Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[Syriusly]

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It is surprising that the 14th amendment would not have given women the vote

good question, it gave gays the right to marry (in your mind) but did not give women the right to vote. How do you explain that? the 14th discriminates against women but not gays.

its amazing how you libs can screw up your own arguments.

I think that if women didn't have the vote now, that women could successfully sue that denying them voting rights would be a violation of the 14th Amendment's protections.

 

[thanatos144]

Read the 9th Amendment.

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

What bullshit lies. What law tells others what human adult non family memeber to fuck?

 

[Redfish]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

Really? what statute makes it a "fundamental" right? Was marriage a fundamental right before the constitution? Where is gay marriage ever mentioned in any of our statutes or legal documents

You can stomp your feet and whine about how marriage is not a 'fundamental right' but it has been recognized as a fundamental right and legally is a fundamental right.

You may disagree with the Supreme Court- but your disagreement is nothing more than your personal opinion with absolutely no legal value.

What the Supreme Court has repeatedly said over decades:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."



Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

none of that addresses two men or two women marrying. interracial marriage is a totally different issue.

are you claiming that the issue at the time of Loving was whether a gay white man could marry a gay black man?

 

[WorldWatcher]

good question, it gave gays the right to marry (in your mind) but did not give women the right to vote. How do you explain that? the 14th discriminates against women but not gays.

The 14th identifies voters as male.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

 

[Redfish]

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

What bullshit lies. What law tells others what human adult non family memeber to fuck,

why do you limit it to non-family? either we are free or we are not. polysexual marriage is next, I guarantee it.

 

[Redfish]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

you lefties have been claiming that the 14th amendment did that, now you are saying it didn't?

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope... nothing about marriage in the 9th amendment.

The 9th amendment merely shuts down the idiocy that the Constitution "grants' rights...

Wow.



You really are a dolt.

I'm going with States can set marriage rules as they see fit when it comes to allowing homosexual marriage, but they have to recognize all marriages granted by other states.

It's called the everybody hates the solution solution.

Pretty much what happened when Nevada had quickie divorces and other states did not.

Yeah, when the states and / or feds start deciding what types sexual relationships consenting adults can have... they have gone way beyond the scope of government. Authoritarians, what ya gonna do.

What bullshit lies. What law tells others what human adult non family memeber to fuck?

Nobody could be as dumb as you are pretending to be.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is a Fundamental Right.

End of discussion.

Really? what statute makes it a "fundamental" right? Was marriage a fundamental right before the constitution? Where is gay marriage ever mentioned in any of our statutes or legal documents

You can stomp your feet and whine about how marriage is not a 'fundamental right' but it has been recognized as a fundamental right and legally is a fundamental right.

You may disagree with the Supreme Court- but your disagreement is nothing more than your personal opinion with absolutely no legal value.

What the Supreme Court has repeatedly said over decades:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."



Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

none of that addresses two men or two women marrying. interracial marriage is a totally different issue.

are you claiming that the issue at the time of Loving was whether a gay white man could marry a gay black man?

Here is what you asked- and what I was responding to:

"Really? what statute makes it a "fundamental" right? Was marriage a fundamental right before the constitution?"

Rather than try to change the subject now- first address your claim- and my response to it.

You can stomp your feet and whine about how marriage is not a 'fundamental right' but it has been recognized as a fundamental right and legally is a fundamental right.

You may disagree with the Supreme Court- but your disagreement is nothing more than your personal opinion with absolutely no legal value.

What the Supreme Court has repeatedly said over decades:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."



Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"


Zablocki

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

 

[rightwinger]

No, it was not majority vote. The south were forced to accept it or die. Being forced to accept something or die, isn't a vote.

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It is surprising that the 14th amendment would not have given women the vote

It is surprising to me that the 14th amendment took away the natural rights of the citizens to life, liberty, and property.

Especially white males

 

[Syriusly]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

you lefties have been claiming that the 14th amendment did that, now you are saying it didn't?

Is that even supposed to make sense?

 

[Redfish]

good question, it gave gays the right to marry (in your mind) but did not give women the right to vote. How do you explain that? the 14th discriminates against women but not gays.

The 14th identifies voters as male.


>>>>

then it must be an unconstitutional amendment if the arguments put forward by the left are correct.

 

[bodecea]

JR, you are wrong.

Incorrect.

Whether same-sex couples may access marriage law or not is very much a Constitutional issue. Marriage is contract law, no different than any other law enacted by a state or jurisdiction.

Same-sex couples are eligible to participate in marriage contract law, where the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from seeking to deny gay Americans access to that law; the people do not have the authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights, as one's civil rights are not determined by 'majority rule.'

Geez, you libs are thick headed. the civil rights that we enjoy were established by majority vote, our constitution was ratified by majority vote.

A majority of our citizens decided what rights should apply to all american citizens. Our government representatives are elected by majority vote, laws are passed by majority vote.

To say that the majority does not decide rights is the height of ignorance.

There is no specific law or statute anywhere in our national legal system that specifically addressed gay marriage. The 14th amendment does not mention gay marriage. Equal access to the law does not mean gays can call their unions a marriage.

If you want this settled then put it to a vote in every state--------or process a constitutional amendment specifically addressing gay marriage and see if 38 states will ratify it.

WOW, a right winger saying America is a "democracy"... and not just a run of the mill democracy, a "direct democracy"...

not what I said at all, but your lack of reading comprehension is acknowledged.

We comprehend easily that is what you mean. You want the majority to be able to overturn court decisions that you don't like.

Yes, in cases such as the Dred Scott ruling.

Are you going to compare the Dred Scott decision to possible legalized Gay Marriage thru-out the U.S.?

 

[Syriusly]

For the sake of posterity, I think Roberts will also side with the left

So do I. Roberts has three abiding core values: conservatism, legacy and the integrity of the courts.

On the first count, Roberts would side with the conservatives. The latter two would compel him to side with the left and Kennedy.

I think if Roberts vote could change the outcome, he'd side with the conservatives. But it seems increasingly unlikely that his vote will change anything. Kennedy seems poised to side with the left on this issue and preserve gay marriage. So Roberts is left with his own personal legacy and the intergrity of the courts.

No one save Scalia wants to be this generations Leon Bazile;

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile ruling against Mildred and Richard Loving

With 50 years of separation, Leon sounds ignorant as fuck. And that ruling against the Lovings defines his legacy. I think Roberts recognizes the issue of gay marriage will be similarly important in the long term. With opposition to gay marriage look back upon and scorned as useless ignorance. I don't think he wants to be on the wrong side of this issue.

As for the integrity of the court, most of your major civil rights legislation was historically done as close to unanimous as possible. Both Brown v. The Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia ruling were unanimous. A deeply divided court makes the USSC look political. A more unanimous verdict, impartial and more constitutional. I see this ruling as being in the same ball park in terms of long term significance. I suspect this may push Roberts toward concurring sheerly for the sake of consensus within the courts.

I think its likely that we'll get a 6 to 3 ruling out of the court in favor of gay marriage. I'd say even 7-2 was possible....though quite unlikely. I don't see Scalia or Thomas siding with gay marriage regardless.

And as an aside, I disagree with Roberts on many issues. But I think he's a fine Chief Justice. Thoroughly qualified, thoughtful, and principled. I just disagree on where he's placed his principles.

The only judge who is an outright fag hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Here you go:

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By any definition, gays are persons

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.
.

There is just marriage- whether it is same gender couples or opposite gender couples- and all marriage is equal.

 

[Redfish]

Look, it a majority of the citizens want gay marriage to be sanctioned by the government, as you claim, then lets have a constitutional amendment so that there is absolutely no question about it forevermore. \

OK, lets do it. Lets clear this up once and for all by letting the people speak.

Feel free to pursue one.

We didn't need a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate bans on mixed race marriages- there is no need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate unconstitutional bans on same gender marriages.

you lefties have been claiming that the 14th amendment did that, now you are saying it didn't?

Is that even supposed to make sense?

uh, yeah. just turning your arguments around on you

 

[Redfish]

So do I. Roberts has three abiding core values: conservatism, legacy and the integrity of the courts.

On the first count, Roberts would side with the conservatives. The latter two would compel him to side with the left and Kennedy.

I think if Roberts vote could change the outcome, he'd side with the conservatives. But it seems increasingly unlikely that his vote will change anything. Kennedy seems poised to side with the left on this issue and preserve gay marriage. So Roberts is left with his own personal legacy and the intergrity of the courts.

No one save Scalia wants to be this generations Leon Bazile;

With 50 years of separation, Leon sounds ignorant as fuck. And that ruling against the Lovings defines his legacy. I think Roberts recognizes the issue of gay marriage will be similarly important in the long term. With opposition to gay marriage look back upon and scorned as useless ignorance. I don't think he wants to be on the wrong side of this issue.

As for the integrity of the court, most of your major civil rights legislation was historically done as close to unanimous as possible. Both Brown v. The Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia ruling were unanimous. A deeply divided court makes the USSC look political. A more unanimous verdict, impartial and more constitutional. I see this ruling as being in the same ball park in terms of long term significance. I suspect this may push Roberts toward concurring sheerly for the sake of consensus within the courts.

I think its likely that we'll get a 6 to 3 ruling out of the court in favor of gay marriage. I'd say even 7-2 was possible....though quite unlikely. I don't see Scalia or Thomas siding with gay marriage regardless.

And as an aside, I disagree with Roberts on many issues. But I think he's a fine Chief Justice. Thoroughly qualified, thoughtful, and principled. I just disagree on where he's placed his principles.

The only judge who is an outright fag hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Here you go:

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By any definition, gays are persons

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.
.

There is just marriage- whether it is same gender couples or opposite gender couples- and all marriage is equal.

thats your opinion, but a majority of humans on planet earth disagree with you.

 

[RKMBrown]

of course it was majority rule. It was passed by a majority of the states. A minority objected, the majority won. Thats the way it works.

The constitution and all of its amendments were passed by majority votes. The majority created the rights of minorities.

Amendments are passed by super majority and ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures. But in this case 3/4ths of the states did not ratify. Thus the 14th was not ratified.

In short... the north states decided that the south states that rejected the 14th should not be counted. So they sent troops to fix it.

Ah I always love to hear from Southern apologists and how the 14th Amendment isn't really the law.

It is surprising that the 14th amendment would not have given women the vote

It is surprising to me that the 14th amendment took away the natural rights of the citizens to life, liberty, and property.

Especially white males

Yeah ok... that's funny.

 

[WorldWatcher]

then it must be an unconstitutional amendment if the arguments put forward by the left are correct.

An amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be "unconstitutional", but you already knew that I hope before you typed the above.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

For the sake of posterity, I think Roberts will also side with the left

So do I. Roberts has three abiding core values: conservatism, legacy and the integrity of the courts.

On the first count, Roberts would side with the conservatives. The latter two would compel him to side with the left and Kennedy.

I think if Roberts vote could change the outcome, he'd side with the conservatives. But it seems increasingly unlikely that his vote will change anything. Kennedy seems poised to side with the left on this issue and preserve gay marriage. So Roberts is left with his own personal legacy and the intergrity of the courts.

No one save Scalia wants to be this generations Leon Bazile;

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Judge Leon Bazile ruling against Mildred and Richard Loving

With 50 years of separation, Leon sounds ignorant as fuck. And that ruling against the Lovings defines his legacy. I think Roberts recognizes the issue of gay marriage will be similarly important in the long term. With opposition to gay marriage look back upon and scorned as useless ignorance. I don't think he wants to be on the wrong side of this issue.

As for the integrity of the court, most of your major civil rights legislation was historically done as close to unanimous as possible. Both Brown v. The Board of Education and Loving V. Virginia ruling were unanimous. A deeply divided court makes the USSC look political. A more unanimous verdict, impartial and more constitutional. I see this ruling as being in the same ball park in terms of long term significance. I suspect this may push Roberts toward concurring sheerly for the sake of consensus within the courts.

I think its likely that we'll get a 6 to 3 ruling out of the court in favor of gay marriage. I'd say even 7-2 was possible....though quite unlikely. I don't see Scalia or Thomas siding with gay marriage regardless.

And as an aside, I disagree with Roberts on many issues. But I think he's a fine Chief Justice. Thoroughly qualified, thoughtful, and principled. I just disagree on where he's placed his principles.

The only judge who is an outright fag hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Here you go:

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By any definition, gays are persons

what laws do not apply to gays? In what state are gays deprived or life, liberty, or property? You libs are making a failed attempt to create something that does not exist.

Until the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws- gays were targeted and deprived of liberty and property simply for having private consensual sex.

You of course are against the Supreme Court overturning State laws- so do you also support the State's rights to deprive homosexuals of liberty and property because they have private consensual sex?

 

[RKMBrown]

The only judge who is an outright fag hater is Scalia. I can see him use some Bazile type wording in his dissent that will be mocked for generations.
Thomas will vote against but will distance himself from Scalia and side with states rights
Alito, like a true conservative will just vote no

Everyone else, including Roberts will side with the 14th amendment

thinking that gay marriage is wrong for society does not make one a gay hater.

I am still waiting for you to quote the language in the 14th that specifically addresses gay marriage.

Here you go:

State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By any definition, gays are persons

gay marriage and hetero marriage are not equal, so that demolishes your argument right then and there.
.

There is just marriage- whether it is same gender couples or opposite gender couples- and all marriage is equal.

thats your opinion, but a majority of humans on planet earth disagree with you.

Nah, your opinion that all marriages must for all time be between one man and one woman... yeah that opinion is now in the minority. Sucks to be the in minority huh?