SCOTUS divided over SSM

[Skylar]

Everything is not a right, on that I'd agree.

But doesn't the constitution say something about rights, if some Americans have them, that everyone should have them?

This is quite simple, make marriage between 2 adult humans legal.

Simple, let's move on

And that's the issue that the Court is addressing with the questions being answered related immediately to the 14th amendment. An amendment which guarantees equal protection in the law.

 

[martybegan]

The supreme court has jurisdiction, however they have drifted away from their mandate. The issue isn't judicial review, its judicial creation, as in creating things out of thin air, or flimsy reference.

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.

Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.

No they invoked the right of privacy which was well established.

And not in the document either. And that is part of the 4th amendment if it does exist, not the 14th. and it talks about warrants for criminal prosecution, not a medical procedure.

 

[martybegan]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually it did, until states passed laws making it illegal. So you had a situation where it was allowed, then it wasn't. So you had precedence where marriage was A-ok between races, then it wasn't, then the courts said it was again. You have no track record like that for gay marriage until recently.

I'm sorry, what point was it okay for a black man to fuck a white woman where it didn't end wiht the black guy at the end of rope?

Yes, rights are inherent, but they are only protected when enumerated under the constitution, or added via the amendment process. If you want to argue the 9th as invoidable, I can create the right to boff people with a foam hammer and then claim it as a right under the 9th. No person is actually harmed, so you can't go with that.

Guy, there are no "rights". Andy stupid fuck who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

Oh, they did check with tthe courts, and the courts said, "Meh, lock them up. Remember Pearl Harbor."

You are confusing lawlessness with laws on the books, and in the beginning of the US there were no laws regarding miscegenation until they were added before, during and after the civil war.

And rights exist, they are inherent. And your example proves case in point how courts that over-step their bounds can be a danger to us all.

The most fundamental of rights is equality. If you make it a legal right for a man to marry a woman, but you deny a woman the right to marry a woman,

you have violated the right of the woman to equality, based on her gender, and you have done so without proving there is an overriding compelling interest that the government has to protect that warrants such discrimination.

And you are trying to re-write a centuries old legal contract concept without actually re-writing it. Kennedy's questions revolved around this very point. Again, if legislatures decide to change the contract, I have no quarrel, but to create a right out of thin air is stupid, short-sighted, and unconstitutional.

Nonsense.

No right is being "created." You understand neither the law nor the issue under review.

 

[Skylar]

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

I don't consider prioritizing the rights of the individual over the power of the state to be a 'mistake'. That you do tells us volumes.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Nonsense. It is discrimination.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Nonsense. It is discrimination.

If you're a man you can marry a women. If you're a women you can marry a man if you're gay you can claim life partner status which gets you all the rights of married couples. No discrimination there! Sometimes you can't have it all. Grow up and live with it and stop trampling over the beliefs of Christians....bully!

 

[RKMBrown]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Nonsense. It is discrimination.

If you're a man you can marry a women. If you're a women you can marry a man if you're gay you can claim life partner status which gets you all the rights of married couples. No discrimination there! Sometimes you can't have it all. Grow up and live with it and stop trampling over the beliefs of Christians....bully!

ROFL let me get his straight... you want, nay you demand, the right to screw over gays because of some jewish law written by a rabbi over two thousand years ago that was selected for inclusion in the old testament by a circle of men that decided they alone get to decide what laws are sacrosanct? And you call me a bully, for having the opinion that we should not be screwing gays over? How about you take your sanctimonious clap trap and shove it where the sun does not shine. Who died and made you GOD to be deciding who gets to have it all and who doesn't?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

It's funny to see a 'liberty' guy like you arguing so hard against expanded rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You didn't answer the question

And once again who decides this- you- or the Supreme Court?

Someone always has to decide what is Constitutional and what is not.

If not the Supreme Court- who?

And if not the Supreme Court- what prevents a State from passing any law it wants, regardless of constiuttionality- such as- oh say a ban on mixed race marriages?

Actually, I did. The SC has jurisdiction, but has been overstepping its bounds from interpreting the law to making law.

What law has the Supreme Court made? Name the law or the statute number.

Roe V Wade. You can't name a statue number but its a law nonetheless. They took thin air and made up a right.

No they invoked the right of privacy which was well established.

And not in the document either. And that is part of the 4th amendment if it does exist, not the 14th. and it talks about warrants for criminal prosecution, not a medical procedure.

Criminalizing abortion is a criminal prosecution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 9th is not a catch all, "everything is a right" amendment, and is countered by the 10th, that says that things not regulated by the constitution are left to the States. The 9th is there so the federal government cannot go to the bill of rights and say "these are the only rights you have, no more".

The 9th amendment obliterates, undeniably and irrevockably, the idea that all rights are enumerated in the constitution. There is no debate on this topic. The 9th amendment explicitly contradicts you. And the record of the constitutional conventions make it ludicriously clear that the 9th amendment means that there are more rights than are enumerated.

You can certainly debate if some of the rights recognized by the court would be covered in the 9th amendment. But the idea that all rights are enumerated already is the purest bullshit constitutionally.

It was not meant to change everything into a right, nor restrict the federal government and the state governments from passing laws it found in its interest.

'Everything' isn't a right. And the federal government has always been restricted from passing laws that violate rights, even if it found those laws 'in its interests'. Later, the States were similarly restricted.

As is so common among conservatives, you're putting powers above rights, prioritizing the authority of the States over the rights of the individuals. That's an explicitly authoritarian perspective. And a denunciation of even the concept of small, less intrusive government.

Issues like this demonstrate the naked hypocrisy of many conservatives. As they don't want smaller, less intrusive government. They want sweeping power for government to be more restrictive, to be much more powerful, and to interfere with the most minute and intimate aspects of an individual's life.

As long as its state government doing it.

The founders prioritized rights over federal power. And the 14th amendment applied those priorities to state power. Which is why when the States create overly restrictive gun laws or blatantly discriminatory marriage laws that the federal judiciary can intercede and overturn them.

You'll note that there is no mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' enumerated anywhere. It was judicially defined. And its as valid as the right to marry.

Finally, the question the court is answering regarding gay marriage is regarding violation of the 14th amendment. An amendment that enumerates a variety of protections to US citizens and limits to state powers. And undeniably exists.

You are still making the mistake of people who rely on the 9th amendment to make up a right, and ignore the 10th amendment which gives items not listed in the constitution to the States, and by default their legislatures. You can explain all you want, you are still overreaching by a parsec with the 9th amendment.

The 10th amendment reserves to the states powers not prohibited by the Constitution, if you bother to read the 10th.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Nonsense. It is discrimination.

If you're a man you can marry a women. If you're a women you can marry a man if you're gay you can claim life partner status which gets you all the rights of married couples. No discrimination there! Sometimes you can't have it all. Grow up and live with it and stop trampling over the beliefs of Christians....bully!

ROFL let me get his straight... you want, nay you demand, the right to screw over gays because of some jewish law written by a rabbi over two thousand years ago that was selected for inclusion in the old testament by a circle of men that decided they alone get to decide what laws are sacrosanct? And you call me a bully, for having the opinion that we should not be screwing gays over? How about you take your sanctimonious clap trap and shove it where the sun does not shine. Who died and made you GOD to be deciding who gets to have it all and who doesn't?

How am I screwing over "Gays" ? First of all not all "Gays" are in favor of SSM. A percentage of them are in favor but most of the support for Gay marriage comes from straight public school brain washed 20 and 30 year olds LMAO

 

[toxicmedia]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

How can anything be moral at the State level, and immoral at the Federal level?

I've never gotten that

 

[Skylar]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

How can anything be moral at the State level, and immoral at the Federal level?

I've never gotten that

Its a fascinating contradiction. Rail against government interference and overstep. And then call for sweeping government interference and overstep.

The former applied to the feds. The latter to the states.

That's the conservative conundrum right there.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

How can anything be moral at the State level, and immoral at the Federal level?

I've never gotten that

Its a fascinating contradiction. Rail against government interference and overstep. And then call for sweeping government interference and overstep.

The former applied to the feds. The latter to the states.

That's the conservative conundrum right there.

In the beginning, Philadelphia and New York had to come up with interesting enticements to keep regions that became Ohio, for example, from forming their own country.

Back then, relatively slow communications and travel methods greatly increased the disadvantages of being far away from the seat of power.

That potential no longer exists, based solely on geography.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's a states issue, the court and the feds will step back from this in the end. Everyone has the right to marry. No one is being discriminated against. If you want the right to marry the same sex you need to convince people in your state that you're right and hold a vote. SSM supporters just don't want to do the hard work. They want daddy federal government to do it for them but that is unconstitutional. PERIOD.

Nonsense. It is discrimination.

If you're a man you can marry a women. If you're a women you can marry a man if you're gay you can claim life partner status which gets you all the rights of married couples. No discrimination there! Sometimes you can't have it all. Grow up and live with it and stop trampling over the beliefs of Christians....bully!

ROFL let me get his straight... you want, nay you demand, the right to screw over gays because of some jewish law written by a rabbi over two thousand years ago that was selected for inclusion in the old testament by a circle of men that decided they alone get to decide what laws are sacrosanct? And you call me a bully, for having the opinion that we should not be screwing gays over? How about you take your sanctimonious clap trap and shove it where the sun does not shine. Who died and made you GOD to be deciding who gets to have it all and who doesn't?

How am I screwing over "Gays" ? First of all not all "Gays" are in favor of SSM. A percentage of them are in favor but most of the support for Gay marriage comes from straight public school brain washed 20 and 30 year olds LMAO

You are screwing over gays, by denying them the right to SSM. Yeah and some blacks were pro slavery too. That does not mean slavery was a good thing.

I'm over 50. I was raised in the South to be a good christian. As such, I was raised to be a racist and a bigot just like my forefathers. But when I grew up, I learned to recognize racism and bigotry for what it is. Maybe you might want to think about growing up yourself and putting your bigotry aside.

 

[Rambunctious]

I was raised to be a racist and a bigot just like my forefathers

How sad for you. I was raised in liberal gay friendly Hollywood CA. There were openly gay guy's and gals attending my school and they were my friends. My group of friends looked like salt and pepper. People of all colors hung with each other. Of course this was in the 70's before we had a bunch of divisive politicians running our nation. They have us all hating each other. Once more I'm not restricting anyone from getting married but liberal Christ haters that hate our nations founders like yourself need to look within. You good sir have a big problem to over come.

 

[g5000]

First of all not all "Gays" are in favor of SSM.

Then they probably won't get married.

There are some straights who are opposed to the institution of marriage, too.

 

[Syriusly]

I was raised to be a racist and a bigot just like my forefathers

How sad for you. I was raised in liberal gay friendly Hollywood CA. There were openly gay guy's and gals attending my school and they were my friends. My group of friends looked like salt and pepper. People of all colors hung with each other. Of course this was in the 70's before we had a bunch of divisive politicians running our nation. They have us all hating each other. Once more I'm not restricting anyone from getting married but liberal Christ haters that hate our nations founders like yourself need to look within. You good sir have a big problem to over come.

In the 1970's?

You mean when Conservative Christians were trying to pass laws to prevent homosexuals from teaching in schools?

That is your idea of everyone hanging out together?