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 Crash View Post
    The 14th Amendment and due process and equal protection under the law is NOT in the US Constitution?

    OK...if the lynching must begin I agree that Scalia should be impeached. ...he just spews bull from his fat neck. I don't recall Scalia wailing and moaning about "unelected committee of nine" when he ruled that corporations were people, do you?



    PS: You know what I drank after the ruling? A big heaping amount of your and Scalia's tears. Tasted hoppy.
    Nothing in the plain language of the 14th Amendment or its clear intent, even remotely suggests that it empowered SCOTUS to void or amend Article IV, Section 4 and Amendment X of the US Constitution along with the constitutions of 38 states.

    Article III of the Constitution states that "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," otherwise they may be impeached by Congress.

    According to Hamilton's description of the judiciary in Federalist #78, the "Behaviour" of five justices was anything other than "good" in this ruling...
    The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

    Ascertain means to find the precise meaning, not to interpret meaning into it. The United States Supreme Court has no constitutional power to interpret the Constitution in any manner other that its original meaning.

    Furthermore, in this ruling. five justices allowed their feelings about one particular sexual deviancy to trump the letter and intent of the Constitution and the will of the people in at least 38 States.

    This is the textbook definition of bad "Behaviour."
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
      Once again, Gay marriage has been legal for 11 years in the State of MASS, yet NOT one church has been forced to perform any marriage it did not want to... NOT one church has lost tax exempt status....

      Failed predictions by pissed off posters.... nothing to do with reality at all.
      Predictions aren't "failed" until they are tested and fail...
      Schools Fear Gay Marriage Ruling Could End Tax Exemptions
      By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 24, 2015

      Conservative religious schools all over the country forbid same-sex relationships, from dating to couples’ living in married-student housing, and they fear they will soon be forced to make a wrenching choice. If the Supreme Court this month finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the schools say they will have to abandon their policies that prohibit gay relationships or eventually risk losing their tax-exempt status.

      The religious schools are concerned that if they continue to ban gay relationships, the Internal Revenue Service could take away their tax-exempt status as a violation of a “fundamental national public policy” under the reasoning of a 1983 Supreme Court decision that allowed the agency to revoke the tax-exempt status of schools that banned interracial relationships.

      [...]

      Legal scholars said the scenario of schools’ and charities’ losing their tax-exempt status over their policies on these issues was unlikely — especially in the short term. But they did not rule it out, based on previous civil rights cases and an exchange during Supreme Court arguments in April on whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

      “In the Bob Jones case,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, referring to the 1983 Supreme Court decision, “the court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

      Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the Obama administration, said that was possible. “I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics,” he said, “but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”

      Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a similar question. “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?”


      Mr. Verrilli did not rule that out either but said it would “depend on how states work out the balance between their civil rights laws.”

      [...]

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...atus.html?_r=0

      If the 14th Amendment is a legitimate basis for this ruling, tax exempt status for many religious institutions could be endangered.

      Prior to this ruling, there was no legal basis upon which to revoke such status.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Predictions aren't "failed" until they are tested and fail...
        Schools Fear Gay Marriage Ruling Could End Tax Exemptions
        By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and ADAM LIPTAKJUNE 24, 2015

        Conservative religious schools all over the country forbid same-sex relationships, from dating to couples’ living in married-student housing, and they fear they will soon be forced to make a wrenching choice. If the Supreme Court this month finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the schools say they will have to abandon their policies that prohibit gay relationships or eventually risk losing their tax-exempt status.

        The religious schools are concerned that if they continue to ban gay relationships, the Internal Revenue Service could take away their tax-exempt status as a violation of a “fundamental national public policy” under the reasoning of a 1983 Supreme Court decision that allowed the agency to revoke the tax-exempt status of schools that banned interracial relationships.

        [...]

        Legal scholars said the scenario of schools’ and charities’ losing their tax-exempt status over their policies on these issues was unlikely — especially in the short term. But they did not rule it out, based on previous civil rights cases and an exchange during Supreme Court arguments in April on whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.

        “In the Bob Jones case,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, referring to the 1983 Supreme Court decision, “the court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage?”

        Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., representing the Obama administration, said that was possible. “I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics,” he said, “but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is going to be an issue.”

        Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked a similar question. “Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same-sex couples?”


        Mr. Verrilli did not rule that out either but said it would “depend on how states work out the balance between their civil rights laws.”

        [...]

        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us...atus.html?_r=0

        If the 14th Amendment is a legitimate basis for this ruling, tax exempt status for many religious institutions could be endangered.

        Prior to this ruling, there was no legal basis upon which to revoke such status.
        Fear....... basis for lots of silly statements. How does a school ban gay relationships? Hell, banning any legal freedom of choice actions while not at school should cause a re-examination of any school, same with any other type of tax-exempt group, religious or otherwise, no matter what the issue.
        “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
          Fear....... basis for lots of silly statements. How does a school ban gay relationships? Hell, banning any legal freedom of choice actions while not at school should cause a re-examination of any school, same with any other type of tax-exempt group, religious or otherwise, no matter what the issue.
          The "fear" is there because Mr. Verrilli couldn't answer a simple question... in much the same way that they couldn't answer Roberts' question about polygamy.

          This is what you get when SCOTUS issues arbitrary and capricious rulings.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            Nothing in the plain language of the 14th Amendment or its clear intent, even remotely suggests that it empowered SCOTUS to void or amend Article IV, Section 4 and Amendment X of the US Constitution along with the constitutions of 38 states.

            Article III of the Constitution states that "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," otherwise they may be impeached by Congress.

            According to Hamilton's description of the judiciary in Federalist #78, the "Behaviour" of five justices was anything other than "good" in this ruling...
            The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
            Ascertain means to find the precise meaning, not to interpret meaning into it. The United States Supreme Court has no constitutional power to interpret the Constitution in any manner other that its original meaning.

            ...and in the 14th Amendment you can not ascertain "due process" and "equal protection"?

            ...just you Doc...just you...er...and Scalia.

            Furthermore, in this ruling. five justices allowed their feelings about one particular sexual deviancy to trump the letter and intent of the Constitution and the will of the people in at least 38 States.
            I've watched you be the last man in a sinking ship for 10 years...anybody that wishes to argue that same sex marriage hasn't had the approval of the majority of American's for years has their head stuck up their .

            Obama won, and it wasn't even close, in 2012 on same-sex marriage and the environment. The millennial support is overwhelming!

            Listen to me Doc...I'm giving you pearls of wisdom here...You are not going to win on this no matter how many wack-jobs you can get to the polls...your white wack-jobs are dying off like flies!!!!...no matter how much Righties wished they'd dressed up like a girl in high school and showered with the girls.

            Oh ya...Huckabee is so concerned about children that he supports and admitted child molester.

            #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
              ...and in the 14th Amendment you can not ascertain "due process" and "equal protection"?

              [...]
              No one was denied "due process" and "equal protection."

              Page 9 of Roberts' dissent...
              Petitioners first contend that the marriage laws of their States violate the Due Process Clause. The Solicitor General of the United States, appearing in support of petitioners, expressly disowned that position before this Court.

              Page 23 of Roberts' dissent...
              In addition to their due process argument, petitioner contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires their States to license and recognize same-sex marriages. The majority does not seriously engage with this claim. Its discussion is, quite frankly, difficult to follow. The central point seems to be that there is a “synergy between” the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Ante, at 20. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases. It is casebook doctrine that the “modern Supreme Court’s treatment of equal protection claims has used a means-ends methodology in which judges ask whether the classification the government is using is sufficiently related to the goals it is pursuing.”

              The ruling was arbitrary and capricious. It was simply the will of 5 justices to elevate one sexual deviance above all others and order the States to treat this one deviance as they treat the norm.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Crash View Post
                You are aware that Canada has had gay marriage for...oh...10 years and our democracy is going strong, thank you very much. It was the BIGGEST not event in the history of our country.

                If you attempt to claim that democracy in Belgium is gone because they also legalized gay marriage just as long ago I'll be sure to call you out.

                Your posts are pure hysteria with no basis in fact.




                It's NOT about gay marriage : it's about a conspiracy by the White House,the liberals in Congress and the liberals in Scotus to violate the constitution :NOTHING gives Scotus the power to impose same sex marriage on the country .

                The only legal way is an amendment on the Constitution with as content :it is illegal to deny citizens of the US the right to marry on the ground of sexual orientation .

                As the liberals know that they can't use this legal way,they decided to court-circuit and violate the constitution .

                The constitution does not say that it is illegal to deny people the right to marry on ground of sexual orientation,thus : IT IS LEGAL TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MARRY ON GROUND OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION .

                It was legal when the constitution was adopted,thus it is legal today .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                  It's NOT about gay marriage : it's about a conspiracy by the White House,the liberals in Congress and the liberals in Scotus to violate the constitution :NOTHING gives Scotus the power to impose same sex marriage on the country .

                  The only legal way is an amendment on the Constitution with as content :it is illegal to deny citizens of the US the right to marry on the ground of sexual orientation .

                  As the liberals know that they can't use this legal way,they decided to court-circuit and violate the constitution .

                  The constitution does not say that it is illegal to deny people the right to marry on ground of sexual orientation,thus : IT IS LEGAL TO DENY PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO MARRY ON GROUND OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION .

                  It was legal when the constitution was adopted,thus it is legal today .
                  Keep shouting this while clicking your heels three times with your eyes closed...... It will become reality.
                  “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
                    Once again, Gay marriage has been legal for 11 years in the State of MASS, yet NOT one church has been forced to perform any marriage it did not want to... NOT one church has lost tax exempt status....

                    Failed predictions by pissed off posters.... nothing to do with reality at all.
                    Why should I believe people who violated the constitution ? Why should one believe liars and criminals ?

                    That Massachusetts has ,for the moment, not forced a church to perform same sex marriage,gives no protection that it will not happen in the future .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                      Keep shouting this while clicking your heels three times with your eyes closed...... It will become reality.
                      Translation : we will bury democracy .

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                        That will arrive : you ain't seen nothing yet .

                        It's the burial of democracy in the US .
                        Your attention please.
                        This is the last call for Paranoia Airlines,flight 666.
                        Arrival at "the end is near "Intl. airport.
                        That rug really tied the room together

                        Comment


                        • The same sex marriage ruling is only the forerunner of a general offensive against religion .
                          Of course,the liberals will say that religion will not be in danger,but we have the cases of the florist of Washington state who refused to sell flowers for a same sex marriage and of the cake baker who doesn't want to make a cake for a same sex marriage : both are threatened by the courts .
                          Sooner than one can imagine,it will be the turn of the churches.

                          The following step will be an anti-semitic offensive against the Jews :there is no limit on the fanatical hatred of the liberals .

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by sebfrench76 View Post
                            Your attention please.
                            This is the last call for Paranoia Airlines,flight 666.
                            Arrival at "the end is near "Intl. airport.
                            You can ridicule the danger but the danger remains .Wait til Mohammed and Ali will knock at your door with their swords : it is an illusion to think that fellow-travellers will be spared .

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                              You can ridicule the danger but the danger remains .Wait til Mohammed and Ali will knock at your door with their swords : it is an illusion to think that fellow-travellers will be spared .
                              And we see where this goes... ISLAM taking over the US.... funny... will it be a movie?
                              “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 ljadw View Post
                                The same sex marriage ruling is only the forerunner of a general offensive against religion .
                                Of course,the liberals will say that religion will not be in danger,but we have the cases of the florist of Washington state who refused to sell flowers for a same sex marriage and of the cake baker who doesn't want to make a cake for a same sex marriage : both are threatened by the courts .
                                Sooner than one can imagine,it will be the turn of the churches.

                                The following step will be an anti-semitic offensive against the Jews :there is no limit on the fanatical hatred of the liberals .
                                #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

                                • casanova
                                  Adults Rashid Dostur
                                  by casanova
                                  The Warlord Abdul Rashid Dostur came back to Afghanistan and was promoted to military marshal by the Afghanian president Ashraf Ghani. ...
                                  Today, 00:48
                                • casanova
                                  Alouette III
                                  by casanova
                                  The military helicopter Alouette Iii will be staioned off duty in 1923 because of oldness by the Austrian airforce. The Austrian airfoce wants to buy...
                                  Today, 00:22
                                • casanova
                                  Israel Army
                                  by casanova
                                  The Israelian Army stationed all airdefencesystens, tanks and soldiers on the Liban and Syrian border. The Iran wants to attack Israel. Arabian terrorists...
                                  Yesterday, 23:15
                                Working...
                                X