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

[thanatos144]

If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.

No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.

you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.

What I get is that you disagree with discrimination based on race but are fine with discrimination based on gender. The SCOTUS had to go against the "will of the people" when they ruled on Loving. You're fine with that.

Overturning unconstitutional laws is the role of the judiciary. It's very constitutional.

Then get a amendment passed. Oh wait you would need to be able to win the vote and that is to much work for your fat lazy ass.

 

[martybegan]

If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.

No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.

Having to go to another baker does not make you a 2nd class citizen.

Nope, but that's not what I was talking about.

Having to go to another baker is sometimes in violation of local PA laws. States rights and all...

States rights are limited by the constitution, and forcing someone to work for someone they do not want to work for is involuntary servitude, with is unconstitutional.

 

[bodecea]

You were saying?

approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.

Only if you are going to ignore the fact that gay marriage is following the same trend and both are civil rights issues.

What Bullshit. Homosexual marrige is no where near on par with civil rights fights. No one is banning homosexuals from marrige the nuptials are just not recognized. The faux victimhood of he homosexual is insulting to those who actually were

It is a civil rights issue if the government recognizes and gives over 1000 protections and privileges to some law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and NOT to other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without a solid, measurable reason to do so.

Bullshit. You homosexuals are not opressed.

We're not what? I'm unfamiliar with that term.

 

[martybegan]

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

Oh the Air Force is created out of thin air. The Constitution does not provide for the establishment of an Air Force- but we have one anyway.

Meanwhile- the right to marry has been confirmed over and over.

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."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

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"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.

 

[martybegan]

Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.

A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?

If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.

If you object to certain kinds of legal marriages, maybe you shouldn't be in the marriage business. Just like those muslim taxi drivers who objected to carrying certain kinds of legal passengers....they shouldn't be in the taxi business.

Or they just have to advertise they only cater to a certain clientele.

Ok, put that sign up.

I wouldn't have to, because I wouldn't turn anyone away, and anyone putting the sign up would have to face the economic consequences of the market. I'm against government doing it for people, not people doing it themselves.

 

[thanatos144]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Nazism was (is) Fascism....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism. And it seems you can only resort to personal attacks due to the collapse of any factual argument on your part.

Look at petey try and define something and fail miserably. They are socialist and thus progressive. I know you idiots dont understand how ignorant you have been made on the subject. You should shame your teachers

 

[bodecea]

The libertarians and the far right reactionaries have lost the debate here, and SCOTUS will kick it up their ass in June.

I guess that's why they are sounding so shrill.

 

[bodecea]

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.

No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.

you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.

What I get is that you disagree with discrimination based on race but are fine with discrimination based on gender. The SCOTUS had to go against the "will of the people" when they ruled on Loving. You're fine with that.

Overturning unconstitutional laws is the role of the judiciary. It's very constitutional.

Then get a amendment passed. Oh wait you would need to be able to win the vote and that is to much work for your fat lazy ass.

How'd that DOMA like amendment work for you? Oops.

 

[Wry Catcher]

against gay marriage? They already showed their liberal side by side with Obama on it being a tax. Will they make up for it by going the other way on Gay Marriage? Remember we live in a political age; however the Judicial Branch of the federal government is held by interpreting the constitution of the United states, which means they can't show biasedness one way or the other. They have become somewhat political, so the question is did they take this issue up to prove another point that has nothing to do with the issue at hand?

Your threads are so dishonest they should embarrass anyone with an IQ over 90. Left leaning USSC? Alito is so conservative he still has his first bowl movement; Saclia and Thomas are the darlings of the far right and seem to support a want to move us back to the 18th Century; Kennedy is an iconoclast, willing to be known as a swinger, no matter what the issue maybe. That puts the court a 3 v. 3 and one unknown - though the conservatives usually prevail in 5-4 (the norm, today) decisions.

So the question is, why does the OP lie? S/He lies because S/He needs attention and always get some when S/He lies. Sadly, S/He is not alone on his/her side of the aisle.

 

[Syriusly]

You're contradicting yourself. Either you think the majority should rule in all things or you don't.

Discrimination based on animus is discrimination based on animus.

no contradiction here, the majority vote should prevail in all issues. otherwise we have either a dictatorship or anarchy.

So you're admitting you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on Loving?

how did you get that from what I said? Loving was a ruling that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional-------------------interracial marriage between one man and one woman of different races. It has nothing to do with "marriage" between two men or two women.

You just said majority vote should prevail. The majority would have voted against miscegenation if not for the SCOTUS ruling against the "majority".

So you either disagree with judges ruling on Interracial marriage or you agree with them ruling on same sex marriage. Which is it?

the rules of the constitution were put in place by majority vote. The majority cannot misinterpret those rules, thats what Loving was about. Gay marriage is a totally different issue.

Oh please explain the difference.

Law against mixed race marriage: voted in by the majority- overturned by the court.
Law against same gender marriage- voted in by the majority- overturned by the court.

Please feel free to explain how you rationalize its okay for the courts to overturn one state law- based upon interpretation of the Constitution- but not okay to overturn another state law- based upon the Consitution.

 

[martybegan]

So Equal protection is absolute then?

And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

No, there isn't. There is zero precedent or historical backing for any form of same sex marriage being allowed under any State legislation prior to the current decade.

And it't not about the end result, its about the process. If done legislatively at the State level I have no issue with it. If the courts force another state to recognize same sex marriages from other States while still not issuing them themselves, I have no issue with it. My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

 

[thanatos144]

give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.

No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.

you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.

What I get is that you disagree with discrimination based on race but are fine with discrimination based on gender. The SCOTUS had to go against the "will of the people" when they ruled on Loving. You're fine with that.

Overturning unconstitutional laws is the role of the judiciary. It's very constitutional.

Then get a amendment passed. Oh wait you would need to be able to win the vote and that is to much work for your fat lazy ass.

How'd that DOMA like amendment work for you? Oops.

I didn't do it or even care but it wasn't made a amendment and where something similar was in other state constitution the courts illegally rewrote thier constitution. Courts dont legislate.

 

[Syriusly]

I agree. Marriage Equality is constitutional.

what is constitutional is what is written in the constitution. Not one of you gays has yet shown us the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind. The constitution is silent on marriage. The intent of the drafters of the constitution is not known to us.

If you want gay marriage to be constitutional, then put forth a constitutional amendment and get it ratified by 38 states. Otherwise this foolish debate will go on for many years.

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

 

[bodecea]

The Court can make horrible decisions- but they are by definition Constitutional.

The Supreme Court is far from perfect- but we will never agree on interpretations of the Constitution. People on both sides love to say that the wording for this or that is very clear- but Congress- and States regularly pass laws that groups and individuals think are unconstitutional.

Absent courts review, there would be no recourse for abuses by legislatures- from gun laws to contraceptive laws.

The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.

When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?

NY courts have upheld NYC's unconstitutional gun laws. .

Clearly they are not unconstitutional then.

I understand that you consider them to be so- but your opinion is a personal opinion that really has no legal weight.

The courts upheld the laws, and that was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court- which could have- but did not- reverse them.

So yes the laws are Constitutional.

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers. So because 5 of 9 robed idiots say something is "the truth" we are just supposed to meekly submit to it?

You are a fucking lemming.

Ok, here we get to the meat of the matter. Marty is upset that we have a Supreme Court (even tho it is a core tenet of our government). Who's the one who hates the Constitution? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[Syriusly]

My issue is with courts forcing on States and even the whole Country on made up legal grounds via the courts.

The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court 'forced' the States to comply with the Constitution::
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.

When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?

NY courts have upheld NYC's unconstitutional gun laws. .

Clearly they are not unconstitutional then.

I understand that you consider them to be so- but your opinion is a personal opinion that really has no legal weight.

The courts upheld the laws, and that was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court- which could have- but did not- reverse them.

So yes the laws are Constitutional.

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers. So because 5 of 9 robed idiots say something is "the truth" we are just supposed to meekly submit to it?

You are a fucking lemming.

Ok, here we get to the meat of the matter. Marty is upset that we have a Supreme Court (even tho it is a core tenet of our government). Who's the one who hates the Constitution? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Stop putting words in my mouth. I hate what the court (and courts in general) have become. They have overstepped their mandate as arbiters and have become creators of law.

 

[bodecea]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Think you are to stupid to have a statement on the matter

 

[bodecea]

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Think you are to stupid to have a statement on the mattet

LOL....your post is so wonderfully ironic......meanwhile- every time you mention 'fascism'

Your problem is you are to fucking ignorant of history to understand why you know Jack shit about fascism. You dummies dont even know what the latin even means

Fascism Define Fascism at Dictionary.com

 

[bluedog1]

No they will affirm gay marriage. The mainstream GOPers have moved to the left over the last 10 years the only thing they really care about is money and corporate interests. The Tea Party was the real deal. They have been savaged pretty good lately.

 

[Syriusly]

I agree. Marriage Equality is constitutional.

what is constitutional is what is written in the constitution. Not one of you gays has yet shown us the language in the constitution that addresses gay marriage, or marriage of any kind. The constitution is silent on marriage. The intent of the drafters of the constitution is not known to us.

If you want gay marriage to be constitutional, then put forth a constitutional amendment and get it ratified by 38 states. Otherwise this foolish debate will go on for many years.

The Constitution is also silent about an Air Force and yet we have one. How? Via rightful interpretation of the document. My state has over 1k law related to marriage. A homosexual couple does not get protection from any of them despite equal protection under law being a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

please quote where is says anything about gay mariage, marriage of any kind, or homosexual rights. It is silent on all of those things,---------------soooooooooo, they fall to the states and the voters of each state. Except in cases like prop 8 in Cal where the court ignored the will of the people twice.

Here are the many 'rights' that we enjoy today that the 'courts ignored the will of the people on' when interpreting the Constitution:

Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.

In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.