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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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."

They sent an ignorant and moronic 'message.'

Tennessee lawmakers may 'disagree' all they want, it won't change settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Indeed, their 'disagreement' isn't with the Obergefell Court, which ruled correctly and appropriately consistent with that settled and accepted case law; instead their 'disagreement' is with the Framers of the 14th Amendment and their intent to prohibit class legislation, along with scores of Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that intent.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm interested to see how the future plays out. If the states cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation in their definition of marriage....can they discriminate based on any other protected status, including religion?

They already ruled that it was Constitutional for States to limit Civil Marriage to couples and reject polygamy - even if polygamy was based on religion.

I don't see them upholding a law - if one were to exist - limiting Civil Marriage based on other items of religion. For example if a persons religious views was that faiths shouldn't inter-marry, I don't see the SCOTUS upholding a law that barred interfaith marriage.


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

And they don't, they rule on it.

They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.

No they did not, they struck down laws that restricted gay marriage. Getting rid of something is not creating something.

 

[bodecea]

And they don't, they rule on it.

They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.

Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

What does that have to do with the constitutional question?

 

[bodecea]

Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

How did you get from Point A to Point Kumquat?

 

[Skylar]

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

How did you get from Point A to Point Kumquat?

The rectal database?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'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.

She also said it was a reminder that the court violated the doctrine of severability.

“They can’t decree that we now have to marry same-sex couples,” she said. “Our law does not say that, it’s never said that, and it was never the intent of the General Assembly to do that.”'

Wrong.

As is the case in all the states, marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a contract and relationship recognized by the state – a contract and relationship same-sex couples are clearly eligible to enter into.

By seeking to deny same-sex couples access to state law for no other reason than who they are, predicated solely on unwarranted animus toward same-sex couples, the state violates their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

Moreover, the states do not have the 'right' to violate the protected liberties of American citizens residing in the states, one does not 'forfeit' his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and one's fundamental rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

No one said they could – the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

No law is being 'made' when the courts rule to invalidate a measure repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures with the intent of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

And they don't, they rule on it.

They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.

No they did not, they struck down laws that restricted gay marriage. Getting rid of something is not creating something.

Making an action legal is making law, or at the very least, it's changing law. Neither of which are within the constitutional power of the Supreme Court.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

No one said they could – the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

No law is being 'made' when the courts rule to invalidate a measure repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures with the intent of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Where does The Constitution give The Federal government the power to make marriage laws?

 

[rightwinger]

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"...

Hey Tennesee

14th amendment has priority over your local hatred

Get used to it

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

If a thing is arrived at "as legal" outside legal due process, then that thing isn't legal. That's the whole of the point of these lawsuits.

The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.

Which certain constitutional guarantees prohibit states from limiting marriage to just one man and one woman? Where in the Constitution does it say "some deviant sex behaviors are a constitutionally protected class; while others (like polygamy) are not"?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The right of same-sex couples to access marriage law has nothing whatsoever to with with laws prohibiting bigamy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

No one said they could – the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

No law is being 'made' when the courts rule to invalidate a measure repugnant to the Constitution, such as measures with the intent of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Where does The Constitution give The Federal government the power to make marriage laws?

Again, Federal courts ruling to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution do not manifest as 'making law'; and again, the notion is ignorant and ridiculous.

Article VI of the Constitution authorizes the Federal courts to determine if state and local measures comport with the Constitution and its case law, and to invalidate those which do not – such as measures denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

If a thing is arrived at "as legal" outside legal due process, then that thing isn't legal. That's the whole of the point of these lawsuits.

The Windsor ruling makes clear that states still have the power to define marriage but they must do so without violating certain constitutional guarantees.

Which certain constitutional guarantees prohibit states from limiting marriage to just one man and one woman? Where in the Constitution does it say "some deviant sex behaviors are a constitutionally protected class; while others (like polygamy) are not"?

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The right of same-sex couples to access marriage law has nothing whatsoever to with with laws prohibiting bigamy.

That falls under, "I don't have an argument, so I'll drag out one of my favorite Liberal cliches"

 

[Skylar]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

SCOTUS can't make law.

And they don't, they rule on it.

They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.

No they did not, they struck down laws that restricted gay marriage. Getting rid of something is not creating something.

Making an action legal is making law, or at the very least, it's changing law. Neither of which are within the constitutional power of the Supreme Court.

Then the Supreme Court overturning Chicago's handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago was something the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to do?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

Hating the SIN of homosexuality isn't being a bigot.

Seeking to disadvantage gay American through force of law predicated on that subjective belief is being a bigot, however.

 

[bodecea]

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

 

[Skylar]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

And apparently according to Bill, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' applies only to folks that live in Chicago.

 

[bodecea]

So......where does the constitution say a right has to be enumerated in the constitution to exist?

Bill?

Bill is one of those people who seem to think we don't have a right unless the Constitution mentions it.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

How odd that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

And apparently according to Bill, the 'right to self defense with a firearm' applies only to folks that live in Chicago.

Oh, now the, "let me put words in your mouth", strategy.