on something that will affect them (and all the residents who use the building) the most into the future...

I'm telling you, contract case law will save the day here. Nobody can argue convincingly that children are not implicit and even the most important parties to the marriage contract. No tribunal, not even Kennedy would buy that argument. Of course children are implicit parties to that contract. And it was revised without them even having representation at the table. In fact, the Decision was to sever the relationship of states acting as children's guardians on the question of who may marry: which is why states even became involved in marriage at all: to protect children; the most important parts of the word "marriage".

June's decision severed states' abilities to set standards for children in marriage; or to even have a voice as guardians for children in their borders at all in that regard..

I was referring to pop.

I hope that clarifies.

 

[Silhouette]

I was referring to pop.

I hope that clarifies.

What would clarify would be you stating how you feel about three generations of all gay male family members adopting little boys to continue their line as a matter of law? Care to weigh in on that?

 

[Contumacious]

THIS THREAD KEEPS GETTING DELETED EVERY DAY NOW FOR NO REASON. THERE IS NO MODERATOR MESSAGE, NO WARNING. THE STAFF JUST SIMPLY DELETES IT. I WILL REPOST IT EVERY DAY (I have it saved now) UNTIL THE STAFF HERE GIVES A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THIS THREAD THAT GOT THOUSANDS OF VIEWS WITHIN THE FIRST WEEK AND HUNDREDS OF REPLIES "CAN'T BE DISCUSSED AT USMB"..

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

And now also this one merged with the shut down one too: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | Page 186 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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.

As to that last point: 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.

SOME IMPROPER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

1- Paper money is constitutional so long as it it redeemable in gold or silver

2- Paper money is constitutional even if it is not redeemable in gold or silver

3- The federal government has the authority to criminalize the use, distribution and sale of narcotics ; cocaine is a narcotic

4- the federal government can mandate the WE THE PEOPLE buy health insurance

 

[Silhouette]

SOME IMPROPER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS...1- Paper money is constitutional so long as it it redeemable in gold or silver....2- Paper money is constitutional even if it is not redeemable in gold or silver....3- The federal government has the authority to criminalize the use, distribution and sale of narcotics ; cocaine is a narcotic....4- the federal government can mandate the WE THE PEOPLE buy health insurance

Fine, revisit all of them. Because any of those can be changed without a huge harm to society. Not so with June's decision. Right now, new family lines of all males (gay men adopting little boys) are being created where in time there will be no way to undo this "new normal". This decision was about altering human behavior socially and those trends stick. You can mint a new form of money and exchange all the old out quickly and easily. You can deal with cocaine and clamp down on it use. You can enact universal healthcare tomorrow to make it free to the masses, letting the rich still get limousine care.

But changing out "my two dads...my four granddads and my eight great granddaddys" if it gets roots is going to be as hard to change as it would be for you to pop back in Ancient Greece and tell adult men how having sex with six year old boys has to stop IMMEDIATELY. The horde would rise up and cut your head off. This is why Jude 1 in the Bible was written. Because social changes are permanent and the future generations are permanent slaves to present day decisions. Society will fight to preserve the status quo. It is difficult to change but somehow men banging little boys became vogue in Greece by relaxed standards somewhere along the line. And then it snowballed as social inroads always do.

 

[jillian]

I was referring to pop.

I hope that clarifies.

What would clarify would be you stating how you feel about three generations of all gay male family members adopting little boys to continue their line as a matter of law? Care to weigh in on that?

nah.. because I think the characterization is questionable.

 

[WorldWatcher]

SOME IMPROPER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS...1- Paper money is constitutional so long as it it redeemable in gold or silver....2- Paper money is constitutional even if it is not redeemable in gold or silver....3- The federal government has the authority to criminalize the use, distribution and sale of narcotics ; cocaine is a narcotic....4- the federal government can mandate the WE THE PEOPLE buy health insurance

Fine, revisit all of them. Because any of those can be changed without a huge harm to society. Not so with June's decision. Right now, new family lines of all males (gay men adopting little boys) are being created where in time there will be no way to undo this "new normal". This decision was about altering human behavior socially and those trends stick. You can mint a new form of money and exchange all the old out quickly and easily. You can deal with cocaine and clamp down on it use. You can enact universal healthcare tomorrow to make it free to the masses, letting the rich still get limousine care.

But changing out "my two dads...my four granddads and my eight great granddaddys" if it gets roots is going to be as hard to change as it would be for you to pop back in Ancient Greece and tell adult men how having sex with six year old boys has to stop IMMEDIATELY. The horde would rise up and cut your head off. This is why Jude 1 in the Bible was written. Because social changes are permanent and the future generations are permanent slaves to present day decisions. Society will fight to preserve the status quo. It is difficult to change but somehow men banging little boys became vogue in Greece by relaxed standards somewhere along the line. And then it snowballed as social inroads always do.

Even if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way in the Obergefell case there would still be Same-sex Civil Marriage in this country.

You try to make it sound like Obergefell implemented SSCM, it didn't - it had already been created by 19 jurisdictions (States + DC) based on State court rulings under State Constitutions, by State Legislatures, and even at the ballot box.

If the ruling in Obergefell had been different, there would still be SSCM in those states and SSCM would be recognized in all 50 states from a federal perspective. (Meaning a couple could be married in Oregon and move to Kentucky and for federal purposes they remained legally married.)



>>>>

 

[TheOldSchool]

the idiot doesn't even have a clue about the nature of a supreme court decision or why the case was decided the way it was.

I still can't believe the wingers are ranting about it.

Don't know who you're talking about. I'm a democrat, for now... Marriage is a contract. The contract's terms were decided by the separate states to define two key elements up until last June. Those elements are 1. a man and 2. a woman. But in some states they involved the democratic process to change that to two men or two women. But the democratic process determined those changes after deliberation of the Many. And even those were in error because they ostensibly did not bring the third party to the contract to the table: Children.

Instead, just 5 people in DC have decided to create entire family lines where there are generations of only men. Gay men over 90% of the time only want to adopt boys; since they cannot make children on their own. Lesbians just get pregnant and have what they have. 5 people just told 300 million "you have to accept this lot as normal now". Children's voices at the table be damned.

In fact, several adult children who were raised in gay homes tried to submit their voice to the Hearings and were systematically barred from the radical revision talks of the marriage contract. That would be like hiring a crew to construct a building under a contract that consisted of carpenters, plumbers and electricians (all implicit parts of a construction) and then holding a contract-revision meeting on relaxing safety standards around the installation of electrical ground fault interrupters, but barring the electricians from having any input at all on something that will affect them (and all the residents who use the building) the most into the future...

I'm telling you, contract case law will save the day here. Nobody can argue convincingly that children are not implicit and even the most important parties to the marriage contract. No tribunal, not even Kennedy would buy that argument. Of course children are implicit parties to that contract. And it was revised without them even having representation at the table. In fact, the Decision was to sever the relationship of states acting as children's guardians on the question of who may marry: which is why states even became involved in marriage at all: to protect children; the most important parts of the word "marriage".

June's decision severed states' abilities to set standards for children in marriage; or to even have a voice as guardians for children in their borders at all in that regard.. That is the argument I would use if I was a polygamist or incest person wanting to be legally married now. States no longer can set standards in the contract for the best regard for their wards. And since the only arguments in the past for keeping polygamy and incest illegal were "what it will do to the children involved"; they are both now also de facto legal marriages. All it will take is one lawsuit and an easy win.

Unless June's Decision, using two Justices in violation of Massey Coal 2009 to Uphold, is oveturned on some legal technicality...like that...or that the Judicial just created new federal legislation which makes marriage and who may marry up to the federal government. Because under the same clause they cited to Decide in June, the 14th Amendment, if one sexual kink behavior can marry, they all can. Anything else would be arbitrary and discriminatory based on June's Decisions..

..and y'all thought this was only about gay marriage... It's about much, much more than that...

You're a Democrat?

Holy crap... does this mean it turns out the Democrat party has DINO's?

 

[Silhouette]

You're a Democrat?

Holy crap... does this mean it turns out the Democrat party has DINO's?

2014 should be your lesson that democrats don't all embrace LGBTs taking over their party. Has nothing to do with "in name only". I fight hard for universal healthcare, green energy, the environment, jobs, living wage...just not the gay. Get used to it. There's a lot of us. Millions upon millions. Just ask a hispanic catholic dem if you don't believe me.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're a Democrat?

Holy crap... does this mean it turns out the Democrat party has DINO's?

2014 should be your lesson that democrats don't all embrace LGBTs taking over their party. Has nothing to do with "in name only". I fight hard for universal healthcare, green energy, the environment, jobs, living wage...just not the gay. Get used to it. There's a lot of us. Millions upon millions. Just ask a hispanic catholic dem if you don't believe me.

You won't win against the faggots, and the rest is a lost cause here as well. Sorry.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You're a Democrat?

Holy crap... does this mean it turns out the Democrat party has DINO's?

2014 should be your lesson that democrats don't all embrace LGBTs taking over their party. Has nothing to do with "in name only". I fight hard for universal healthcare, green energy, the environment, jobs, living wage...just not the gay. Get used to it. There's a lot of us. Millions upon millions. Just ask a hispanic catholic dem if you don't believe me.

Lol! I'M a Catholic hispanic Dem! Go ahead and ask me whether or not I think you should get the FUCK out of the Democrat party!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Four Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on How June's Gay Marriage Decision Was Improper"

And they are entitled to express their subjective, errant, and personal opinions as private citizens.

As a fact of Constitutional law, however, their opinions are wrong.

The arguments of the dissenting justices are in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence: that a class of persons cannot be denied access to laws they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, what's funny is your comprehensive ignorance of the law.

The doctrine of free speech applies solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private citizens or private organizations – such as online message boards.

That your inane, ridiculous threads keep getting deleted in no way constitutes a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I still don't get the mom n dad tie in? How does that change if gays can't marry? The gay people ain't gonna suddenly marry the opposite sex .

Which would be their right. Millions of singles and hetro couples make that choice daily.

Lol wtf

Are you slow?

Because something is a right does not mean you must participate.

Your right to be silent is equally important to your right to speak

OK?

Lol look at you lecturing on what a right is while hoping to illegally restrict them

the idiot doesn't even have a clue about the nature of a supreme court decision or why the case was decided the way it was.

I still can't believe the wingers are ranting about it.

They've been whining about Roe for more than 40 years...

 

[Silhouette]

"Four Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on How June's Gay Marriage Decision Was Improper"

And they are entitled to express their subjective, errant, and personal opinions as private citizens.

As a fact of Constitutional law, however, their opinions are wrong.

The arguments of the dissenting justices are in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence: that a class of persons cannot be denied access to laws they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are.

What's the class of persons? Exactly?

.
That your inane, ridiculous threads keep getting deleted in no way constitutes a 'violation' of 'free speech.'

Don't forget "immensely popular" and "hot"...This thread, before it was locked for no reason twice, got multiple thousands of views and almost 200 pages before it was even a week old..

 

[Contumacious]

SOME IMPROPER SUPREME COURT DECISIONS...1- Paper money is constitutional so long as it it redeemable in gold or silver....2- Paper money is constitutional even if it is not redeemable in gold or silver....3- The federal government has the authority to criminalize the use, distribution and sale of narcotics ; cocaine is a narcotic....4- the federal government can mandate the WE THE PEOPLE buy health insurance

Fine, revisit all of them. Because any of those can be changed without a huge harm to society. Not so with June's decision. .

Those decisions were extremely harmful to our economic system.


The Founders of this country, and a large majority of the American people up until the 1930s, disdained paper money, respected commodity money, and disapproved of a central bank’s monopoly control of money creation and interest rates. Ironically, it was the abuse of the gold standard, the Fed’s credit-creating habits of the 1920s, and its subsequent mischief in the 1930s, that not only gave us the Great Depression, but also prolonged it. Yet sound money was blamed for all the suffering. That’s why people hardly objected when Roosevelt and his statist friends confiscated gold and radically debased the currency, ushering in the age of worldwide fiat currencies with which the international economy struggles today.

 

[Silhouette]

.The arguments of the dissenting justices are in conflict with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence: that a class of persons cannot be denied access to laws they're eligible to participate in predicated solely on who they are.

What's the class of persons? Exactly?

Clayton?

 

[Silhouette]

Even if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way in the Obergefell case there would still be Same-sex Civil Marriage in this country.

You try to make it sound like Obergefell implemented SSCM, it didn't - it had already been created by 19 jurisdictions (States + DC) based on State court rulings under State Constitutions, by State Legislatures, and even at the ballot box....

And those jurisdictions were the proper location to make ANY ruling or determination on a brand new type of marriage contract where the custodial orphaned children would be subject to being placed in "married' homes with either no mother or father for life. THAT determination belongs to the custodians of children; not 5 liberal Justices of 2015 to affect the fate of children forever, without even their having representation at the federal Hearing on that radical forced-revision on the 50 states.

 

[Skylar]

Even if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way in the Obergefell case there would still be Same-sex Civil Marriage in this country.

You try to make it sound like Obergefell implemented SSCM, it didn't - it had already been created by 19 jurisdictions (States + DC) based on State court rulings under State Constitutions, by State Legislatures, and even at the ballot box....

And those jurisdictions were the proper location to make ANY ruling or determination on a brand new type of marriage contract where the custodial orphaned children would be subject to being placed in "married' homes with either no mother or father for life. THAT determination belongs to the custodians of children; not 5 liberal Justices of 2015 to affect the fate of children forever, without even their having representation at the federal Hearing on that radical forced-revision on the 50 states.

Please don't waste our time or yours by pretending that you give a fiddler's fuck what happens to any child. Your proposal doesn't help a single child. As denying same sex parents marriage doesn't magically make them opposite sex parents. All it does is guaranetee that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts children by the 10s of thousands and helps not one child. And you're more than willing, even eager....to hurt all those children if it lets you hurt gay people.

Um, nope. We're not doing any of that.

 

[SwimExpert]

And those jurisdictions were the proper location to make ANY ruling or determination on a brand new type of marriage contract where the custodial orphaned children would be subject to being placed in "married' homes with either no mother or father for life. THAT determination belongs to the custodians of children; not 5 liberal Justices of 2015 to affect the fate of children forever, without even their having representation at the federal Hearing on that radical forced-revision on the 50 states.

There's something....not right, with the way you think that people making their own marriage decisions somehow constitutes big government, but forbidding people from marrying the person they love is freedom.