Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The point is here is that if the Court "slapped down" all marriage laws defined as "one man/one woman" on States' books, then who (all) may or may not marry? That's what Tennessee is going to ask the Court. I imagine they're going to ask about polygamy too, and incest since each state would be concerned those people might slap a discrimination suit on them too..
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
They only ruled against one law.
They ruled against 3 laws- and their ruling applied to all similar laws- just as Loving v. Virginia ended up applying to all State's bans on inter-racial marriages.
Only 47 States left to go.
Nearly seven weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic decision in favor of marriage equality nationwide, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday affirmed state bans on gay nuptials in its jurisdiction are unconstitutional. In three separate opinions, a three-judge panel delivered instructions upholding lower court rulings against marriage bans in South Dakota, Arkansas and Nebraska.
Eighth Circuit deals finishing blows to state marriage bans
No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law for all 50 States.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
I do and in this case they didn't.
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
I do and in this case they didn't.
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
All evidence to the contrary. lol
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
I do and in this case they didn't.
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
Not really, SCOTUS cannot make any law
They didn't in this case. Only slapped down laws that the majority felt were unconstitutional.
SCOTUS can't make laws period. You know this
I do and in this case they didn't.
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
I think statements such as "SCOTUS cannot make any laws" fails to understand the meaning of the word "law" and the hierarchy of laws.
Under our constitutional form of government and the separation of powers doctrine, our three branches of government have separate spheres of power. Our federal and state constitutions place limits on the powers exercised by the different branches of government.
The legislative branch enacts statutes (which are a form of law), the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch construes and applies the law to cases and controversies. Although courts cannot enact statutory law, their decisions (based on judicial interpretation and application of the law) are, in fact, law. The U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the constitution to cases and controversies are the supreme law of the land.
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.
Any two adults...They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."
Any man/woman....Any two adults...
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."
And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.
The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer!
That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.
A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.
Mark
No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.
I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k
No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.
It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.
But, around here, I'm used to it.
Mark
Oh I can comprehend a philosophical argument- I just reject those that can't distinguish between child rape and the marriage of two consenting adults.
No more than I am up for the 'philosophical argument' of why Buchwenwald was okay.
No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.
I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k
No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.
It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.
But, around here, I'm used to it.
Mark
Oh I can comprehend a philosophical argument- I just reject those that can't distinguish between child rape and the marriage of two consenting adults.
No more than I am up for the 'philosophical argument' of why Buchwenwald was okay.
If you don't understand the concept, you won't debate. I'm OK with that. So, I can only come to one of two conclusions. You are either too shallow to understand the debate, or you know what I am saying and you deflect because you know you would lose.
I accept your decision not to debate me.
Mark
You and I see it differently. Marriage is a state issue, therefore they have overstepped their authority and the states have every right to fight it.
k
So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.
Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.
Mark
Ah so we have the court of Mark deciding what is an illegal law- not the Supreme Court.
Why should the Court of Mark have precedence over the Supreme Court?
It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?
Mark
Again- you are saying that Mark is the one who determines how a law is applied fairly.
The Supreme Court did the exact same thing in both Loving and Obergefell- they overturned a State marriage law because it was unconstitutional.
You- in the role of Mark the decider- have decided the Supreme Court was right when it came to Loving- and wrong- when it came to Obergefell.
Me- I prefer to go with the Supreme Court- not the Court of Mark.
I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k
No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.
It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.
But, around here, I'm used to it.
Mark
Oh I can comprehend a philosophical argument- I just reject those that can't distinguish between child rape and the marriage of two consenting adults.
No more than I am up for the 'philosophical argument' of why Buchwenwald was okay.
If you don't understand the concept, you won't debate. I'm OK with that. So, I can only come to one of two conclusions. You are either too shallow to understand the debate, or you know what I am saying and you deflect because you know you would lose.
I accept your decision not to debate me.
Mark
A false equivalency fallacy isn't a 'philosophical argument'.
And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.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?
Why is it the Right takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, yet back those states that enact harsh gun ownership laws?
So here is the thing- I am fascinated by the states that have passed laws legalizing marijuana- and I applaud their efforts- but if the Federal government decided tomorrow to go into Washington and Oregon and Colorado and arrest every pot shop owner in each state- it could do so.
What you want though is for States to be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional- and be able to ignore the Supreme Court protecting the rights of Americans against unconstitutional laws.
I support the Supreme Court when it overturned unconstitutional marriage laws(Loving and Obergefell) just as I support the Supreme Court when it overturns unconstitutional gun laws.
What about you?
No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.
If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)
But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)
Yes, Davis is a good example. When a state stands up for its "rights" concerning illegals and pot, the liberals get their way.
And when a state stands up for its "rights" concerning marriage, the left gets their way again.
Mark
The 'state' only gets its way when it comes to pot because the Executive Branch has decided not to pursue it.
The 'state' didn't get its way when it when Kim Davis ignored the Supreme Court- because the Judicial Branch exercised its authority.
By the way- 'right' is quite happy to let the courts overturn gun laws for being unconstitutional- but suddenly decides the courts are violating state's rights when it protects a persons right to marriage.
And that's exactly what the Obergefell Court did, follow the law – settled, accepted, and beyond dispute: the states may not engage in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.
Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.
Mark
Ah so we have the court of Mark deciding what is an illegal law- not the Supreme Court.
Why should the Court of Mark have precedence over the Supreme Court?
It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?
Mark
Again- you are saying that Mark is the one who determines how a law is applied fairly.
The Supreme Court did the exact same thing in both Loving and Obergefell- they overturned a State marriage law because it was unconstitutional.
You- in the role of Mark the decider- have decided the Supreme Court was right when it came to Loving- and wrong- when it came to Obergefell.
Me- I prefer to go with the Supreme Court- not the Court of Mark.
And I prefer actually following the law, and not reading into it something that is not there. Be careful what you wish for.
Mark
They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted
I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."
And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.
The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer!
And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.Why is it the Right takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, yet back those states that enact harsh gun ownership laws?
So here is the thing- I am fascinated by the states that have passed laws legalizing marijuana- and I applaud their efforts- but if the Federal government decided tomorrow to go into Washington and Oregon and Colorado and arrest every pot shop owner in each state- it could do so.
What you want though is for States to be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional- and be able to ignore the Supreme Court protecting the rights of Americans against unconstitutional laws.
I support the Supreme Court when it overturned unconstitutional marriage laws(Loving and Obergefell) just as I support the Supreme Court when it overturns unconstitutional gun laws.
What about you?
No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.
If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)
But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)
Yes, Davis is a good example. When a state stands up for its "rights" concerning illegals and pot, the liberals get their way.
And when a state stands up for its "rights" concerning marriage, the left gets their way again.
Mark
The 'state' only gets its way when it comes to pot because the Executive Branch has decided not to pursue it.
The 'state' didn't get its way when it when Kim Davis ignored the Supreme Court- because the Judicial Branch exercised its authority.
By the way- 'right' is quite happy to let the courts overturn gun laws for being unconstitutional- but suddenly decides the courts are violating state's rights when it protects a persons right to marriage.
Since freedom of religion is in the Constitution, and freedom to marry is not, your comparison isn't valid
Mark
