Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[80zephyr]

Lol. Who are you to say what the age of consent is? Your morality is showing, therefore, you are a bigot.

See how easy it is to call someone a bigot?

Mark

Sigh- and when did I say what the age of consent is? Is it is possible for you to post honestly?

Now- why do you equate pedophilia- the rape of a child- with consensual sex between two adults?

"The rape of a child"....lol. Here you go again, using your own morality to make decisions for the rest of society.

Welcome bigot, its a big tent.

Mark

Yeah- so not only do you equate child rape with consensual sex between adults- you find child rape something to laugh at.......wow....

No, I'm laughing at you because you lack the intellectual depth to comprehend your bigotry.

Why is your morality not allowing consensual sex for children?

Thats bigotry

Mark

It's legal for children to have consensual sex, Marky...

With adults?

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is just one of the fundamental delusions you have.

The Supreme Court cannot make an illegal decision.

Of course it can. They did in Dred Scott.

A bad decision, not an illegal decision, Marky...

Nope, its illegal. Just nobody higher up to force them to comply with the law.

The founders understood that our nation could pass laws that were not constitutional, and that we would have to work against them.

There was nothing illegal about Dred Scott, Marky. And the SC has the final say.

The lack of mental acuity in this thread is...frightening.

Yes, you do lack anything like rationality, Marky. You seem to lack all understanding that when the Supreme Court says something is both legal and constitutional, it actually is, Marky.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sigh- and when did I say what the age of consent is? Is it is possible for you to post honestly?

Now- why do you equate pedophilia- the rape of a child- with consensual sex between two adults?

"The rape of a child"....lol. Here you go again, using your own morality to make decisions for the rest of society.

Welcome bigot, its a big tent.

Mark

Yeah- so not only do you equate child rape with consensual sex between adults- you find child rape something to laugh at.......wow....

No, I'm laughing at you because you lack the intellectual depth to comprehend your bigotry.

Why is your morality not allowing consensual sex for children?

Thats bigotry

Mark

It's legal for children to have consensual sex, Marky...

With adults?

Nope, Marky.

 

[80zephyr]

Of course it can. They did in Dred Scott.

A bad decision, not an illegal decision, Marky...

Nope, its illegal. Just nobody higher up to force them to comply with the law.

The founders understood that our nation could pass laws that were not constitutional, and that we would have to work against them.

There was nothing illegal about Dred Scott, Marky. And the SC has the final say.

The lack of mental acuity in this thread is...frightening.

Yes, you do lack anything like rationality, Marky. You seem to lack all understanding that when the Supreme Court says something is both legal and constitutional, it actually is, Marky.

No, it actually isn't.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

"The rape of a child"....lol. Here you go again, using your own morality to make decisions for the rest of society.

Welcome bigot, its a big tent.

Mark

Yeah- so not only do you equate child rape with consensual sex between adults- you find child rape something to laugh at.......wow....

No, I'm laughing at you because you lack the intellectual depth to comprehend your bigotry.

Why is your morality not allowing consensual sex for children?

Thats bigotry

Mark

It's legal for children to have consensual sex, Marky...

With adults?

Nope, Marky.

Do you think they should be able to?

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A bad decision, not an illegal decision, Marky...

Nope, its illegal. Just nobody higher up to force them to comply with the law.

The founders understood that our nation could pass laws that were not constitutional, and that we would have to work against them.

There was nothing illegal about Dred Scott, Marky. And the SC has the final say.

The lack of mental acuity in this thread is...frightening.

Yes, you do lack anything like rationality, Marky. You seem to lack all understanding that when the Supreme Court says something is both legal and constitutional, it actually is, Marky.

No, it actually isn't.

Prove it, Marky? Oh right, you can't, Marky...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah- so not only do you equate child rape with consensual sex between adults- you find child rape something to laugh at.......wow....

No, I'm laughing at you because you lack the intellectual depth to comprehend your bigotry.

Why is your morality not allowing consensual sex for children?

Thats bigotry

Mark

It's legal for children to have consensual sex, Marky...

With adults?

Nope, Marky.

Do you think they should be able to?

That would depend upon their age, Marky. Six is not sixteen, Marky.

 

[80zephyr]

No, I'm laughing at you because you lack the intellectual depth to comprehend your bigotry.

Why is your morality not allowing consensual sex for children?

Thats bigotry

Mark

It's legal for children to have consensual sex, Marky...

With adults?

Nope, Marky.

Do you think they should be able to?

That would depend upon their age, Marky. Six is not sixteen, Marky.

Well then, what age does your personal morality tell you it should be alright for you to inflict your belief on society?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Nope, its illegal. Just nobody higher up to force them to comply with the law.

The founders understood that our nation could pass laws that were not constitutional, and that we would have to work against them.

There was nothing illegal about Dred Scott, Marky. And the SC has the final say.

The lack of mental acuity in this thread is...frightening.

Yes, you do lack anything like rationality, Marky. You seem to lack all understanding that when the Supreme Court says something is both legal and constitutional, it actually is, Marky.

No, it actually isn't.

Prove it, Marky? Oh right, you can't, Marky...

Lol. I don't have to prove it. It most certainly can happen, and has already.

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's legal for children to have consensual sex, Marky...

With adults?

Nope, Marky.

Do you think they should be able to?

That would depend upon their age, Marky. Six is not sixteen, Marky.

Well then, what age does your personal morality tell you it should be alright for you to inflict your belief on society?

I was smarter at 20 than most will be at 60, Marky...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There was nothing illegal about Dred Scott, Marky. And the SC has the final say.

The lack of mental acuity in this thread is...frightening.

Yes, you do lack anything like rationality, Marky. You seem to lack all understanding that when the Supreme Court says something is both legal and constitutional, it actually is, Marky.

No, it actually isn't.

Prove it, Marky? Oh right, you can't, Marky...

Lol. I don't have to prove it. It most certainly can happen, and has already.

Mark

Prove it, Marky? Oh right, Marky can't.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't. But, I want to know just what other rights we have we don't know about...Mark

Then you'll probably want to check with the court rulings, the laws, the constitution and the States .....rather than pretending that a right needs to be enumerated in order to exist.

As it turns out there is one exception to the 1st Amendment protections...but its not what the Cult of LGBT was hoping for: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

As it turns out, you have no idea what you're talking about. Ferber never so much mentions marriage. Nor does it find that same sex marriage hurts any child. While the Supreme Court explicitly found that same sex marriage benefits children. And that the right to marry isn't conditioned on children or the ability to have them.

Sorry, Sil....but you hallucinating passages in Ferber that don't exist isn't a legal argument. And you straight up ignoring the findings of Obergefell and replacing it with your imagination isn't a legal argument either.

Your pseudo-legal gibberish remains legally irrelevant, your assertions meaningless nonsense. Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

In the last GOP debate, Governor Kasich of Ohio called for an end to gays suing Christians for refusing to play along with gay marriage. He said if they continued, under his Administration,.

LOL....'under his administration'

Kasich will be lucky to carry Ohio at this point.

I think you would be hoping for that since he's the one polling as the candidate most likely to beat Hillary in the general election..

In a hypothetical contest for the presidency, a new national poll finds that Ohio Gov. John Kasich would be the most likely Republican candidate to beat Democrat Hillary Clinton....The poll’s hypothetical contests put Kasich over Clinton 49 to 38 percent; and Rubio over Clinton 48 to 42 percent. The contests with Ted Cruz and Trump would be much closer — Cruz led 45 percent to Clinton’s 44 percent, and Trump led 45 percent to Clinton’s 43 percent. New poll shows Ohio Gov. John Kasich most likely Republican to beat Hillary Clinton

Um, Sil.......we're dealing with the real world. Kasich hasn't won a single state. His delegates are in single digits. He's not getting the nomination.

 

[Skylar]

A judicial branch rewriting state laws is not a trivial matter. Four will vote to take it up.

I am sure this lawsuit is the silver bullet. lol

Yeah, because Sil's record of predicting legal outcomes is so perfect.

Perfectly failed, of course. Every single legal prediction, every single outcome of a case, every single impeachment she has predicted, every single legal argument she has backed, every single legal interpretation she has offered.....

....has been wrong. Every. Single. Time.

What was Einstein's definition of insanity again?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No, they ruled that ones state's law was unconstitutional.

That's the answer liberals always give. They ignore the 10th and would erase all State lines if they could.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Explain the FAA then? Or, the Air Force?

Federal overreach.

 

[Debra K]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

This kind of reaction reminds me of the pouty people in southern states who sought to negate the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which required desegregation in public schools. The Court frowned upon their recalcitrant efforts:

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

As set forth in the syllabus, Cooper v. Aaron stands for the following propositions:

1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483....

2. This Court rejects the contention that it should uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify its holding in the Brown case have been further challenged and tested in the courts....

And yet some persons in Tennessee have filed a lawsuit in a state county court challenging the Court's ruling in Obergefell. Here's what they say is their argument:

The legal question is really very straightforward: If Tennessee’s current marriage license law, passed in 1995, is unconstitutional, which is what the Obergefell Court ruled, then who passed the new law to replace the old one? Courts can’t pass laws, and the legislature has not passed a new law since last June, so it stands to reason that there is no marriage licensure law in Tennessee.

Source: Lawsuit to Challenge Obergefell

The argument is disingenuous. The Court did not invalidate state marriage laws on their face. In other words, state marriage laws were not declared void ab initio. The Court merely found that depriving same sex couples the same right to marriage enjoyed by opposite sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. State marriage laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples were thus unconstitutional as applied to same sex couples. The marriage laws still exist, but the portions that limit the right to marry to opposite sex couples cannot be enforced. Same sex couples are thus entitled to state issued marriage licenses on the same statutory terms as opposite sex couples are entitled to get them.

If marriage license laws were rendered void ab initio as a result of Obergefell, then no couples--not even opposite sex couples--would be lawfully married. That's absurd. The litigants in the Tennessee case did not stumble upon a magic bullet to "do away with same sex marriage" and "upset and nullify" the Court's ruling in Obergefell. Their efforts will be rejected and put to shame the same as the segregationists' efforts were treated.

Keep chomping on that popcorn Sil ... you might have to buy a few more cases of the stuff to get you and your anti-gay ilk through these trying times.

 

[rdean]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

Why do you hate gays?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Explain the FAA then? Or, the Air Force?

Federal overreach.

Really, the FAA and the Air Force are invalid because the Founders forgot to plan for them? Gonna stand on that one when Washington thought the Constitution might be valid for maybe 20 years?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, they ruled that ones state's law was unconstitutional.

That's the answer liberals always give. They ignore the 10th and would erase all State lines if they could.

Only the ones that are unconstitutional. See how that works?