SCOTUS divided over SSM

[bodecea]

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah well...we had the same assumption that interracial marriages, divorcees marriages and inmate marriages were equal too. The SCOTUS confirmed that "assumption" as is their JOB.

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

 

[martybegan]

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

 

[martybegan]

Still not proof that SSM and OSM are equal enough to force States to endorse them, but good enough for Full faith and credit.

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW. Nor is the concept that marriage is a part of that right.

 

[martybegan]

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. BANNING IT FOR SAME SEX PEOPLE IS THE NEW THING. Before it was illegal just to be gay there was no need to ban gay marriage cause being gay was illegal.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course they are equal...and come June there's a good chance they will rule just like they did in the three cases I mentioned earlier.

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

 

[martybegan]

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. BANNING IT FOR SAME SEX PEOPLE IS THE NEW THING. Before it was illegal just to be gay there was no need to ban gay marriage cause being gay was illegal.

Even when it wasn't illegal to be gay it wasn't in the contract. In no known culture has it ever been a part of the marriage contract. It wasn't banned, it was not even considered, even by the gay people at the time. Hell, some of them considered it hetero-normalization to even think about getting married like straights did.

You use the word banning, what it is is defining the contract as it has always been used in American law, one man, one woman. Even the mormons realized this when they wanted Utah to become a State and still had polygamy as part of their faith.

 

[martybegan]

There is that whole substituting personal belief and hope for actual legal logic thing you do again.

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.

 

[martybegan]

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.

Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh sure...except for the legal precedent I have on MY "side".

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.

INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

 

[martybegan]

Your side is the one wanting to rewrite law without actually getting people to agree to re write it.

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.

INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.

2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.

 

[RKMBrown]

You mean "get rid of bad law".....So, what are you going to do in late June? How is YOUR life going to be changed?

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.

Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.

You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.

You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.

You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

 

[martybegan]

By the precedent of being able to create a federal right out of thin air (again). Once you can do that with impunity any later court with more progressives on it can simply eliminate other rights "because they want to."

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.

Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.

You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.

You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.

You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?

When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. Striking out a discriminatory law is not the same as re-writing law. I believe the issue is the banning of marriages based on sexual orientation and whether the states can legally discriminate against two consenting adults who want to want to sign a marriage licence and have the state witness it and record it as a legal marriage in the state.

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.

INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.

2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.

Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?

You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse. But yes, I understand that there is a window of opportunity for this court to rule on the cross state licensing issue.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry, but when you abandon strict construction and create rights out of conjecture and inference you go from interpreting law to creating it.

The issue is that the questions you ask are left to State legislatures to figure out on issuance, the only say the court has is if other States have to recognize them, and to me the answer to that is yes.

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.

INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.

2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.

Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?

You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse.

They didn't ban it, they clarified what everyone knew about the contract before SSM became an issue. Its not like they allowed it, then didn't. Thats a ban.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. The right to life and liberty, of which Marriage has always been a fundamental part, is not "out of thin air." THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS NOT NEW.

Granting it to same sex people without legislative action is sure as hell out of thin air.

Incorrect. At issue is whether the states can discriminate against the LIFE of citizens based on sexual orientation.

Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this. Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it? Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is.

You said. "Stop using the word discriminate when it comes to this." No, I will not candy coat what the states are doing.

You asked, "Is it discrimination when states prevent first cousin marriage, or place age restrictions on it?" As to first cousins... Yes, it is. Discriminating against "first cousins" who are consenting adults based on HARM to any kids they may have together is old and well established law. As to age restrictions.... NO, an UNDERAGE CHILD IS NOT A CONSENTING ADULT.

You say, "Its defining the contract, nothing more. and the definition is based on what a State Legislature says it is." You can candy coat it all you want, but the result is the same, at issue is whether the THE STATES CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CONSENTING ADULTS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

But most of the underage allowances are with the consent of the parents. Isn't that discrimination against parents who like to see their kids married off early?

When everything is discrimination, nothing is. When courts can overrule the will of the people in flimsy situations like this, we have oligarchy.

You say, "when everything is discrimination, nothing is." That is a slippery slope argument, and it holds no weight. The oligarchy is the state ruling who can or can't get married based on some arbitrary like or dislike. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU ARE BEING THIS OBTUSE.

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. Marriage is not a new right.

Gay marriage would be if it is enforced by the courts.

INCORRECT AT ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER THE COURTS CAN FORCE GAY PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. At issue is whether the states can DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE LIFE OF CITIZENS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

1. Typing in caps doesn't make it any more correct.

2. its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people, when there is no precedent for what is being forced. The feds can force one State to recognize a marriage license from another, but they cannot force them to change their own contract in this situation.

Would you prefer italics or bold to make emphasis?

You say, "its about courts being able to force States to change a contract without the will of the people." Incorrect, the change is the states adding laws banning same sex marriage, you are being obtuse.

They didn't ban it, they clarified what everyone knew about the contract before SSM became an issue. Its not like they allowed it, then didn't. Thats a ban.

WOW... JUST WOW No sir. That's BANNING IT based on sexual orientation. Just because your not gay does not give you the effing right to piss on gay people, by telling them that marriage is only for heteros go the fuck away.