Sotomayor Grants Emergency Stay to Kansas: Halts Gay Marriage.

[SwimExpert]

The state derives its just power from the will of the people.

You mean....from people who agree with you, right?

Courts regularly defer to legislatures in matters precisely for that reason.

Courts defer to legislatures where the question is a legislative matter and not a judicial matter. Is a law stupid? Is it bad public policy? That's a legislative matter. Is Jerry guilty of breaking that law? It doesn't matter if 100% of the people are opposed to Jerry's conviction, the law is the law. The court isn't there to pander to the will of the people. It's there to interpret the law. The law is supreme. Period. That is why there is a popular phrase called the rule of law. You should do some research on it.

The people are the legitimate arbiters of what is right and wrong. It is only on relatively rate occasions that the courts will over ride that, based on a fundamental principle in the Constitution.

Actually, what you are describing is textbook judicial activism. Constitutional principles are always applicable, regardless of how popular they may or may not be. If the people want to change the constitution, there are available options for doing so. But the rule of law remains intact, and the purpose of the courts is not to enforce what they believe is the supposed will of the people.

Yes, that is the only constittuonal question. Recall that "gay marriage" is not about the rights of homosexuals. Once it passes any two people of the same gender can marry. So it is not "gay marriage" at all.

You're partially right. I suppose that is the reason the modern terminology has changed to "same sex" marriage. Can't discriminate. But that's irrelevant. That does not change the fact that there are currently multiple contrary rulings in the lower courts as to the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. And it does not answer the question as to whether the constitution tolerates bans on same sex marriage, or under what circumstances such bans may be implemented.

 

[Silhouette]

You're partially right. I suppose that is the reason the modern terminology has changed to "same sex" marriage. Can't discriminate. But that's irrelevant. That does not change the fact that there are currently multiple contrary rulings in the lower courts as to the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. And it does not answer the question as to whether the constitution tolerates bans on same sex marriage, or under what circumstances such bans may be implemented.

Sutton maintains that even that is arbitrary. That now, legally, polygamists may marry in Kansas under the same legal rationale used to force Kansas to embrace same-sex marriage. When A man and A woman is dissolved, what makes the word "A" so sacred?

Tradition???

C'mon!

 

[SwimExpert]

You're partially right. I suppose that is the reason the modern terminology has changed to "same sex" marriage. Can't discriminate. But that's irrelevant. That does not change the fact that there are currently multiple contrary rulings in the lower courts as to the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. And it does not answer the question as to whether the constitution tolerates bans on same sex marriage, or under what circumstances such bans may be implemented.

Sutton maintains that even that is arbitrary. That now, legally, polygamists may marry in Kansas under the same legal rationale used to force Kansas to embrace same-sex marriage. When A man and A woman is dissolved, what makes the word "A" so sacred?

Tradition???

C'mon!

Been drinking?

 

[The Rabbi]

The state derives its just power from the will of the people.

You mean....from people who agree with you, right?

Courts regularly defer to legislatures in matters precisely for that reason.

Courts defer to legislatures where the question is a legislative matter and not a judicial matter. Is a law stupid? Is it bad public policy? That's a legislative matter. Is Jerry guilty of breaking that law? It doesn't matter if 100% of the people are opposed to Jerry's conviction, the law is the law. The court isn't there to pander to the will of the people. It's there to interpret the law. The law is supreme. Period. That is why there is a popular phrase called the rule of law. You should do some research on it.

The people are the legitimate arbiters of what is right and wrong. It is only on relatively rate occasions that the courts will over ride that, based on a fundamental principle in the Constitution.

Actually, what you are describing is textbook judicial activism. Constitutional principles are always applicable, regardless of how popular they may or may not be. If the people want to change the constitution, there are available options for doing so. But the rule of law remains intact, and the purpose of the courts is not to enforce what they believe is the supposed will of the people.

Yes, that is the only constittuonal question. Recall that "gay marriage" is not about the rights of homosexuals. Once it passes any two people of the same gender can marry. So it is not "gay marriage" at all.

You're partially right. I suppose that is the reason the modern terminology has changed to "same sex" marriage. Can't discriminate. But that's irrelevant. That does not change the fact that there are currently multiple contrary rulings in the lower courts as to the constitutionality of same sex marriage bans. And it does not answer the question as to whether the constitution tolerates bans on same sex marriage, or under what circumstances such bans may be implemented.

OK I see my mistake. I thought I was discussing this with someone who knew something. Textbook judicial activism was the ruling overturning state referenda. That is the very definition of it. You also confuse criminal law with civil law with Constitutional law.
Im done.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

 

[SwimExpert]

OK I see my mistake. I thought I was discussing this with someone who knew something. Textbook judicial activism was the ruling overturning state referenda. That is the very definition of it. You also confuse criminal law with civil law with Constitutional law.
Im done.

Translation: You don't know what you're talking about, and since I do, and as a result am not buying into your invented philosophy, you can only run off in defeat.

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

What way would you deny polygamists in Kansas? Tradition?

 

[Syriusly]

OK, we have discussed parenting, adoption, genetics, fertility and infertility, and the case for marriage equality still stands strong.

In which universe do you believe that the Supreme Court will force states to incentivize homes where children will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time?

And homes where the children there will be missing the vital modeling of the opposite gender 100% of the time? In what way would this promote the wellbeing of untold numbers of children over time?

The universe that has Justice Kennedy to protect children....

Speaking of the children of gay parents in California:
There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think

Speaking of children of gay parents in the DOMA case

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

In a sense, this turns on its head one of the main bogeymen used by activists opposed to marriage equality: that gay marriage will somehow harm children and disrupt families. To the contrary, Kennedy argues that striking down DOMA will give dignity to same-sex families and help end the suffering of children caused by the current the law.

This is the universe- the universe that Justice Kennedy is the crucial decision maker on the court

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

What way would you deny polygamists in Kansas? Tradition?

Polygamous marriage is against the law in Kansas.

Same gender marriage isn't.

Simple as that.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.

I guess you could look at it that way, if you want to be a liar about it all. For the rest of us, what would be judicial activism would be to punt a constitutional question to a majority vote of the populace.

The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage.

Really? That's the only constitutional question? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that there's actually a few other questions. For example, what are the limits, if any, to those rules? What is legal effect of the multiplicity of contrary rulings among lower courts?

Idiot. The state derives its just power from the will of the people. Courts regularly defer to legislatures in matters precisely for that reason. The people are the legitimate arbiters of what is right and wrong. It is only on relatively rate occasions that the courts will over ride that, based on a fundamental principle in the Constitution.

Yes, that is the only constittuonal question. Recall that "gay marriage" is not about the rights of homosexuals. Once it passes any two people of the same gender can marry. So it is not "gay marriage" at all.

It isn't about 'gay marriage'- it is about the right to marriage. And same gender couples cannot be denied the right to marriage simply because you think it is icky. Or because the voters think it is icky.

No more than they can tell consenting adults what kind of sex that they can have in private.

 

[Syriusly]

Really? That's the only constitutional question? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that there's actually a few other questions. For example, what are the limits, if any, to those rules? What is legal effect of the multiplicity of contrary rulings among lower courts?

Polygamy? Incest? Children sanctioned to be in homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time? Where the opposite gender as role model is missing 100% of the time? States should be forced to incentivize untold numbers of children yet to be born into these situations?

States don't have to 'incentivize' marriage at all. Totally up to the State if they want to.

But they can't discriminate against same gender couples simply because you don't like homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.

....the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888),

Next.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa,419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

That subject to part really irks you...

 

[Listening]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

What way would you deny polygamists in Kansas? Tradition?

Polygamous marriage is against the law in Kansas.

Same gender marriage isn't.

Simple as that.

Gay marriage was against the law in California....until the courts said it wasn't.

Why don't polygamists get the same consideration ?

 

[Listening]

Really? That's the only constitutional question? Are you sure? I'm pretty certain that there's actually a few other questions. For example, what are the limits, if any, to those rules? What is legal effect of the multiplicity of contrary rulings among lower courts?

Polygamy? Incest? Children sanctioned to be in homes where one blood parent is missing 100% of the time? Where the opposite gender as role model is missing 100% of the time? States should be forced to incentivize untold numbers of children yet to be born into these situations?

States don't have to 'incentivize' marriage at all. Totally up to the State if they want to.

But they can't discriminate against same gender couples simply because you don't like homosexuals.

But they can discriminate against polygamists ?

Hhhhhmmmmmm.....

 

[The Rabbi]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.

....the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888),

Next.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa,419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

That subject to part really irks you...

No it doesnt irk me at all. You're projecting.
There is no issue because the measure isnt directed at gays. If the gays succeed then anyone who wants to marry another of the same gender could. So it isnt an issue of discrimination at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi and Sil refuse to be instructed by those who are better informed on the law, such as Syriusly.

 

[bodecea]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

What way would you deny polygamists in Kansas? Tradition?

Polygamous marriage is against the law in Kansas.

Same gender marriage isn't.

Simple as that.

Gay marriage was against the law in California....until the courts said it wasn't.

Why don't polygamists get the same consideration ?

Make your case then.

 

[Syriusly]

With any luck the court will decide they really shouldn't be setting policy like this and it rightly belongs to the states to decide via the democratic process.

That's an odd thing to say. Your position assumes that there is no constitutional question. Or, at the very least, hopes for judicial activism to kick in and for the court to punt their duties away.

Wow, thats a winner. Now judicial activism means refusing to take a case.
The only constitutional question is whether states have the power to set rules for marriage. Based on Windsor the answer is obviously Yes.

....the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888),

Next.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967) ; but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” Sosna v. Iowa,419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975).

That subject to part really irks you...

No it doesnt irk me at all. You're projecting.
There is no issue because the measure isnt directed at gays. If the gays succeed then anyone who wants to marry another of the same gender could. So it isnt an issue of discrimination at all.

To a point you are correct- all these cases do is apply all of the state's marriage laws equally to same gender couples as to opposite gender couples.

All of the marriage laws were of course passed in order to prevent gay marriage- but the laws themselves applied to anyone of the same gender marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone who believes that KS must authorize polygamous marriage based on the recent ruling clearly does not understand ruling, and in Sil's case, will not be instructed by those who do.

The Rabbi clearly does not understand that Jacksonian democracy does not overrule Article III of the U. S. Constitution except by amendment.

What way would you deny polygamists in Kansas? Tradition?

Polygamous marriage is against the law in Kansas.

Same gender marriage isn't.

Simple as that.

Gay marriage was against the law in California....until the courts said it wasn't.

Why don't polygamists get the same consideration ?

You can do exactly what gay couples did in California- go down to your local city hall and try to get a marriage license for yourself and your three husbands.

When your application is rejected, you may file a lawsuit arguing that your marriage rights are violated.

Then you just need to convince the courts that your rights were unfairly violated.

Go for it.

 

[Silhouette]

And I'd like to see a county clerk clarify as to why polygamists would be denied a marriage license. There is no marriage law in CA, right?