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 Pirateship1982 View Post
    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.
    The constitution does not NEED to do so for the right to exist. The document clearly states that it does NOT list all the rights we have.
    “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 Combat Engineer View Post
      SCOTUS established the freedom, i.e right, to marry over 50 years ago. Sorry wrong on that one.
      No it did not. The right/freedom to marry predated SCOTUS, the Constitution and the United States of America.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        The constitution does not NEED to do so for the right to exist. The document clearly states that it does NOT list all the rights we have.
        It.also clearly states that powers not expressly delegated to the Federal Government are reserved.to the States and people... And the Fourteenth Amendment only empowered Congress to enforce its terms.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          No it did not. The right/freedom to marry predated SCOTUS, the Constitution and the United States of America.
          Pardon, they stated that right exist and provided the protection of the US Constitution to various state restrictions on that right.
          “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 The Doctor View Post
            It.also clearly states that powers not expressly delegated to the Federal Government are reserved.to the States and people... And the Fourteenth Amendment only empowered Congress to enforce its terms.
            Yes and when the STATES violate those rights the Constitution provides protection from those violations.
            “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 Combat Engineer View Post
              Yes and when the STATES violate those rights the Constitution provides protection from those violations.
              No one's rights were violated. The terms and conditions of issuing license are powers of the States.
              Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

              [...]

              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.

              [...]

              The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

              [...]

              Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

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

              “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
                No it did not. The right/freedom to marry predated SCOTUS, the Constitution and the United States of America.
                Exactly...so what give the States the right to deprive one of that liberty?

                "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

                THe 14th Amendment clearly and distinctly prohibits the deprivation of one's liberty by a State.

                The state provides the license. If the State annulled and banned all marriages your panties would bunch and you'd seek the protection of the 14th...
                #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
                  No one's rights were violated. The terms and conditions of issuing license are powers of the States.
                  Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

                  [...]

                  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.

                  [...]

                  The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

                  [...]

                  Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

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

                  “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.
                  That would be the Dissenters and your opinion, reality is otherwise. In touch with all the other rulings on protecting the right to marry. As it should be. SCOTUS is just slow to get around to offering that protection, as it is on most issues.
                  “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 The Doctor View Post
                    No one's rights were violated. The terms and conditions of issuing license are powers of the States.
                    Surprised that you nor Roberts grasp that two committed to each other has been right since we lived in water.


                    You'd think Roberts would have heard of a Justice Warren?

                    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.

                    To claim that marriage, at this point, isn't a right and therefore nobody's rights have been violated is laughable.


                    PS. If you post enmass anything from Scalia I'll be quick to note that my morning poop resembled his neck this morning.
                    Last edited by Crash; 27 Jun 15, 11:21.
                    #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
                      Exactly...so what give the States the right to deprive one of that liberty?

                      "These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."

                      THe 14th Amendment clearly and distinctly prohibits the deprivation of one's liberty by a State.

                      The state provides the license. If the State annulled and banned all marriages your panties would bunch and you'd seek the protection of the 14th...
                      No one's liberties were deprived.

                      No State could prevent a gay couple from marrying. However, States clearly have the power.to decide which marriages they will recognize with licenses.

                      States cannot infringe on the right to keep.and bear arms; however they have the power to set the terms and conditions for licenses.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                        That would be the Dissenters and your opinion, reality is otherwise. In touch with all the other rulings on protecting the right to marry. As it should be. SCOTUS is just slow to get around to offering that protection, as it is on most issues.
                        The minority opinion was the only one grounded in the Constitution and logic.

                        None of the supporters of the majority ruling can logically answer any of these questions:

                        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?


                        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. How can it do otherwise?

                        The Fourteenth Amendment empowered Congress, not SCOTUS, to enforce its terms. Congress had already acted in regard to gay marriage with DOMA. It defined the word in Federal law and left the licensing issue with the States, along with almost all other licenses. What empowered SCOTUS to override Congress?
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          No one's liberties were deprived.

                          No State could prevent a gay couple from marrying. However, States clearly have the power.to decide which marriages they will recognize with licenses.

                          States cannot infringe on the right to keep.and bear arms; however they have the power to set the terms and conditions for licenses.
                          Correct, and they have to do so in a manner that does not violated the 14th equal protection clause, like they have done in the past. SCOTUS ruled that they did so this time also. Not complex at all.

                          Yes and when they go to far, as DC/Chicago did SCOTUS slaps them down eventually. Perfect example of it taking to long to do so. Thanks for pointing that out.
                          Last edited by Combat Engineer; 27 Jun 15, 12:13.
                          “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 Combat Engineer View Post
                            Correct, and they have to do so in a manner that does not violated the 14th equal protection clause, like they have do in the past. SCOTUS ruled that they did so this time also. Not complex at all.

                            Yes and when they go to far, as DC/Chicago did SCOTUS slaps them down eventually. Perfect example of it taking to long to do so. Thanks for pointing that out.
                            If it violated the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples, then it violates the rights of incestuous couples and polygamous permutations.

                            There is no other logical construct.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              If it violated the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples, then it violates the rights of incestuous couples and polygamous permutations.

                              There is no other logical construct.
                              Incorrect, ample examples to choose from in exactly how the 14th applies to situations like this. Been laid out for 60+ years.
                              “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 The Doctor View Post
                                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.
                                If the 14th was limited to black people...it would say that. Not sure how you concluded the 14th was limited.

                                I wonder if you are going to post massive walls of text by Roberts over in the ACA thread. Selective posting in it's finest.

                                Oh...what is it like to love and hate the same man?
                                #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

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X