If Justice Kennedy Had Known A Christian Would Be Jailed Less Than 3 Months Later...

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Supreme Court did in fact follow the Constitution...

Not only is that false, it is hysterically false.

The Obergefell decision is absolutely NO kinship with the US Constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are.

Precedence is NOT the US Constitution. It is the history of legal decisions, often resting within flawed reasoning that never gets corrected and consequently continues to damage, decay and degenerate the culture as the errors compound from one poor decision to the next.

The 14th amendment was never intended to be used to license sexual deviancy... and that it what it was used for.

Sexual deviants were not disadvantaged... in any respect BEYOND THAT WHICH THE CHOICES MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THEIR MENTAL DISORDER.

Using your reasoning; which is the reasoning common to the above noted mental disorder... the 14th amendment provides that the class of people OKA: THE BLIND cannot be disadvantaged by the States refusal to allow them to drive.

Of course the arguments regarding public safety would be advanced, but the Supreme Legislators, several of which would perhaps be blind, a couple more having blind family or friends... would simply reject the arguments and cite public demand for the blind to drive "Its time... ". They'd take a vote and PRESTO... The 14th amendment would once again be found to have required that blind people HAVE A RIGHT TO DRIVE!

And this despite there being absolutely NOTHING in the 14th Amendment or any other element of the US Constitution which, IN ANY WAY so much as speaks to the issue, let alone requires the ascent to populist idiocy.

 

[Syriusly]

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The Supreme Court did in fact follow the Constitution; Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are.

Moreover, it is completely illogical and ignorant to 'argue' that the Supreme Court 'made law'; anyone who advances such an 'argument' clearly has nothing but contempt for the Constitution, and is in fact a liar.

And the reference to Dred Scott is further evidence of your ignorance, failing as a false comparison fallacy, as the legal issues of each case were completely unrelated; indeed, the sophomoric notion that “the Supreme Court gets cases wrong” in no way 'mitigates' or 'undermines' the authority of the Court or the legitimacy of its rulings.

Trying to have a discussion with you people certainly is trying.

The SCOTUS certainly had the authority to srike down laws banning gay marriage. BUT that does not make gay marriage legal, it should have struck down all marriage laws. .

You are trying to have a conversation? I thought you were just making crap up.

Yes- marriage is legal for Americans- even for the same gender couples who are getting legally married.

Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Syriusly]

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

I dislike it when the SCOTUS does not follow the COTUS. They made law there is no way to logically to argue other wise. A person who loves the COTUS would realize that and be offended.

Now let's talk a decision I am sure you loved, Dred Scott. If not then let's talk about how corporations are people.

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The Supreme Court did in fact follow the Constitution; Obergefell is the progeny of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons predicated solely on who they are.

Moreover, it is completely illogical and ignorant to 'argue' that the Supreme Court 'made law'; anyone who advances such an 'argument' clearly has nothing but contempt for the Constitution, and is in fact a liar.

And the reference to Dred Scott is further evidence of your ignorance, failing as a false comparison fallacy, as the legal issues of each case were completely unrelated; indeed, the sophomoric notion that “the Supreme Court gets cases wrong” in no way 'mitigates' or 'undermines' the authority of the Court or the legitimacy of its rulings.

Pointing out that the SCOTUS makes mistakes is exactly why I point it out. YOU like them making law in this case, but i seriously doubt you like it when the made corporations people. The SCOTUS is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not make law by fiat.

Gay marriage would have eventually been made legal and it would have been done correctly.

Once again- the Supreme Court didn't 'make' any law- it overturned unconstitutional laws.

Arguing that 'gay marriage' would have been made legal is like arguing that mixed race marriage would have been made legal, so therefore the Lovings should have just accepted their marriage was illegal until Virginia's law was changed.

Now matter how many times you keep making the claim that the Supreme Court is making law- it isn't- it wasn't in Dred Scott, it wasn't in Citizen's United, it wasn't in Loving v Virginia and it didn't in Obergefell.

 

[Syriusly]

The Supreme Court did in fact follow the Constitution...

Not only is that false, it is hysterically false.

The Obergefell decision is absolutely NO kinship with the US Constitution.

Look Keyes got permission to use a keyboard again........

 

[Silhouette]

Once again- the Supreme Court didn't 'make' any law- it overturned unconstitutional laws.

Arguing that 'gay marriage' would have been made legal is like arguing that mixed race marriage would have been made legal, so therefore the Lovings should have just accepted their marriage was illegal until Virginia's law was changed..

Race isn't the same as sexual behaviors. So your comparison or use of Loving is erroneous.

So since gay behaviors may now marry, so then may also incest and polygamy behaviors. They are all now equally legal since as you keep insisting, the 14th Amendment is all about equality.

If not, who could deny polygamists or incest marriage? And how?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...who could deny polygamists or incest marriage? And how?

What's the need to? Oh right, there isn't any. Moving on...

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- the Supreme Court didn't 'make' any law- it overturned unconstitutional laws.

Arguing that 'gay marriage' would have been made legal is like arguing that mixed race marriage would have been made legal, so therefore the Lovings should have just accepted their marriage was illegal until Virginia's law was changed..

Race isn't the same as sexual behaviors. So your comparison or use of Loving is erroneous.

Neither Loving or Obergefell were about behavior- they were about marriage rights.

Because of the Supreme Court- couples- mixed race couples- and same gender couples- can get married in all 50 states now.

And that is a great thing for America.

 

[Debra K]

Once again- the Supreme Court didn't 'make' any law- it overturned unconstitutional laws.

Arguing that 'gay marriage' would have been made legal is like arguing that mixed race marriage would have been made legal, so therefore the Lovings should have just accepted their marriage was illegal until Virginia's law was changed..

Race isn't the same as sexual behaviors. So your comparison or use of Loving is erroneous.

So since gay behaviors may now marry, so then may also incest and polygamy behaviors. They are all now equally legal since as you keep insisting, the 14th Amendment is all about equality.

If not, who could deny polygamists or incest marriage? And how?

1) False equivalency: mongogamy as a social institution is not the same as polygamy; having a sexual relationship with a person who is not related to you is not the same as having such a relationship with someone who is closely related.

2) Rational basis: the government has a rational basis for permitting monogamy and denying polygamy; the government has a rational basis for prohibiting incestuous marriages.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1) False equivalency: mongogamy as a social institution is not the same as polygamy; having a sexual relationship with a person who is not related to you is not the same as having such a relationship with someone who is closely related.

LOL! You can't be serious. Homo- and Hetero-sexuality are not the same... .

2) Rational basis: the government has a rational basis for permitting monogamy and denying polygamy; the government has a rational basis for prohibiting incestuous marriages.

Government has a interests in and rational basis for sustaining sexual normalcy and never MORE SO than in the very nucleus of civilization, OKA: Marriage, and the Progs could not care less about that.

If you can't see that, then you're hopelessly blind to reality.

 

[Debra K]

1) False equivalency: mongogamy as a social institution is not the same as polygamy; having a sexual relationship with a person who is not related to you is not the same as having such a relationship with someone who is closely related.

LOL! You can't be serious. Homo- and Hetero-sexuality are not the same... .

I was addressing Silhouette's slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. It is illogical to equate monogamy with polygamy and incest.

On the other hand, same gender couples are similarly situated to opposite gender couples seeking to enter the established civil (secular) institution of marriage. The private sexual relationship between two adults in a consensual relationship is none of your business and none of the government's business.

2) Rational basis: the government has a rational basis for permitting monogamy and denying polygamy; the government has a rational basis for prohibiting incestuous marriages.

Government has a interests in and rational basis for sustaining sexual normalcy and never MORE SO than in the very nucleus of civilization, OKA: Marriage, and the Progs could not care less about that.

If you can't see that, then you're hopelessly blind to reality.

Your hostility toward the inclusion of people you despise based solely on your idea of "sexual normalcy" is not a rational basis for depriving them of liberty and equal protection under the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Government has a interests in and rational basis for sustaining sexual normalcy and never MORE SO than in the very nucleus of civilization, OKA: Marriage, and the Progs could not care less about that.

If you can't see that, then you're hopelessly blind to reality.

Your hostility toward the inclusion of people you despise based solely on your idea of "sexual normalcy" is not a rational basis for depriving them of liberty and equal protection under the law.

See, Debra K is just reminding Keys of the fact that incest and polygamy are now just as "legal" as gay marriage is across the 50 states that want nothing to do with any of them, statistically. SCOTUS did not and does not have the power to include "just some repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors but not others" as "part of the 14ths equality protections". ie: SCOTUS doesn't get to pick and choose arbitrarily which repugnant sex behaviors it favors and which it doesn't.

Keys is right in that the states do have a concrete and valid interest in rejecting gay marriage (and for different reasons, polygamy and incest marriage). And here it is (in the OP): States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The question of this thread though is how Kennedy would've voted had he known at the time that the LGBT gestapo and their long-reaching judicial-activist arm would have a Christian sitting in jail less than 3 months after his imposition of gay marriage upon the states, for passively refusing to accomodate a gay wedding.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

1) False equivalency: mongogamy as a social institution is not the same as polygamy; having a sexual relationship with a person who is not related to you is not the same as having such a relationship with someone who is closely related.

LOL! You can't be serious. Homo- and Hetero-sexuality are not the same... .

I was addressing Silhouette's slippery slope argument, which is a logical fallacy. It is illogical to equate monogamy with polygamy and incest.

There is no fallacious flaw where the slope at issue is actually slippery. Such as where sexual standards are being reduced, leading to further reductions... As the history of the last 50 years clearly demonstrate.

It IS fallacious however, to cite a fallacious flaw where none exists, as you've done above.

The equation sets the certainty that where one licenses one sexual deviancy, that one can reasonably not license the next... Which is the reason that viability requires YA DONT LICENSE ANY OF 'EM.

On the other hand, same gender couples are similarly situated to opposite gender couples seeking to enter the established civil (secular) institution of marriage. The private sexual relationship between two adults in a consensual relationship are none of your business and none of the government's business.

Private sexual relationships are irrelevant to the public right up to the point where they become relevant to PUBLIC POLICY.

Turning the nucleus of civilization on its head due to one's degenerate private sexual behavior... Cannot enjoy a claim to any sense of a right to privacy.

Nature defines marriage as the Joining of One Man and One Woman. That someone does not or cannot rise to that standard is irrelevant to the standard beyond merely demonstrating the purpose for the standard.

2) Rational basis: the government has a rational basis for permitting monogamy and denying polygamy; the government has a rational basis for prohibiting incestuous marriages.

Government has a interests in and rational basis for sustaining sexual normalcy and never MORE SO than in the very nucleus of civilization, OKA: Marriage, and the Progs could not care less about that.

If you can't see that, then you're hopelessly blind to reality.

Your hostility toward the inclusion of people you despise based solely on your idea of "sexual normalcy" is not a rational basis for depriving them of liberty and equal protection under the law.[/quote][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Your fallacious straw reasoning, wherein you need to paint me as despising the underdog degenerate, provides that you've again ck ceded to the standing points, through your failure to offer a sustainable contest.

Your concessions are duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Debra K]

The Supreme Court stated:

This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not. Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534; Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 634-635. Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.

Source: Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Similarly, the Supreme Court stated hostility to racial desegregation is not a rational basis to discriminate on the basis of race and to delay enforcement of the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

Source: Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

To satisfy constitutional scrutiny, Keyes and Silhouette, you must set forth a sufficient basis to justify state-sponsored discrimination other than your personal hostility or disapproval.

 

[AceRothstein]

I see the same old tired arguments here from the anti-gay bigots. YAWN

 

[Faun]

Here's a question that came up on another thread which made me reflect a bit.

If Justice Kennedy had known in June of this year that before the leaves fell off the trees in the same year, that the LGBT cult would pressure a judge to jail a Christian for passively refusing to enable a "gay marriage"....would that have affected his vote?

Ostensibly, we can predict how that would've affected Ginsburg and Kagan's votes, since as the question was pending up to their Court of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage", the two of them were openly presiding over states as The Supreme Federal Last Word by peforming gay weddings on public display. We can then extrapolate that if they are willing to violate the Constitution so flagrantly at that level that they would also "look away" as threats of jailing Christians for not playing along were bounced around in their presence.

But Kennedy, he's a different bloke. And also maybe Sotomayer and Breyer. But for the more senior and sensible one who at least has not displayed arrogant public bias while the case was pending (in violation of Massey Coal 2009), this topic is about Kennedy mainly. You can weigh in also on Sotomayor and Breyer too. But I think we're all 100% in agreement on Ginsburg and Kagan not changing their votes if they knew...


So, if Kennedy had a crystal ball and saw Kim Davis sitting in jail less than 3 months after he released the June Opinion, would he have voted differently?

Discuss.

He ruled on the Constitution, not some religious nut's beliefs. I don't see his decision being any different.

 

[Silhouette]

He ruled on the Constitution, not some religious nut's beliefs. I don't see his decision being any different.

Which part of the Constitution guarantees "just some repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors but not others" the "rights to equality and access to all priveleges others enjoy"? If you argue that the 14th is about "equal rights" then polygamy and incest are already as legal as "gay marriage" across the 50 states.

That little soon-to-unravel embarassing legal fuck up is one thing, but Kennedy being in charge of the Constitution no doubt has read the 1st Amendment and the 9th which enforces its potency. You act as if there is only one constitutional guarantee (which plainly does not exist) while you give a complete pass to the 1st and 9th Amendments.

 

[Faun]

He ruled on the Constitution, not some religious nut's beliefs. I don't see his decision being any different.

Which part of the Constitution guarantees "just some repugnant minority deviant sex behaviors but not others" the "rights to equality and access to all priveleges others enjoy"? If you argue that the 14th is about "equal rights" then polygamy and incest are already as legal as "gay marriage" across the 50 states.

That little soon-to-unravel embarassing legal fuck up is one thing, but Kennedy being in charge of the Constitution no doubt has read the 1st Amendment and the 9th which enforces its potency. You act as if there is only one constitutional guarantee (which plainly does not exist) while you give a complete pass to the 1st and 9th Amendments.

Your delusions persist. Incest is not legalized because of this ruling.

Incest was, and is, illegal. Therefore, there is a compelling interest to maintain bans on such marriages. There is no such compelling interest to ban gay marriages since homosexuality is not illegal. This is where your argument collapses -- just as it always does. Sadly, you do not possess the required acumen to comprehend this ... which is why you persist in pressing this idiocy of yours.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Supreme Court stated:

This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not. Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534; Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 634-635. Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.

Source: Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Similarly, the Supreme Court stated hostility to racial desegregation is not a rational basis to discriminate on the basis of race and to delay enforcement of the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

Source: Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

To satisfy constitutional scrutiny, Keyes and Silhouette, you must set forth a sufficient basis to justify state-sponsored discrimination other than your personal hostility or disapproval.

ROFLMNAO!

Relativism... ON PARADE!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The Supreme Court stated:

This case raises a different issue than Bowers: whether, under the Equal Protection Clause, moral disapproval is a legitimate state interest to justify by itself a statute that bans homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. It is not. Moral disapproval of this group, like a bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause. See, e.g., Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534; Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S., at 634-635. Indeed, we have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.

Source: Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Similarly, the Supreme Court stated hostility to racial desegregation is not a rational basis to discriminate on the basis of race and to delay enforcement of the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.

Source: Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

To satisfy constitutional scrutiny, Keyes and Silhouette, you must set forth a sufficient basis to justify state-sponsored discrimination other than your personal hostility or disapproval.

ROFLMNAO!

Relativism... ON PARADE!

Standards exist for one reason and one reason only... And that reason is to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THOSE WHO FAIL TO MEET THAT STANDARD because the standard assures the integrity of the institution the standard serves to protect.

Your argument is so convoluted, it is impossible to respond to it with any degree seriousness.