Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[Flopper]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Possibly, her statement was based on her interpretation of the law and not her personal preference. A mark of a good judge is to form legal opinion based on law and not personal preferences. Political junkies seem to forget this and would rather believe that judges rule based on personal opinions and political philosophy. This is why predicting how a candidate judge will rule is very dicey, yet we will spend endless hours taking apart every aspect of a candidates life to determine how they might rule on this or that.

A judge is going to rule based on their education, personal experiences, political philosophy, facts of the case, presentation, arguments and a host of other factors. They will give more weight to some of these over others on a given case. THAT is where the difference in rulings takes place. If none of these things mattered, if it was just cut and dried, then votes would always be 9-0.

If you believe selecting a judge is just about picking someone who will vote your way, I don't think you understand what being a judge is all about. Being a good judge is being able to put your personal feelings aside and fairly interpret the law. To listen to argument which go against your beliefs and evaluate them based on logic and law is what we should be looking.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, I don't recall healthcare being mentioned either

 

[Contumacious]

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Why wouldn't marriage be an inalienable right? Being the most basic and fundamental relationship that human beings have.

Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.


Since you all feel you are so smart why dont you show where the constitution guarantees MARRIAGE AS A RIGHT TO ANYONE!!!

Go ahead and try.....if you can't find it then you are all wrong.

The Declaration Of Natural Rights was incorporated into the Constitution by the Ninth Amendment.

.

 

[George Costanza]

Being a good judge is being able to put your personal feelings aside and fairly interpret the law. To listen to argument which go against your beliefs and evaluate them based on logic and law is what we should be looking.

Ah, if this were only true. But it isn't. No one, not even a Supreme Court justice, is immune from their own personal feelings, beliefs, prejudices and biases. No one.

And don't ever forget - people who get appointed to the U.S. Supremes are political folks to begin with. If they weren't, they would never get appointed.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

1. Well the fifth amendments due process clause states no person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

2. There is no mention of marriage in the Consitution. However if you see reference Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the Supreme Court has said that "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Of course that case involved a law that forbid people of different races from marrying. Still gay marriage presents a very interesting Equal Protection/ Due Process issue that needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Thank you for being honest

So would you then argue that every single marriage recognized by state governments should be voided? I mean marriage can be a tenth amendment issue but the equal protection clause and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution still applies to states who decide heterosexual couples can marry. And its clearly a substantive due process and equal protection violation when you afford the rights and benefits of marriage to heterosexual couples but not homosexual couples.

No I am a libertarian and thus believe that its a state issue. If a state, like mine (MA), wants to permit gay couples to marry then its up to that state to do so. I have no objection to same sex marriage or my states same sex marriage laws.

It is not a federal issue and that is why I stated that I was glad this lady understands marriage in the context, or lack thereof, of the constitution. I was actually giving Obama's nominee props and then other people in the thread decided to project what they wanted to talk about onto me.

EDIT: To the others that quoted me: I dont feel like explaining to the rest of you again how the constitution isn't a living document but that its our state laws which can be and do get changed to adress issues. Go read the constitution and federalist papers if you dont get it yet.

 

[Flopper]

Being a good judge is being able to put your personal feelings aside and fairly interpret the law. To listen to argument which go against your beliefs and evaluate them based on logic and law is what we should be looking.

Ah, if this were only true. But it isn't. No one, not even a Supreme Court justice, is immune from their own personal feelings, beliefs, prejudices and biases. No one.

And don't ever forget - people who get appointed to the U.S. Supremes are political folks to begin with. If they weren't, they would never get appointed.

You are right we all can all be swayed, even judges by our personal feelings. It's only when those feeling interfere with the judge's ability to objectively evaluate an argument is there a problem.

 

[mal]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," Loving vs. Virginia. Marriage as a right is constitutional law.

Convenient and Selective... Add this in from the Ruling:

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival..."

Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.



peace...

The poster wasn't talking about same sex marriage. Go fantasize somewhere else.

This Thread is about Same Sex Marriage you Fucking Dolt!...

You are Arguing FOR Same Sex Marriage in this Thread and you were Responding to a Discussion about as Much.

Because you can't be Honest about Loving v., you go ahead and Attempt to Use Homosexuality as a Pejorative.

It Defines you.



peace...

 

[mal]

Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.



peace...

Gay marriage is 'deviant coupling" IN YOUR OPINION. In the real world, the constitution doesn't allow you to decide whose liberties offend your sensibilities.

And your view of Loving is rather limited. There is nothing about that case that limits it to its facts. Before the Court could arrive at a determination of whether anti-miscegenation laws were impermissible, the question first had to be asked whether or not marriage was a fundamental right. The answer to that question determines the level of scrutiny the Court could give to the legislation. If it was a fundamental right, then they would impose strict scrutiny, which means that there has to be a really, really good reason for government to interfere with the right.

It was held in Loving v Virginia, and the cases on which it relied, that MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. There is nothing saying it is only a fundamental right for a man and woman who wish to marry.

Sorry honey.

Sorry Honey, there is no Restriction on Relation or Age using your Standard...

If you Accept this, then Fine, but you can't Selectively Apply a Ruling about Denying Opposite Sex People of Varying Color the Fundemental Right to Marry to YOUR Favorite Deviation and Deny the others.



peace...

 

[Nick21]

Sorry Honey, there is no Restriction on Relation or Age using your Standard...

If you Accept this, then Fine, but you can't Selectively Apply a Ruling about Denying Opposite Sex People of Varying Color the Fundemental Right to Marry to YOUR Favorite Deviation and Deny the others.



peace...

Sorry dear, but there is a constitutionally sufficient restriction on age. Age based discrimination is subject to rational basis review, which is the lowest form of scrutinty. So if anyone tried to challenge this, the state would simply need identify a rationale for the law. In this case would be protecting minors, simple. What are your other deviations you'd like me to cover? I'm sure they are all very easily addressed and would never stand in court. The fact is the state can't list one rational, legitimate or compelling objective that would be furthered by banning SSM. And they have tried, along with ADF, etc. Look at the briefs submitted with Perry, absolutely laughable objectives are being claimed against marriage equality. The most hilarious is the religious one of course, but others are equally entertaining.

Marriage equality is coming to all 50 states, it's simply a matter of how soon.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Convenient and Selective... Add this in from the Ruling:

"Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival..."

Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.



peace...

The poster wasn't talking about same sex marriage. Go fantasize somewhere else.

This Thread is about Same Sex Marriage you Fucking Dolt!...

You are Arguing FOR Same Sex Marriage in this Thread and you were Responding to a Discussion about as Much.

Because you can't be Honest about Loving v., you go ahead and Attempt to Use Homosexuality as a Pejorative.

It Defines you.



peace...

I responded to a specific poster on a specific point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has NOTHING to do with Deviant Coupling and EVERYTHING to do with Denying (2) People of Opposite Race and Sex the Right to Couple and ProCreate and have Society Acknowledge it in Marriage, which Blacks and Whites can do.

That Case was about Denying Marriage on the Basis of Skin Color, not Sexual Deviations from our Natural Design...

What Forwards our "very Existence and Survival..."

(2) Sisters Marrying doesn't Apply to that Ruling any More than (2) Women who are Unrelated.



peace...

Gay marriage is 'deviant coupling" IN YOUR OPINION. In the real world, the constitution doesn't allow you to decide whose liberties offend your sensibilities.

And your view of Loving is rather limited. There is nothing about that case that limits it to its facts. Before the Court could arrive at a determination of whether anti-miscegenation laws were impermissible, the question first had to be asked whether or not marriage was a fundamental right. The answer to that question determines the level of scrutiny the Court could give to the legislation. If it was a fundamental right, then they would impose strict scrutiny, which means that there has to be a really, really good reason for government to interfere with the right.

It was held in Loving v Virginia, and the cases on which it relied, that MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. There is nothing saying it is only a fundamental right for a man and woman who wish to marry.

Sorry honey.

Sorry Honey, there is no Restriction on Relation or Age using your Standard...

If you Accept this, then Fine, but you can't Selectively Apply a Ruling about Denying Opposite Sex People of Varying Color the Fundemental Right to Marry to YOUR Favorite Deviation and Deny the others.



peace...

Why can't you? Polygamy isn't legal. Polygamy predates monogamy traditionally. Polygamy is 'natural'. And yet we ban it, and we do so constitutionally. How is it we are able to ban polygamy and yet declare marriage a right?

 

[mal]

Gay marriage is 'deviant coupling" IN YOUR OPINION. In the real world, the constitution doesn't allow you to decide whose liberties offend your sensibilities.

And your view of Loving is rather limited. There is nothing about that case that limits it to its facts. Before the Court could arrive at a determination of whether anti-miscegenation laws were impermissible, the question first had to be asked whether or not marriage was a fundamental right. The answer to that question determines the level of scrutiny the Court could give to the legislation. If it was a fundamental right, then they would impose strict scrutiny, which means that there has to be a really, really good reason for government to interfere with the right.

It was held in Loving v Virginia, and the cases on which it relied, that MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. There is nothing saying it is only a fundamental right for a man and woman who wish to marry.

Sorry honey.

Sorry Honey, there is no Restriction on Relation or Age using your Standard...

If you Accept this, then Fine, but you can't Selectively Apply a Ruling about Denying Opposite Sex People of Varying Color the Fundemental Right to Marry to YOUR Favorite Deviation and Deny the others.



peace...

Why can't you? Polygamy isn't legal. Polygamy predates monogamy traditionally. Polygamy is 'natural'. And yet we ban it, and we do so constitutionally. How is it we are able to ban polygamy and yet declare marriage a right?

Homosexuality was a Crime in Most of these States not that long ago... Legality doesn't Define "Rights".



peace...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry Honey, there is no Restriction on Relation or Age using your Standard...

If you Accept this, then Fine, but you can't Selectively Apply a Ruling about Denying Opposite Sex People of Varying Color the Fundemental Right to Marry to YOUR Favorite Deviation and Deny the others.



peace...

Why can't you? Polygamy isn't legal. Polygamy predates monogamy traditionally. Polygamy is 'natural'. And yet we ban it, and we do so constitutionally. How is it we are able to ban polygamy and yet declare marriage a right?

Homosexuality was a Crime in Most of these States not that long ago... Legality doesn't Define "Rights".



peace...

So was miscegenation.

 

[mal]

Why can't you? Polygamy isn't legal. Polygamy predates monogamy traditionally. Polygamy is 'natural'. And yet we ban it, and we do so constitutionally. How is it we are able to ban polygamy and yet declare marriage a right?

Homosexuality was a Crime in Most of these States not that long ago... Legality doesn't Define "Rights".



peace...

So was miscegenation.

And in that my original Point stands...

Loving was about Heterosexual Coupling and Race.

If you want something outside of our Natural Design Recognized as Equal, then you will have to be Inclusive of ALL Deviations.

You can't be Selective with who you Artificially Expand "Rights" to.



peace...

 

[lawbuff]

So if they now declare marriage no longer a right, then yes the state could define exceptions to who could get married. That's not going to happen, thus it is a matter of how soon will SCOTUS make same-sex marriage a right.

They already ruled it is NOT a right, in Baker v. Nelson. The CA SC in it's first dealing with same sex marriage cites Baker as binding precedent. A poster mentioned Lawrence, this case does also as a possible "doctrinal development" to release the lower courts of the summary decision, BUT CA refused to do it, that is why the CA Constitution was at the crux of the ruling.

In part:

Although the United States Supreme Court has determined that there is no
right to same-sex marriage under the federal Constitution (Baker v. Nelson, supra,
409 U.S. 810), courts in other states construing their own state Constitutions in
recent years have reached differing conclusions on this question.
---------------------------------------------
Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on
all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of
equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held
that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not
violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was
appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28
U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high
court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker
v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.)
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the
ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the
merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of
federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v.
Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented
and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.)
4
Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810,
prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a
state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal
protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the
high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.)
That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions
on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal
developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at
p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal
developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.
The San Francisco public officials have argued that the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558, holding
unconstitutional a state law “making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to
engage in certain intimate sexual conduct” (id. at p. 562), amounts to a doctrinal
development that releases courts and public officials from any obligation to obey
the high court’s decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810.



http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/glrts/lckyrsf81204opn.pdf.

 

[lawbuff]

Maybe....life, liberty, and THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS....but like I just told dogbert that was the declaration of indepenance not the constitution.

However, there is a SC case where they ruled although the "liberty" in the 14th AM that no man can be deprived of has no exact definition/meaning, it DOES include the right to "the orderly pursuit of happiness".

 

[rdean]

I know that for a time, it was illegal for a "mixed" race marriage. But does the constitution specifically cover "marriage" at all? I don't want to reread the whole darn thing. We had to read it in high school and that was nearly 45 years ago.

Not talking about court cases, but THE constitution.

 

[lawbuff]

I know that for a time, it was illegal for a "mixed" race marriage. But does the constitution specifically cover "marriage" at all? I don't want to reread the whole darn thing. We had to read it in high school and that was nearly 45 years ago.

Not talking about court cases, but THE constitution.

The Document itself, NO!

 

[mal]

I know that for a time, it was illegal for a "mixed" race marriage. But does the constitution specifically cover "marriage" at all? I don't want to reread the whole darn thing. We had to read it in high school and that was nearly 45 years ago.

Not talking about court cases, but THE constitution.

The Constitution doesn't List EVERYTHING...

Don't be Absurd.

There is CLEARLY NO "Right" to "Privacy" that Allows for the Murder of Inconvenient Life in the Womb, but Damn it if it's not the Law and Referred to as a "Constitutional Right"...

Want that one Taken, rdean?... It's not in there... I Checked!



peace...

 

[GHook93]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

If you are going to look for a legal right to rationalize gay marriage please look to the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.