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

[80zephyr]

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...

By the lack of knowledge you display in your answers, I doubt that. If you were really smart, you would understand that since all morality is a human construct, we are all bigots.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I can't prove love exists either. But we both know it exists.

Again, if you really were smart, you'd understand my contention.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?

If a state were smart, they would tell the federal government to get fucked, just like the liberals states do ala illegals and drugs.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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?

Why do you hate pedophiles?

Mark

 

[Silhouette]

Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?

If a state were smart, they would tell the federal government to get fucked, just like the liberals states do ala illegals and drugs.

Mark

Because laws ONLY work for the cult of LGBT and when they don't, they are illegally changed. You may have heard of this before. It's called a coup and treason.

I think this Tennessee suit is priceless because I simply can't wait to hear how the 5 Justicies in-pocket for the church of LGBT are going to dictate how states must write their laws. Can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics...especially when states not only have a vested interest, but a mandate to strive that children in their borders have both a mother and father: Are States Legally Obligated to Defy Obergefell (2015)? Silhouette vs the 50 States.

 

[Skylar]

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.

The 10th doesn't give the States the power to violate the privileges and immunites of federal citizens. Nor to offer unequal protection under the law.

Fringe conservatives keep forgetting the 14th. And would strip federal citizens of many of their rights if they could.

 

[Skylar]

Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?

If a state were smart, they would tell the federal government to get fucked, just like the liberals states do ala illegals and drugs.

Mark

Because laws ONLY work for the cult of LGBT and when they don't, they are illegally changed.

With the major problem in your reasoning being that none of the 'requirements' you insist the Supreme Court violated actually exist.. You made them all up.

And 'violating' your imagination isn't illegal. The world does that thousands of times a day. Its one of the reasons you keep creating these thumbsucker threads.

You may have heard of this before. It's called a coup and treason.

I've certainly heard you say it before. But you say a lot of silly shit. And generally have no idea what you're talking about.

Your entire argument has predictably degenerated into ignoring the Supreme Court. And ignoring them, insisting that all courts and all laws are obligated to do the same.

Laughing......so, how's that working out for you?

I think this Tennessee suit is priceless because I simply can't wait to hear how the 5 Justicies in-pocket for the church of LGBT are going to dictate how states must write their laws. Can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics...

There is no Tennessee suit. The guy who filed the suit was named Dave. Tennessee had nothing to do with it.

And given that the suits are petitions for summary judgement to overturn the Supreme Court, the 'response' from the judiciary is almost certainly to dismiss the suits.

Lets see again who is better at predicting legal outcomes, shall we.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?

Because we can tell the difference between rights and powers.

You, apparently, can't.

 

[Silhouette]

The 10th doesn't give the States the power to violate the privileges and immunites of federal citizens. Nor to offer unequal protection under the law.

Fringe conservatives keep forgetting the 14th. And would strip federal citizens of many of their rights if they could.

Fringe leftists apparently keep forgetting the 14th as well...when they cite how "polygamy isn't legal". You can't have *ahem* the Judicial write in new class categories based on behaviors to add to the 14th (deviant sexual relationships) while excluding other deviant sex relationships (like polygamy and adult incest) "because the majority objects to them"!

 

[Skylar]

The 10th doesn't give the States the power to violate the privileges and immunites of federal citizens. Nor to offer unequal protection under the law.

Fringe conservatives keep forgetting the 14th. And would strip federal citizens of many of their rights if they could.

Fringe leftists apparently keep forgetting the 14th as well...when they cite how "polygamy isn't legal". You can't have *ahem* the Judicial write in new class categories based on behaviors to add to the 14th (deviant sexual relationships) while excluding other deviant sex relationships (like polygamy and adult incest) "because the majority objects to them"!

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

 

[Silhouette]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

 

[Skylar]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy or incest.

Try again.

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

 

[mdk]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

The only thing you've shown is that you do not have the foggiest clue as to what your talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy or incest.

Try again.

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Loving v Virginia never so much as mentions homosexuality. Yet you felt the leap was potent enough when it suited your Agenda. Much easier for me to demonstrate that if some sexual behaviors repugnant to the majority have special protections under the Constitution, then they all do. As you know, the 14th cannot play favorites..

 

[Skylar]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy or incest.

Try again.

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Loving v Virginia never so much as mentions homosexuality. Yet you felt the leap was potent enough when it suited your Agenda. Much easier for me to demonstrate that if some sexual behaviors repugnant to the majority have special protections under the Constitution, then they all do. As you know, the 14th cannot play favorites..

Loving v. Virginia does however explicitly cite the right to marry. Which is what Obergefell cited the Loving decision as doing.

Show us any ruling, any law, any court that recognizes the right to incest and the right to polygamy.

You can't. And 'poof'. There goes your entire argument.

 

[Silhouette]

Loving v. Virginia does however explicitly cite the right to marry. Which is what Obergefell cited the Loving decision as doing.

Show us any ruling, any law, any court that recognizes the right to incest and the right to polygamy.

You can't. And 'poof'. There goes your entire argument.

So then polygamists can also now legally marry? If not, there is no "marriage equality". It's a farce.

The citation from Loving was working under the premise that marriage is a man and woman. What the citation meant was "anyone of any race may marry under existing state laws of man/woman marriage". Obergefell can't create new laws for states. That's what the Tennessee issue will bring to the fore. There's no language in the 14th even remotely construed to protect sexual behaviors. But there is and was for race in Loving's findings. You can't protect just some sexual behaviors under the 14th (which contains no language to do so), but omit all others you just don't like.

You realize the legal quicksand Obergefell is sinking in? Tennessee just thought it would be better to shoot the sinking victim quickly instead of letting it die a slow and horrible death.

 

[Skylar]

Loving v. Virginia does however explicitly cite the right to marry. Which is what Obergefell cited the Loving decision as doing.

Show us any ruling, any law, any court that recognizes the right to incest and the right to polygamy.

You can't. And 'poof'. There goes your entire argument.

So then polygamists can also now legally marry? If not, there is no "marriage equality". It's a farce.

If you believe that polygamy is legal, show me any court, law or ruling recognizing it as legal.

You can't. Like all of your pseudo-legal gibberish, its just you citing yourself. And as 50 of 50 States recognizing same sex marriage demonstrates......you're nobody.

The citation from Loving was working under the premise that marriage is a man and woman. What the citation meant was "anyone of any race may marry under existing state laws of man/woman marriage". Obergefell can't create new laws for states.

Obergefell can overturn unconstitutional laws. Which is exactly what it did. Both in Obergefell and in Loving.

Remember, the Supreme Court isn't actually bound to whatever pseudo-legal 'restrictions' you make up for it.

That's what the Tennessee issue will bring to the fore. There's no language in the 14th even remotely construed to protect sexual behaviors. But there is and was for race in Loving's findings. You can't protect just some sexual behaviors under the 14th (which contains no language to do so), but omit all others you just don't like.

Except that it won't. The Tennessse resolution is symbolic only. Which even its authors admit. And the lawsuit you attribute to Tennesse....isn't. It was filed by a guy named Dave. It calls for summary judgment for the overturning of the Supreme Court. Its not happening. The same lawsuit he filed in another court went.....no where.

Once again, you're offering us legal predictions of what you WANT to happen. Rather than what the evidence suggests will happen. Its why your legal predictions are always, always wrong.

You realize the legal quicksand Obergefell is sinking in? Tennessee just thought it would be better to shoot the sinking victim quickly instead of letting it die a slow and horrible death.

None. Remember, you imagined the suit in question was from 'Tennessee'. It wasn't. You imagined that the suit will overturn Obergefell. It hasn't. You imagined the suit will 'force' the USSC to refute your claims. It won't.

None of your assumptions are actually reflected in reality.

You realize why your legal predictions are *always* wrong? Because you keep citing your imagination as the law. And it never is.

 

[Debra K]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

 

[Silhouette]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

 

[mdk]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...