Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    Never... Because such a ruling would be well-grounded in logic and the Constitution.
    yeah, as a Constitutional law question, there isn't any question at all. A 3rd grader can see this one.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post

      The liberal quiver of logic contains nothing but arrows of logical fallacy.

      If it's the beginning of the end "of bigotry based on sexuality," what's next?
      • Incest?
      • Polygamy?
      • Beastiiality?


      Whats the next step on the path to the end "of bigotry based on sexuality"?
      The last remaining neocon quiver of logic ends with arrows of doggy fantasy.

      Those that can read the below and not be moved have stone cold hearts. Instead of celebrating...their minds fill with thoughts of beastiality

      THose holding such thoughts I hope they can summon the courage to leave their homes today....




      Last edited by Crash; 27 Jun 15, 08:41.
      #occupyarmchairgeneral.
      Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
      Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Crash View Post
        The last remaining neocon quiver of logic ends with arrows of doggy fantasy.
        Since you clearly can't answer the question (or any other question requiring the use of logic), I'll just let Chief Justice Roberts answer it for you...
        “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits,” he read from his opinion as crowds outside the court’s doors cheered the decision. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

        http://thehill.com/regulation/other/...e-constitution

        Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

        [...]

        When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

        [...]

        The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

        http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/26/...riage-dissent/

        The 5-4 majority decision in this ruling was 100% arbitrary and capricious.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          What "letter of the" Constitution empowers SCOTUS to override Article IV and Amendment X of the US Constitutiion and constitutions of at least 37 States?

          The original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to ensure that the States did not deprive newly freed slaves of equal protection under the law.

          Legally defining the word marriage as the union of 1 man and 1 woman, deprives no one of equal protection under the law. Does the limitation of marriage to 2 people deny bisexuals equal protection under the law? Do laws against incestuous marriages deny those with Oedepus complexes equal protection under the law?

          If the Fourteenth Amendment requires States to recognize marriages of same-sex couples, then it also must require States to recognize polygamous and incestuous marriages.

          The Fourteenth Amendment empowered Congress, not SCOTUS, to enforce its terms.

          Congress had already acted in regard to gay marriage with DOMA.
          Read the ruling. It explains it.

          I'm glad you and others in here got to witness the US legalizing gay marriage and the affirmation of Obamacare. Rough week for a ton on you!
          #occupyarmchairgeneral.
          Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
          Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Crash View Post
            Read the ruling. It explains it.

            I'm glad you and others in here got to witness the US legalizing gay marriage and the affirmation of Obamacare. Rough week for a ton on you!
            I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for the benefit of people who join in late and are too lazy to read it. I addressed Kennedy's idiotic appeasl to tradition and emotion earlier...
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            This is perhaps the most idiotic, arbitrary and capricious passage in the SCOTUS majority opinion...



            Kennedy actually appealed to the tradition of a "two-person union" while micturating on traditional marriage.

            How on Earth can the Miracle Amendment apply to two-person unions without applying to any other number of people in marital unions?

            How can a two-person union between brother and sister or parent and adult child not also be guaranteed by the Miracle Amendment?
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              Since you clearly can't answer the question (or any other question requiring the use of logic), I'll just let Chief Justice Roberts answer it for you...
              “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits,” he read from his opinion as crowds outside the court’s doors cheered the decision. “But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

              http://thehill.com/regulation/other/...e-constitution






























              The 5-4 majority decision in this ruling was 100% arbitrary and capricious.
              It is also illegal : only congress can make laws,not the Supreme Court .

              The decision is also very dangerous :it is opening the highway for a transformation of the US from a federal in a centralised state where 5 judges are dictating people what to do,what to say,what to think,what clothes to wear,etc,etc...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                I'm not going to repeat the entire thread for the benefit of people who join in late and are too lazy to read it. I addressed Kennedy's idiotic appeal to tradition earlier...
                Happy Gay Pride weekend to you sir!

                Hopefully I'll have time to read more rants and thoughts on bestiality later.

                At this point I'm more interested to know where you believe the downward progression started in the US rather than where it will end? Was it the Jews, Blacks, Women, Hispanics...??

                Maybe I'll just #askahippie
                Last edited by Crash; 27 Jun 15, 09:26.
                #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  If it's the beginning of the end "of bigotry based on sexuality," what's next?
                  • Incest?
                  • Polygamy?
                  • Beastiiality?


                  Whats the next step on the path to the end "of bigotry based on sexuality"?

                  #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                  Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                  Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    Who determines if a ruling by the Supreme Court is constitutional?
                    More accurately, what?

                    And the answer is: The Constitution. They violated it.

                    This problem would be better analyzed outside of the realm of an emotional argument. Anytime people get emotional, logic flies out the window.

                    I for one have nothing against gay marriage, but I am a pretty strict Constitutionalist. Here is my analysis:

                    1. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a right of marriage, nor prohibition of marriage. Therefore a Supreme Court ruling granting the right of gay marriage or, this is just as important, prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. This is state business and they alone are at liberty to grant or disallow it.

                    2. The proper procedure for ratifying gay marriage is thus to pass amendments allowing it state by state until it is legal in all 50.

                    3. The problem with violating the principles of democracy and the Constitution, even for a righteous cause, are the establishment of a dangerous precedent that can then be used by an oppositional party. It is the destabilization of proper democratic procedure. One should never circumvent the rule of law even for the "greater good". The pro gay lobby may love this decision now, because circumventing the Constitution gave them something they wanted. But having established the precedent that A. democracy means nothing, people are to be ruled by executive order and judicial fiat of the court, B. said court can alter the meaning of any language in a law and make it mean whatever they want it to (Obamacare case), and C. the SCOTUS can make law instead of interpreting law, they may find they regret their actions when Republicans get into office and decide to do the same thing to them. Rule by fiat is only fun when you like the decrees it produces. And...

                    4. One should always consider that programs and policies made by dictate rather than voted in through persuasion only last as long as the regime. It always amazes me how many people sign up for Obamacare given that everyone knows that the moment a Republican takes office, it's going bye bye. And a Republican president is inevitable. Every time a new party takes the White House, said party acts like they will have a thousand year Reich but the truth is that it is damned hard to hold the White House for longer than two terms. Statistically, Hillary's greatest weakness is the fact that Dems have been in the Executive Branch for 8 years. That more than anything weighs against her victory because while holding the White House for more than a decade isn't impossible, it's very unlikely. The longer you hold it, the more likely you are to get voted out of it. It doesn't matter how good you are, people eventually opt for a change. Taking this into consideration one should be especially careful of ruling by judicial fiat or executive order because judges retire and new presidents are elected and if you rule by fiat instead of principle, you will die by it as well - metaphorically speaking.

                    Summing it up I have nothing against the legalization of gay marriage, but I do have a number of issues with how they went about doing it and I feel they may regret not going about it the proper way a few years from now when they find the "shoe on the other foot".

                    Also:

                    5. There has been growing support for gay marriage year by year by year. The ratification of gay marriage in all 50 states was inevitable. So not only did the gay marriage lobby harm the Constitution by undermining proper democratic process, they did so unnecessarily. Now they face the possibility of an equally capricious opposition party taking power and all for a right they would have eventually gotten anyway had they just been patient.
                    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

                      1. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a right of marriage, nor prohibition of marriage. Therefore a Supreme Court ruling granting the right of gay marriage or, this is just as important, prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. This is state business and they alone are at liberty to grant or disallow it.
                      bzzzzt. Wrong.

                      It's in the 14th, dude.

                      [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .


                      The SCOTUS has for 100's of years itemized the liberties protected by this clause.

                      "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."

                      "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
                      Judge Warren ruling that states could not prohibit bi-racial marriages in 1967.


                      How could even a self described strict Constitutionalist think that the US Constitution doesn't exist to protect the life, liberty, and property of the nation...that states would be able to deprave it? Mind boggling!!!!
                      Last edited by Crash; 27 Jun 15, 10:34.
                      #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                      Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                      Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                        More accurately, what?

                        And the answer is: The Constitution. They violated it.

                        This problem would be better analyzed outside of the realm of an emotional argument. Anytime people get emotional, logic flies out the window.

                        I for one have nothing against gay marriage, but I am a pretty strict Constitutionalist. Here is my analysis:

                        1. Nothing in the Constitution provides for a right of marriage, nor prohibition of marriage. Therefore a Supreme Court ruling granting the right of gay marriage or, this is just as important, prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional. This is state business and they alone are at liberty to grant or disallow it.

                        2. The proper procedure for ratifying gay marriage is thus to pass amendments allowing it state by state until it is legal in all 50.

                        3. The problem with violating the principles of democracy and the Constitution, even for a righteous cause, are the establishment of a dangerous precedent that can then be used by an oppositional party. It is the destabilization of proper democratic procedure. One should never circumvent the rule of law even for the "greater good". The pro gay lobby may love this decision now, because circumventing the Constitution gave them something they wanted. But having established the precedent that A. democracy means nothing, people are to be ruled by executive order and judicial fiat of the court, B. said court can alter the meaning of any language in a law and make it mean whatever they want it to (Obamacare case), and C. the SCOTUS can make law instead of interpreting law, they may find they regret their actions when Republicans get into office and decide to do the same thing to them. Rule by fiat is only fun when you like the decrees it produces. And...

                        4. One should always consider that programs and policies made by dictate rather than voted in through persuasion only last as long as the regime. It always amazes me how many people sign up for Obamacare given that everyone knows that the moment a Republican takes office, it's going bye bye. And a Republican president is inevitable. Every time a new party takes the White House, said party acts like they will have a thousand year Reich but the truth is that it is damned hard to hold the White House for longer than two terms. Statistically, Hillary's greatest weakness is the fact that Dems have been in the Executive Branch for 8 years. That more than anything weighs against her victory because while holding the White House for more than a decade isn't impossible, it's very unlikely. The longer you hold it, the more likely you are to get voted out of it. It doesn't matter how good you are, people eventually opt for a change. Taking this into consideration one should be especially careful of ruling by judicial fiat or executive order because judges retire and new presidents are elected and if you rule by fiat instead of principle, you will die by it as well - metaphorically speaking.

                        Summing it up I have nothing against the legalization of gay marriage, but I do have a number of issues with how they went about doing it and I feel they may regret not going about it the proper way a few years from now when they find the "shoe on the other foot".

                        Also:

                        5. There has been growing support for gay marriage year by year by year. The ratification of gay marriage in all 50 states was inevitable. So not only did the gay marriage lobby harm the Constitution by undermining proper democratic process, they did so unnecessarily. Now they face the possibility of an equally capricious opposition party taking power and all for a right they would have eventually gotten anyway had they just been patient.
                        SCOTUS established the freedom, i.e right, to marry over 50 years ago. Sorry wrong on that one.
                        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                        “To talk of many things:
                        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                        Of cabbages—and kings—
                        And why the sea is boiling hot—
                        And whether pigs have wings.”
                        ― Lewis Carroll

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post

                          I am a pretty strict Constitutionalist. .
                          Recall that the writers of your Constitution didn't have the balls to deal with slavery...they kicked that can down the road.
                          #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                          Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                          Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                            SCOTUS established the freedom, i.e right, to marry over 50 years ago. Sorry wrong on that one.
                            The Constitution does not provide a right to marriage. Doesn't matter what the SCOTUS says. Their job is to interpret law, not make it. It's that simple. The SCOTUS has no business "establishing" anything. That's the job of Congress and the states.
                            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Crash View Post
                              Recall that the writers of your Constitution didn't have the balls to deal with slavery...they kicked that can down the road.
                              True. Now recall that the SCOTUS was for slavery before it was against it.

                              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

                              We can play that particular game all day.
                              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Crash View Post
                                bzzzzt. Wrong.

                                It's in the 14th, dude.

                                [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .


                                The SCOTUS has for 100's of years itemized the liberties protected by this clause.

                                "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."

                                "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
                                Judge Warren ruling that states could not prohibit bi-racial marriages in 1967.
                                Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to define marriage in the manner just dictated by by 5 SCOTUS justices. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the States treated newly freed slaves as US citizens.

                                The courts did not begin misusing this amendment with the incorporation doctrine until 1925... 60 years after it was sent out for ratification by the States. It wasn't until 1947 that it had been used to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights.

                                It took 104 years from ratification for the courts to fully convert it into the Miracle Amendment, when it discovered that a woman's right to commit infanticide was hidden between the lines.

                                The Fourteenth Amendment empowered Congress to enforce its terms, not the courts. Congress had already addressed this issue when if overwhelmingly approved DOMA and left the definition of marriage to the States. From 2001 through 2011, at least 36 States approved of constitutional amendments defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Several other States had statutes doing the same. Only 11 States have recognized gay marriage through democratic means.

                                Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment empowered SCOTUS to overturn Article IV l, Section 4 or Amendment X to the US Constitutiion or the constitutions of 38 States.
                                Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X