SCOTUS divided over SSM

[g5000]

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?

And many states outlawed gay sex.

Those are the days to which the anti-SSM folks want to return.

 

[g5000]

It's funny how some white, heterosexual people pine for the old days "before we had a bunch of divisive politicians running our nation".

Life was good if you were white and straight back then. It never occurs to these dolts how much life sucked for everyone else.




"Here's how great it is to be white. I can get in a time machine and go to any time and it would be fucking awesome when I get there!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with rights being 'created' or 'made up,' the notion is ignorant idiocy.

The rights to due process and equal protection of the law are fundamental, and states that have enacted measures intended to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, the issue has nothing to do with the 9th or 10th Amendments, the issue has to do with 14th Amendment jurisprudence:

“Issue: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”

Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUSblog

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Hate our nations founders? Fuck you. I'm libertarian. Not every issue can be resolved via states rights. See National defense, Slavery, Jim Crow laws... Civil rights of the most basic kinds should not be discriminated against BY OUR GOVERNMENTS for reasons of skin color, sexual preference, gender etc. no matter HOW POPULAR BIGOTRY IS IN YOUR STATE OF RESIDENCE.

 

[Rambunctious]

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?

I don't remember that at all I had an openly gay Spanish teacher in high school and there were gay characters in movies and television. Of course that was Hollywood but I think you're exaggerating to prove a point. At that point in history there were good reasons for parents to not want openly gay men around their sons. If you can't understand that then I can't help you. I hung around with all sorts of kids in school. We even purchased pot on a regular basis from a drag queen. All you're doing by getting angry and being hateful towards conservatives id dividing all of us. You play right into our so called leaders hands.

 

[Rambunctious]

Hate our nations founders? Fuck you. I'm libertarian. Not every issue can be resolved via states rights. See National defense, Slavery, Jim Crow laws... Civil rights of the most basic kinds should not be discriminated against BY OUR GOVERNMENTS for reasons of skin color, sexual preference, gender etc. no matter HOW POPULAR BIGOTRY IS IN YOUR STATE OF RESIDENCE

You're the one that wrote that you were raised a bigot just like our "forefathers" so fuck you right back...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Rambunctious]

And many states outlawed gay sex.

Those are the days to which the anti-SSM folks want to return

Not true that is pure conjecture on your part the anti SSM folks want their religion left alone. No one likes to be forced to give up strongly held convictions. Besides SSM is largely unnecessary in today's world. The pro SSM folks just want to win and stick it to the people they hate namely Christians. You're all bully's just like your leader Barry. When the courts shoot down SSM we will talk again.

 

[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.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hate our nations founders? Fuck you. I'm libertarian. Not every issue can be resolved via states rights. See National defense, Slavery, Jim Crow laws... Civil rights of the most basic kinds should not be discriminated against BY OUR GOVERNMENTS for reasons of skin color, sexual preference, gender etc. no matter HOW POPULAR BIGOTRY IS IN YOUR STATE OF RESIDENCE

You're the one that wrote that you were raised a bigot just like our "forefathers" so fuck you right back...

You think I choose my parents? Fuck you.

 

[Rambunctious]

You think I choose my parents? Fuck you.

What? Now you hate your own parents? tsk tsk I know a good psychiatrist.

 

[Rambunctious]

"Here's how great it is to be white. I can get in a time machine and go to any time and it would be fucking awesome when I get there!"

You're a racist...

 

[RKMBrown]

You think I choose my parents? Fuck you.

What? Now you hate your own parents? tsk tsk I know a good psychiatrist.

Who said I hate my parents? You can go fuck your psychiatrist, ya ass hole.

 

[Rambunctious]

Who said I hate my parents? You can go fuck your psychiatrist, ya ass hole

I assume you wished you had different parents when you said you couldn't choose them. I don't need a head shrinker but I would be wise enough to know it if I did. Too bad you can't see how badly you need counseling. For one thing you have an anger problem and a hatred for others...not good.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is not a civil right. And everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. If that doesn't work for you because you love a member of your own sex then there are civil unions. If that ain't good enough too bad! no one gets everything they want in life. There is always give and take in everything. Grow up baby.

There was a time everyone could marry someone of their own race but that didn't protect the anti-miscegenation laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Giving gays the right to marry doesn't force them to marry. Gays who oppose gay marriage? Stay single.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said I hate my parents? You can go fuck your psychiatrist, ya ass hole

I assume you wished you had different parents when you said you couldn't choose them. I don't need a head shrinker but I would be wise enough to know it if I did. Too bad you can't see how badly you need counseling. For one thing you have an anger problem and a hatred for others...not good.

lol Keep your ignorant assumptions to yourself, or ask.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Yeah, exceptt opponents of SSM are losing in the courts because they can't defend their positions compliance with the 14th. You can play musical chairs with amendments it changes nothing.

 

[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.

Wrong.

The states have no authority to violate the civil rights of the American citizens who reside within the states; one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are one's civil rights subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where as citizens of the United States one's inalienable rights are immune from attack by the states.

In this case the states sought to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in absent a rational basis, absent objective, documented evidence in support, and absent a proper legislative end – indeed, such measures were enacted only to disadvantage gay Americans based solely on who they are, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Homosexuals have every right to marry that heterosexuals do. There is no discrimination at all. There has never been an application for a marriage license that asks you to list sexual preference.
Ergo it is not a 14thA issue at all. It is a 10thA issue. And the 10thA is very clear that such matters are for states to settle.

Says you. 44 of 46 federal courts have found that same sex marriage bans do discriminate against gays. As there's no reason for same sex marriage bans to exist. The restrictions are arbitrary and satisfy no requirement of a marriage. They serve no compelling state interest. They satisfy no valid legislative end. They don't even have a good reason.

And like interracial marriage bans before them, arbitrary discrimination in marriage isn't going to stand. And before you begin your song and dance about how race has nothing to do with it, the USSC has cited race based discrimination cases 4 times between Windsor v. US and Romer v. Evans when describing why you can't discriminate against gays.