Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.
How were you on Bush v Gore?No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
gee, 4 Supremes didnt see it that way......if it was so obvious why not a unanimous decision?
It seems like it could be an accident of politics
and are you going to agree with( I think) those same justices in their majority opinion in Arizona that we are a democracy?
The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Another horseshit argument...
The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.
The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.
First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.
Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
And consider this as well:
On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:
The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.
On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:
Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]
On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution
so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).
This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.
In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.
“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.
In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.
“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825
You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/
Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.
The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
dcraelin said, "But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves."
The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word "persons". Former slaves fall within the category of "persons". Thus, former slaves as well as all other persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are protected by the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:
"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.
Source: Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Third horseshit argument
There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves. The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM. One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council. In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
>>>>
How were you on Bush v Gore?No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.
gee, 4 Supremes didnt see it that way......if it was so obvious why not a unanimous decision?
It seems like it could be an accident of politics
and are you going to agree with( I think) those same justices in their majority opinion in Arizona that we are a democracy?
SCOTUS has, on many occasions.The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Third horseshit argument
There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves. The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM. One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council. In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
>>>>
please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
SCOTUS has, on many occasions.The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Third horseshit argument
There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Too bad. You lose.
How were you on Bush v Gore?
no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
You incorrectly describe the question before the court.
The question was not is "gay marriage" Constitutional, it absolutely was.
Even if the court ruled that states could ban SSCM, there would have still been a number SSCM in this country. Because multiple states had SSCM based on state court action, based on state legislative action, and by state ballots passing SSCM.
The question before the courts was could states ban SSCM, their performing SSCM in locations there it had been passed by other means was irrelevant to the question before the court.
>>>>
Europe is that-a-way ---->The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.Article VI is not in dispute.Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'
And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'
A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.
And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.
Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Third horseshit argument
There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves. The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM. One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council. In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
>>>>
please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
Bitch.
no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.
You incorrectly describe the question before the court.
The question was not is "gay marriage" Constitutional, it absolutely was.
Even if the court ruled that states could ban SSCM, there would have still been a number SSCM in this country. Because multiple states had SSCM based on state court action, based on state legislative action, and by state ballots passing SSCM.
The question before the courts was could states ban SSCM, their performing SSCM in locations there it had been passed by other means was irrelevant to the question before the court.
>>>>
Your phone is ringing. Mildred Loving has a few words for you.SCOTUS has, on many occasions.The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.
well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.
Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.
Third horseshit argument
There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:
Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution
In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery
Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.
Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm
That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.
It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.
Europe, long seen as more liberal on such issues, has, I believe , said marriage is not a fundamental right.
Too bad. You lose.
as the chief justice said.....the gay community loses.....it loses forever the chance to get this the right way........as women did with amendment....or through the state legislatures or state voters directly.
So you'd have been just fine and dandy if Sonia Sotomayor went fishing with James Obergefell as the case was being decided. Ooooo-tay.Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves. The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM. One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council. In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
>>>>
please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
Bitch.
hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.
So you'd have been just fine and dandy if Sonia Sotomayor went fishing with James Obergefell as the case was being decided. Ooooo-tay.Scalia, hunting with Cheney, while a case before the court involving him was up for consideration.Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.
There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves. The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM. One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.
Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council. In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.
>>>>
please.....that is just a sheer line of BS.....it was up for consideration on a national level............the justices actions show a contempt for the proper attitude of the court.
Bitch.
hunting wasnt up for and issue with the court............handgun use was I believe. I presume they werent using handguns. But regardless that not of the same import.
