Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[Syriusly]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

 

[Syriusly]

No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.

It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.

But, around here, I'm used to it.

Mark

Oh I can comprehend a philosophical argument- I just reject those that can't distinguish between child rape and the marriage of two consenting adults.

No more than I am up for the 'philosophical argument' of why Buchwenwald was okay.

If you don't understand the concept, you won't debate. I'm OK with that. So, I can only come to one of two conclusions. You are either too shallow to understand the debate, or you know what I am saying and you deflect because you know you would lose.

I accept your decision not to debate me.

Mark

A false equivalency fallacy isn't a 'philosophical argument'.

There is no false equivalency since morals are ALWAYS in the eye of the beholder. There is no cosmic right or wrong. There are only humans that decide that.

Mark

See that is the difference between you and I.

I always think that a man raping a 2 year old girl is wrong.

You think it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Syriusly]

No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.

I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k

No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.

It is truly sad that you cannot comprehend a philosophical argument.

But, around here, I'm used to it.

Mark

Oh I can comprehend a philosophical argument- I just reject those that can't distinguish between child rape and the marriage of two consenting adults.

No more than I am up for the 'philosophical argument' of why Buchwenwald was okay.

If you don't understand the concept, you won't debate. I'm OK with that. So, I can only come to one of two conclusions. You are either too shallow to understand the debate, or you know what I am saying and you deflect because you know you would lose.

I accept your decision not to debate me.

Mark

I don't debate whether child rape is right or wrong. I don't debate whether genocide is right or wrong. I don't debate whether the Holocaust was right or wrong. I don't debate whether the American institution of slavery was right or wrong.

Feel free to go find someone else to have those 'debates' with.

 

[EverCurious]

~ Virginia Statute for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) ~ Considered to be the origin of America's Freedom of Religion. It came about because the Church of England was doing the same shit modern American Christians are trying to do. The wheel of bullshit from religion goes round and round.

"An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them: Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson

 

[Syriusly]

So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.

Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.

Mark

Ah so we have the court of Mark deciding what is an illegal law- not the Supreme Court.

Why should the Court of Mark have precedence over the Supreme Court?

It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?

Mark

Again- you are saying that Mark is the one who determines how a law is applied fairly.

The Supreme Court did the exact same thing in both Loving and Obergefell- they overturned a State marriage law because it was unconstitutional.

You- in the role of Mark the decider- have decided the Supreme Court was right when it came to Loving- and wrong- when it came to Obergefell.

Me- I prefer to go with the Supreme Court- not the Court of Mark.

And I prefer actually following the law, and not reading into it something that is not there. Be careful what you wish for.

Mark

Well you can follow Georgia's anti-gay marriage law- and not marry someone of the same gender. And you can follow Texas's anti-gay anti-sodomy law- and not have anal sex with another man. You can even follow Virginia's now defunct law against mixed race marriages.

BUT- all those laws are unconstitutional and legally invalid. You can't insist that anyone else follow them.

Me- I follow the actual valid law- not invalid laws.

 

[Syriusly]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

You have never actually read Obergefell or Loving have you.

States do say what marriage is- but State laws cannot be unconstitutional- which is why the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws or regulations 4 times now.

Obergefell is merely the most recent case of the Supreme Court telling a state that one of its restrictions is unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

I will add that so many counties quit doing marriage licenses all together. Better than pulling that Kim Davis bullshit..
Luckily my father in law is friends with the mayor, and he wed my wife and I. Wanna know the kicker? He is gay lol.
He is in the closet, but dude is gay as shit.

It must make Tennessians proud that in order to prevent 'gay marriages'- they make it hard for all Tennessians to get married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision"

Tennessee reminds the Nation that ignorance, hate, and bigotry are alive and well – unfortunately.

And as a consequence it reminds the Nation that the Constitution and its case law are as much needed today as during any period of America's history.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

 

[80zephyr]

Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.

Mark

Ah so we have the court of Mark deciding what is an illegal law- not the Supreme Court.

Why should the Court of Mark have precedence over the Supreme Court?

It is not Marks law. It is the law as written and it should be applied fairly. Do you believe that the constitution should provide equal treatment for all?

Mark

Again- you are saying that Mark is the one who determines how a law is applied fairly.

The Supreme Court did the exact same thing in both Loving and Obergefell- they overturned a State marriage law because it was unconstitutional.

You- in the role of Mark the decider- have decided the Supreme Court was right when it came to Loving- and wrong- when it came to Obergefell.

Me- I prefer to go with the Supreme Court- not the Court of Mark.

And I prefer actually following the law, and not reading into it something that is not there. Be careful what you wish for.

Mark

And that's exactly what the Obergefell Court did, follow the law – settled, accepted, and beyond dispute: the states may not engage in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

The case law in support of the ruling was clearly there - there was no 'reading into.'

Of course there was. They expanded the definition of marriage. Now they should decide how far that expansion goes.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.

No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.

If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)

But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)

Yes, Davis is a good example. When a state stands up for its "rights" concerning illegals and pot, the liberals get their way.

And when a state stands up for its "rights" concerning marriage, the left gets their way again.

Mark

The 'state' only gets its way when it comes to pot because the Executive Branch has decided not to pursue it.

The 'state' didn't get its way when it when Kim Davis ignored the Supreme Court- because the Judicial Branch exercised its authority.

By the way- 'right' is quite happy to let the courts overturn gun laws for being unconstitutional- but suddenly decides the courts are violating state's rights when it protects a persons right to marriage.

Since freedom of religion is in the Constitution, and freedom to marry is not, your comparison isn't valid

Mark

Do you believe Americans do not have a right to marry?

Of course. One man and one woman. Do they have a right to marry more than one other person? How about mom and son?

Why cut it off at same sex? Matter of fact, what rational can you use to deny others the right to marry as they so choose?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

Nope. Since marriage is now a federal issue, the states can't "make laws as they see fit".

Mark

 

[Silhouette]

*Notices ^^ Syriusly didn't answer Zephyr's poignant questions..*

"Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision"

Tennessee reminds the Nation that ignorance, hate, and bigotry are alive and well – unfortunately.

And as a consequence it reminds the Nation that the Constitution and its case law are as much needed today as during any period of America's history.

No, as I read the brief synopsis of the cases, they are less about asking that gay marriage not be legal and more about asking the US Supreme Court to clarify what law on the books in Tennessee is to be used as a guideline for these brand new idea(s) of "marriage".

My guess is that polygamy is going to get brought up; repeatedly. It will be interesting to see how the Judicial branch legislates or directs states to legislate new laws to accommodate any and all sexual-behaviors-as-identities that currently exist, and extend possibilities for those that could also exist in the future..

Remember, the 14th says we can't discriminate now just because we think a behavior is icky!

 

[Syriusly]

No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.

If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)

But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)

Yes, Davis is a good example. When a state stands up for its "rights" concerning illegals and pot, the liberals get their way.

And when a state stands up for its "rights" concerning marriage, the left gets their way again.

Mark

The 'state' only gets its way when it comes to pot because the Executive Branch has decided not to pursue it.

The 'state' didn't get its way when it when Kim Davis ignored the Supreme Court- because the Judicial Branch exercised its authority.

By the way- 'right' is quite happy to let the courts overturn gun laws for being unconstitutional- but suddenly decides the courts are violating state's rights when it protects a persons right to marriage.

Since freedom of religion is in the Constitution, and freedom to marry is not, your comparison isn't valid

Mark

Do you believe Americans do not have a right to marry?

Of course. One man and one woman. Do they have a right to marry more than one other person? How about mom and son?

Why cut it off at same sex? Matter of fact, what rational can you use to deny others the right to marry as they so choose?

Mark

Why do they have that right Mark?

You yourself said there is no such freedom to marry in the Constitution,

 

[80zephyr]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

Based on the SCOTUS ruling, how can any state rationally turn down a polygamous marriage?


Mark

 

[Syriusly]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

Nope. Since marriage is now a federal issue, the states can't "make laws as they see fit".

Mark

Mark is another example of "you can lead a horse to water- but you can't make it drink'.

Mark refuses to understand(and probably read) what Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell actually said- and what they actually do- and instead just tells us "Mark's rules'

 

[Syriusly]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

Mark-where in Loving or Obergefell does the court define what marriage is?

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, the 14th says we can't discriminate now just because we think a behavior is icky!

Silhouette- are you in favor of polygamous marriages?

Are you in favor of incestuous marriages?

 

[80zephyr]

*Notices ^^ Syriusly didn't answer Zephyr's poignant questions..*

"Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision"

Tennessee reminds the Nation that ignorance, hate, and bigotry are alive and well – unfortunately.

And as a consequence it reminds the Nation that the Constitution and its case law are as much needed today as during any period of America's history.

No, as I read the brief synopsis of the cases, they are less about asking that gay marriage not be legal and more about asking the US Supreme Court to clarify what law on the books in Tennessee is to be used as a guideline for these brand new idea(s) of "marriage".

My guess is that polygamy is going to get brought up; repeatedly. It will be interesting to see how the Judicial branch legislates or directs states to legislate new laws to accommodate any and all sexual-behaviors-as-identities that currently exist, and extend possibilities for those that could also exist in the future..

Remember, the 14th says we can't discriminate now just because we think a behavior is icky!

Its why they are against pedophilia as well. They get to set the age of consent. And they even use age as a barrier when it goes against their own moral code.

They are all bigots.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

Mark-where in Loving or Obergefell does the court define what marriage is?

By allowing same sex to marry.

Mark