SCOTUS Changed The Constitution To Include (Just) Some Behaviors (Their Favorites, Not Ours)

[Silhouette]

Without a definitive source to cite, SCOTUS deemed "LGBT" an innate static class, ignoring the fact that they are a loosely knit group of compulsive behaviors; much like addicts or people with eating disorders (PC police would call bulimia a different eating-orientation).

BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE, THE COURT MADE CONCLUSIONS AND LEGISLATED NEW MATERIAL ADDED TO THE CONSTITUITON THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE.

Here is a quite contemporary rendition of how the LGBT grouping (cult IMHO) regards its own "solid identity" (where even a born gender shifts back and forth across the operating table as its skewed & undulating mental whims dictate)

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

This incomplete grouping of shifting and amorphic behaviors, that don't even know how to define themselves and who change over time, repugnant to the majority, have now been granted "a static class" and protection under the Constitution. This is a fundamental change to the Constitution BTW. It never intended to remove local regulation of behaviors from the sovereign states. That's a brand spanking new concept folks. And it's arbitrary and unworkable to boot because now any and all behaviors may use the precedent if they organize and identify themselves as "(Fill in the Blank) Americans". At no time before did the Constitution grant non-religions made up of behaviors (cults) the majority rejects "special protection". Regulation of behaviors was delegated to the separate states within their borders. What the SCOTUS did was create a new addition to the Constitution.

Did you catch that last part Congress?

For the layman unfamiliar with how our government works, The US Supreme Court is charged ONLY with interpreting the Constitution. Such a radical interpretation is actually a change, since they made it up and added it. And how do you measure that? By anticipating what will come next on its heels once the new classification has been added....ADDED, not "interpreted". Adding "sexual orientation" to the language of the Constitution's protections is an addition. And additions only are allowed by Congress. Which behaviors will the Constitution deny now? Will the Court keep picking its favorites while turning others away, all which were previously subject to regulation by the soveriegn states? Will just 5 people in DC keep dictating to the People what is acceptable/untouchable behavior (in this case around kids)?

Can anyone say "power grab"? The Court on Friday effectively took away from the states their power to regulate behaviors at a local level. The Court took away from Congress its right and duty ONLY as a legislative body charged alone with substantive redactions to the Constitution.

Now the Court is acting as a Fairy Godmother to any group of deviants who want to organize, (falsely) declare themselves a static group who have identities based on their behaviors "Polygamist Americans".. "Bulimic Americans".. "Addicted Americans"..."Man Loving Boys Americans"...And hey, don't think its absurd. The first one in that lineup will be heading to the Court in the next two years for its "rights to marry". And as for the "Man Loving Boys Americans"..don't laugh so quickly either. The Court JUST completely dismissed the rights of children in marriage last week when they determined that the wants of adults outweigh the needs of children (father/mother marriage).

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family....the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.
American College of Pediatricians on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling A Tragic Day for America s Children - Breitbart

So is the Court allowed to create a new class (for just some behaviors but not the ones they don't like) protection for the Constitution? Or is Congress in charge of that? A smart lawyer would find a way to walk that question before Congress. It's time for checks and balances because someone just overreached their Branch last week.

That and two of the Justices were required by law to have recused themselves from Sitting on the case: A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision Subtract Two Votes US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The case: 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co (transcripts of the Court arguing the premise upon which the conclusion was reached) http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

The conclusion was from that premise that if a justice shows a flicker of bias for or against any of the litigants to a pending question of law (in this case whether or not the fed can dictate to the states on changing what marriage has meant for humanity for 1,000s of years), that judge, Justice, magistrate etc. etc. etc. MUST recuse themselves from a case. Might want to check out that thread on what Kagan and Ginsburg did while the question was making its way up on appeal in their system..

We have a perverted and menacing Court on our hands. They're simply not allowed to "update" the Constitution without the permission of Congress. And they are never EVER allowed to display public bias towards one set of litigants or against another.

 

[Silhouette]

Can the Supreme Court change the US Constitution?...No, the US Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution, or decide how the framers intended for the Articles and Amendments to be applied. While this is often referred to as an "informal amendment process," it is important to recognize only the application of the Constitution changes through interpretation; the document itself does not. Most constitutional interpretation changes over time, so the process is dynamic, not fixed....In order to prevent frivolous and ill-conceived changes to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers made the formal process of amending the document difficult....In simple terms: an Amendment can be added to the Constitution through a super-majority (two-thirds) vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. To repeal an existing Amendment to the Constitution requires the addition of a new Amendment -- as was done with the 18th Amendment (prohibition), which was repealed by the 21st Amendment. Can the Supreme Court change the US Constitution

An example of an "ill-conceived" change to the Constitution would be establishing that just some (of the SCOTUS' favorites, but not others?) BEHAVIORS that are not fully understood, would receive protection from local majority regulation at the state level. What the Court did Friday was a de facto new Amendment to the Constitution that will bring with it a rife of fully legitimate challenges from other behavioral groups-as-identities ("Fill in the Blank"-Americans), self-diagnosed, "as protected from regulation by the majority". I can see it now in the headlines "Addicted-Americans demand new rights...".

Congress must act swiftly to protect its powers of legislation and to nix this ill-conceived ADDITION to the US Constitution...by the disallowed Court.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

We'll soon see if they apply the same logic to CCW permits.

 

[Syriusly]

I am curious- how many threads do you think Silhouette will start in her continuing melt down over the Court saying people can get married?

1 a day? 2 a day?

It is rather amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I am curious- how many threads do you think Silhouette will start in her continuing melt down over the Court saying people can get married?

1 a day? 2 a day?

It is rather amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

 

[Ravi]

How did they change the constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

I am curious- how many threads do you think Silhouette will start in her continuing melt down over the Court saying people can get married?

1 a day? 2 a day?

It is rather amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

I have never met a chick with a dick.

I guess your experiences are different than mine.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I am curious- how many threads do you think Silhouette will start in her continuing melt down over the Court saying people can get married?

1 a day? 2 a day?

It is rather amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

I have never met a chick with a dick.

I guess your experiences are different than mine.

I think you've met more than most.

 

[Idadunno]

Without a definitive source to cite, SCOTUS deemed "LGBT" an innate static class, ignoring the fact that they are a loosely knit group of compulsive behaviors; much like addicts or people with eating disorders (PC police would call bulimia a different eating-orientation).

BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE, THE COURT MADE CONCLUSIONS AND LEGISLATED NEW MATERIAL ADDED TO THE CONSTITUITON THAT DIDN'T EXIST BEFORE.

Here is a quite contemporary rendition of how the LGBT grouping (cult IMHO) regards its own "solid identity" (where even a born gender shifts back and forth across the operating table as its skewed & undulating mental whims dictate)

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

This incomplete grouping of shifting and amorphic behaviors, that don't even know how to define themselves and who change over time, repugnant to the majority, have now been granted "a static class" and protection under the Constitution. This is a fundamental change to the Constitution BTW. It never intended to remove local regulation of behaviors from the sovereign states. That's a brand spanking new concept folks. And it's arbitrary and unworkable to boot because now any and all behaviors may use the precedent if they organize and identify themselves as "(Fill in the Blank) Americans". At no time before did the Constitution grant non-religions made up of behaviors (cults) the majority rejects "special protection". Regulation of behaviors was delegated to the separate states within their borders. What the SCOTUS did was create a new addition to the Constitution.

Did you catch that last part Congress?

For the layman unfamiliar with how our government works, The US Supreme Court is charged ONLY with interpreting the Constitution. Such a radical interpretation is actually a change, since they made it up and added it. And how do you measure that? By anticipating what will come next on its heels once the new classification has been added....ADDED, not "interpreted". Adding "sexual orientation" to the language of the Constitution's protections is an addition. And additions only are allowed by Congress. Which behaviors will the Constitution deny now? Will the Court keep picking its favorites while turning others away, all which were previously subject to regulation by the soveriegn states? Will just 5 people in DC keep dictating to the People what is acceptable/untouchable behavior (in this case around kids)?

Can anyone say "power grab"? The Court on Friday effectively took away from the states their power to regulate behaviors at a local level. The Court took away from Congress its right and duty ONLY as a legislative body charged alone with substantive redactions to the Constitution.

Now the Court is acting as a Fairy Godmother to any group of deviants who want to organize, (falsely) declare themselves a static group who have identities based on their behaviors "Polygamist Americans".. "Bulimic Americans".. "Addicted Americans"..."Man Loving Boys Americans"...And hey, don't think its absurd. The first one in that lineup will be heading to the Court in the next two years for its "rights to marry". And as for the "Man Loving Boys Americans"..don't laugh so quickly either. The Court JUST completely dismissed the rights of children in marriage last week when they determined that the wants of adults outweigh the needs of children (father/mother marriage).

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING: ‘A TRAGIC DAY FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN
Dr. Michelle Cretella, president of the College, said:
[T]his is a tragic day for America’s children. The SCOTUS has just undermined the single greatest pro-child institution in the history of mankind: the natural family....the SCOTUS has elevated and enshrined the wants of adults over the needs of children.
American College of Pediatricians on Same-Sex Marriage Ruling A Tragic Day for America s Children - Breitbart

So is the Court allowed to create a new class (for just some behaviors but not the ones they don't like) protection for the Constitution? Or is Congress in charge of that? A smart lawyer would find a way to walk that question before Congress. It's time for checks and balances because someone just overreached their Branch last week.

That and two of the Justices were required by law to have recused themselves from Sitting on the case: A Shortcut to Nixing The Gay Marriage Decision Subtract Two Votes US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The case: 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co (transcripts of the Court arguing the premise upon which the conclusion was reached) http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

The conclusion was from that premise that if a justice shows a flicker of bias for or against any of the litigants to a pending question of law (in this case whether or not the fed can dictate to the states on changing what marriage has meant for humanity for 1,000s of years), that judge, Justice, magistrate etc. etc. etc. MUST recuse themselves from a case. Might want to check out that thread on what Kagan and Ginsburg did while the question was making its way up on appeal in their system..

We have a perverted and menacing Court on our hands. They're simply not allowed to "update" the Constitution without the permission of Congress. And they are never EVER allowed to display public bias towards one set of litigants or against another.

You must be related to that other idiot floating around on here.
1) I know how homophobes hate to research or read proof but I'm going for it anyway. Gays were born that way.
Study Finds Epigenetics Not Genetics Underlies Homosexuality
2) The SC did not favor a behavior. That is your paranoia that a gay man will ask you out. The SC granted protection of rights to homosexuals because... get ready for it... they are human beings too and American citizens. WOW! OMG!! That gave me a rush.
3) Protection of rights means no one can discriminate against them. It did not add a new class (that is really lame btw).
4) You also have protection of rights because it is against the law to discriminate against the mentally ill.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has been growing more ill as each day goes by.

Marriage is a guaranteed right for human beings.

 

[Silhouette]

How did they change the constitution?

By creating a new protected class which includes for the first time non religion based behaviors, just some, which are exclusionary to other minority behaviors which currently don't enjoy the same rights. The irony is that the very language they cite "that no American be disparaged from the priveleges and immunities of others" was used to disparage a whole host of other behaviors currently excluded from special class protection from regulation by the majority.

That's a new addition. Which of course is not only unworkable, inequal and unfair, but also not allowed. Only Congress may make substantive additions to the Constitution..

 

[Silhouette]

2) The SC did not favor a behavior.

Here's what the Supreme Court set as a brand new (unworkable, unfair to other behaviors) "special protected class"...a brand new addition to the Constitution:
What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

How is it that a "community" gets special treatment in the Constitution? Shouldn't say, Addict-Americans or other waffling, behavior-based communities also enjoy freedom from majority regulation? What if "Bulimic Americans" want rights to vomit urns on restaurant tables because they feel it is oppressive, bigoted and hateful for them to have to hide their eating-orientation in the bathroom? You may think that sounds absurd, but if you understand how American law works and how precedents can be manipulated, it isn't as far-fetched as you think.

There is no provision in the Constitution for loosely-knit, ill-defined behavioral associations that aren't religions to have special immunity from regulation by the majority in the sovereign states. This is for all intents and purposes made up by SCOTUS. They just made up that behaviors have protection. They don't. They didn't even explore LGBTs own admissions that their sort-of "identity" derives from the practice of deviant sex behaviors and other mental problems (transgender). THAT was the starting point at which all their deliberations were necessary to begin. They just omitted that premise and went straight to assigning "rights" to a group of behaviors that change over time and don't even understand themselves.

A group that doesn't even understand its own identities that are based on their BEHAVIORS and no other cohesive quality, cannot arbitrarily and ambiguously be granted "special protections" from democratic process. This is NOT provided for in the Constitution. Changing the Constitution is not allowed by SCOTUS. Only Congress may do that. So the Friday Ruling itself is unconstitutional.

And all this results in the end of 5 people in DC dictating to society that it is now acceptable and the law of the land that children may experience fatherless or motherless marriages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The patron saint of The Cult of Silhouette forgets that their is no new protected class, only the mighty class of citizens and their civil rights.

 

[Silhouette]

The patron saint of The Cult of Silhouette forgets that their is no new protected class, only the mighty class of citizens and their civil rights.

Then you would have no objection to Christians and their civil rights. After all, the 9th Amendment says that no provision of the Constitution (in this case newly added where just some behaviors...the Justices favorites... but not polygamy, for instance, can skirt majority regulation) may suppress rights enjoyed in another. So your PA laws, unless found to be unconstitutionally created by the judicial creating new legislation, are on par with the 1st Amendment.

It will be a showdown in Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Uh . . . SaintSil . . . the showdown in Court was decided last week.

This is over.

 

[Silhouette]

Uh . . . SaintSil . . . the showdown in Court was decided last week.

This is over.

No, no it isn't actually...

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- A few court clerks in Kentucky were refusing to issue marriage licenses to any couple Monday as an objection to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage....Casey County Clerk Casey Davis said his Christian beliefs would not allow him to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples..."My religious convictions will not allow me to in good conscience issue same-sex marriage licenses," Davis said....Clerks in Rowan and Lawrence counties also have halted issuing all marriage licenses in response to the Supreme Court ruling, The Lexington Herald-Leader first reported Monday. Repeated calls to those offices were not answered...
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky said its lawyers would be willing to represent same-sex couples who are refused a marriage license in Kentucky...."It's our contention that government officials' personal objections are insufficient to justify refusing to do what they have been elected by the people to do, Same-sex marriage Kentucky court clerks refuse to issue licenses - San Jose Mercury News

And so, the infamous pending case of "the cult of LGBT v Christians" begins its march right back up to SCOTUS. The premise of LGBTs being behaviors that they themselves don't really understand is going to be finally discussed. They are not a race. This isn't even in the same ballpark as race since for the first time in human history, we are being asked to accept motherless or fatherless "marriages" as "acceptable bests for raising kids. While in practice they are inferior: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

They are behaviors (just the Court's favorites remember) getting a "special favorites pass" from SCOTUS to circumvent regulation, while polygamy and incest don't get that pass. This is actually inequality, fascism and new legislation from the judicial branch, which is FORBIDDEN.

So it's far, far from over. This has just begun. But you knew it would be this way. You knew from Hobby Lobby that it would be this way. And the Court did too. Which is why it is still unfathomable to me that they did what they did last Friday. They are in such a conflict of interest quagmire that I actually feel sorry for them at this point.

The 9th Amendment says that no provision of the Constitution or its interpretation may squelch the rights of another. And that other in question now as you know full well and always knew would be is the 1st Amendment practice of one's faith in day to day life. When the practice of one's faith in daily life hurts someone, as in sharia law, it cannot be. But to passively resist joining in behaviors hurts not one person and the punishment promised for failure to do so as warned in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ is soul-death.

An alternate title for this case could be "The 9th Amendment Case"..

 

[Syriusly]

I am curious- how many threads do you think Silhouette will start in her continuing melt down over the Court saying people can get married?

1 a day? 2 a day?

It is rather amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

I have never met a chick with a dick.

I guess your experiences are different than mine.

I think you've met more than most.

As I said- I have never met any- you are the one who posted about 'dicks are for chicks'.

Tell us all about your experiences with chicks with dicks.

 

[Syriusly]

Uh . . . SaintSil . . . the showdown in Court was decided last week.

This is over.

No, no it isn't actually...

Yep- marriage is legal in all 50 states now- regardless of the gender of the person you want to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

2) The SC did not favor a behavior.

Here's what the Supreme Court set as a brand new (unworkable, unfair to other behaviors) "special protected class"...a brand new addition to the Constitution:.

The Supreme Court of course did no such thing. Just your fantasies again.

 

[Silhouette]

The 10th