Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

[PaintMyHouse]

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

 

[OKTexas]

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

 

[dcraelin]

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

yep, The Constitution didnt give them that right as Roberts said.

Thomas tore apart the comparison to Loving argument gay 'marriage" advocates were fond of making ......
which should carry some extra weight.

They lost and lost forever as Roberts said, the chance to win this the right way.

 

[johnwk]

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

And that is called judicial tyranny!

JWK

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

yep, The Constitution didnt give them that right as Roberts said.

Thomas tore apart the comparison to Loving argument gay 'marriage" advocates were fond of making ......
which should carry some extra weight.

They lost and lost forever as Roberts said, the chance to win this the right way.

The opinion of the House ****** rarely if ever matters. And considering the fact that he's married to a white bitch you might to want to reassess your position.

 

[johnwk]

I read the decision, it ignores the fact that every male and female in the US were being treated equally under the existing laws.

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, .

Where does the 14th Amendment mention "couples". What wording in the 14th Amendment is supposedly violated if a state makes a distinction based upon sex when issuing a marriage license?


JWK

 

[OKTexas]

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

 

[johnwk]

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision?

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? So far, you do. Citing yourself.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? Specifically?

What do you claim 'natural basis' means. It seems pretty central to your claims regarding 'new rights'.

And when did the court say that 'gay is a separate gender'. I've read the entire Obergefell ruling and I never saw that claim. Is that you citing yourself again?

What was the basis for the decision? Why haven't you addressed my points, oh I know, you can't refute them.

And they can't refute them because neither the text of the 14th Amendment or its framing and ratification debates, which gives context to the text of the Constitution, confirms or suggests the various states were intended to be forbidden to make distinctions bases upon sex when enacting statutory law.

The majority opinion merely imposes it's personal whims and fancies as being the rule of law, while casting aside both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution! And that is what is called judicial tyranny!

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[OKTexas]

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

 

[dcraelin]

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

yep, The Constitution didnt give them that right as Roberts said.

Thomas tore apart the comparison to Loving argument gay 'marriage" advocates were fond of making ......
which should carry some extra weight.

They lost and lost forever as Roberts said, the chance to win this the right way.

The opinion of the House ****** rarely if ever matters. And considering the fact that he's married to a white bitch you might to want to reassess your position.

well that is a revolting reply. What the hell is your problem? Sarcastic about position of pro side?

 

[johnwk]

Incorrect.

States enacted measures whose sole intent was to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws they were eligible to participate in:

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.

The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

As a fact of law, therefore, same-sex couples were not given the exact same privileges and protections as opposite-sex couples, gay Americans alone, as a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections, were singled out for exclusion simply because of who they are in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Keep in mind that the courts have recognized the rights of classes of persons – suspect or protected – that are immune from attack by the state.

When in Romer v. Evans the Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling invalidating that state's Amendment 2, denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, the Court determined that “[w]e must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”

Just as the 14th Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from deeming homosexuals as a class of persons strangers to its anti-discrimination laws, so too may the states not deem homosexuals as a class of persons strangers their marriage laws.

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

If judges and Justices can ignore both the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent as occurred in this decision, and they use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, we are then no longer living under the rule of law and a constitutionally limited system of government. Judges and Justices engaging in such conduct must be punished ,,, no punishment to be left off the table.

JWK

 

[Skylar]

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision?

What relevance do you claim your conclusion has with their ruling? Specifically.

Existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th Amendment, the court should have recognized that fact and not ever heard the case.

Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? The court didn't find this to be true. You are begging the question, stating your assertion is a fact....without factually establishing it.

And the Begging the Question fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? The above isn't specific. Its ridiculously vague.

Instead they chose to invent a new right with no natural basis for it and no legal precedent, gay is not a separate gender.

A 'natural basis'? That's an interesting term. What do you think it means? And what relevance does your definition have with their ruling?

Marriage being a right is certainly recognized as precedent. Gays being protected by the 14th amendment is certainly recognized as precedent.

And when did the courts claim that 'gay is a separate gender'?

It's the only way to say gays weren't being treated equally under the existing law, when they were, they were give the exact same privileges and protections as any other male or female, keep in mind, rights are individual, not collective.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Who says that existing laws were already in compliance with the 14th amendment? So far, you do. Citing yourself.

And how is your conclusion that 'every male and female in the US were being treated equally under existing laws' relevant to the Obergefell decision? Specifically?

What do you claim 'natural basis' means. It seems pretty central to your claims regarding 'new rights'.

And when did the court say that 'gay is a separate gender'. I've read the entire Obergefell ruling and I never saw that claim. Is that you citing yourself again?

What was the basis for the decision? Why haven't you addressed my points, oh I know, you can't refute them.

You're the one indicating that their ruling was wrong. Show us your evidence. Yet you can't even show us how your conclusions are *relevant* to the ruling. Let alone demonstrate that it was wrong.

You're offering us a plain old begging the question fallacy.

 

[Skylar]

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

If judges and Justices can ignore both the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent as occurred in this decision, and they use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, we are then no longer living under the rule of law and a constitutionally limited system of government. Judges and Justices engaging in such conduct must be punished ,,, no punishment to be left off the table.

JWK

The actual legislative intent....or the deeply dishonest, heavily edited 'intent' that you've imagined. For example, this is what you indicated was the legislative intent of the 14th amendment:

The fact is, even Bingham, who is repeatedly mentioned by those who want federal judges to have the power to enforce the federal Bill of Rights upon the states, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

But......that quote was heavily edited, with you removing any mention of the federal constitution, congress compelling obedience of the states, punishing state officials that violate the bill of rights, etc. Here's the ACTUAL quote that demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim:

"that the care of the property, the liberty and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is the States and not in the Federal Government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect. I advocate here is an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath , and punish all violations by State officers of the Bill of rights, but leaving those officers to discharge the duties enjoined up them as citizens of the United States by that oath and byt hat Constitution. "

See Cong. Globe page 1292

Which of course you know. But really hope we don't.

Arming Congress to compel obedience of the States to the oath imposed by the Federal constitution and punish all violations of the Bill of Rights by the State is exactly what the 14th amendment was intended to do.

 

[Bush92]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

It was expected of the other 3 members. They believe that Washington D.C. must dominate the ignorant peasants of the hinterland. Good God how could you live outside Boswash corridor and be educated and know whats good for your state, community and its people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You keep beating the same dead horse, rights are held by individuals. Gays had the same rights as anyone of their gender, when you start basing rights on actions and preferences, where does it end. States have always had the power to determine their license requirements, whether it be for marriage, driving, business or what ever. Would it violate my 14th Amendment rights is I preferred to drive without a license, the state would fine or arrest me, insurance companies would refuse to sell me auto insurance, I couldn't rent a car or any of the other things a license holder could access?

The incentives that have been historically given to married people are not rights, as they can be changed or modified at any time, but none of these incentives were denied to gays if they met the legal requirements for marriage under state laws. So there were no 14th Amendment violations, the court invented one to justify it's social engineering, just like they invented ambiguity in the wording of the ACA that didn't exist.

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

If judges and Justices can ignore both the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent as occurred in this decision, and they use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, we are then no longer living under the rule of law and a constitutionally limited system of government. Judges and Justices engaging in such conduct must be punished ,,, no punishment to be left off the table.

JWK

None of which has occurred.

The Obergefell Court majority based its ruling on settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, in accordance with the Constitution (Articles III and VI), its case law, and the rule of law.

The Obergefell Court majority did nothing 'wrong,' it did nothing in 'violation' of the Constitution, and in no way 'ignored' the intent of the Framing Generation – and Justice Kennedy certainly did nothing to warrant 'impeachment.'

Now, that you don't like that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence has no bearing whatsoever on the case, you have no authority to determine what the Constitution means, the Constitution affords that sole authority to the judiciary.

What you fail to realize is that your reactionary, errant 'minimalist,' 'literalist,' 'strict constructionist' Constitutional dogma is subjective perception, devoid of merit, and in no way supported by the history or text of the Founding Document.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

Which is why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – reflecting the wisdom of the Framing Generation to subject the people solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures which sought to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law are proof of that.

And the people today retain that same wisdom as the people during the advent of the Republic, which is why there will be no 'judicial reform.'

 

[johnwk]

In case you didn't hear, your argument didn't hold water, in the last place that it mattered...

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

If judges and Justices can ignore both the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent as occurred in this decision, and they use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law, we are then no longer living under the rule of law and a constitutionally limited system of government. Judges and Justices engaging in such conduct must be punished ,,, no punishment to be left off the table.

JWK

None of which has occurred.

The Obergefell Court majority based its ruling on settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, .

Nothing is settled or accepted when the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent is defied by the court.

JWK

 

[dcraelin]

Oh right, 5 of 9 decided they knew better, the other 4 made the same arguments I have. Did you bother to read the dissent? The 5 decided they were not bound by history, tradition, precedent or the democratic process, they imposed their views with no legal foundations to do so, something the court is getting really good at.

At some point I will read the decision but frankly I couldn't care less. There's no point in you caring either, it's over and done with.

That's were you're really WRONG, this just amplifies the need for judicial reform.

Which isn't going to happen just because you lost three in a row...

The need has been there for years, this should be the tipping point, you can't even get through to congressmen, the phones are burning up with really pissed off people.

Which is why we have a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy – reflecting the wisdom of the Framing Generation to subject the people solely to the rule of law, not men, because men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures which sought to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law are proof of that.

And the people today retain that same wisdom as the people during the advent of the Republic, which is why there will be no 'judicial reform.'

I have shown you wrong on "not a democracy" before............The founding generation equated Republics and Democracy.............the rule of law inevitably leads to aristocracy if it is separated from what was called lex majoris partis.