Why Justice Kennedy ought to be impeached by Congress!

[OKTexas]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

 

[toxicmedia]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

 

[OKTexas]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

Gays have been marrying people of the opposite sex for thousands of years, the concept of legal gay marriage has been around for what, all of 26 years. First legalized in Denmark in 1989.

 

[johnwk]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.


JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Skylar]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

 

[Political Junky]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Blame it on Reagan, he appointed the guy.

 

[toxicmedia]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

Gays have been marrying people of the opposite sex for thousands of years, the concept of legal gay marriage has been around for what, all of 26 years. First legalized in Denmark in 1989.

Arsenic and hemlock have been around for thousands of years too.

So was slavery

Gays marrying the opposite sex was how gays used to get people off their backs and be able to survive

 

[OKTexas]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

Gays have been marrying people of the opposite sex for thousands of years, the concept of legal gay marriage has been around for what, all of 26 years. First legalized in Denmark in 1989.

Arsenic and hemlock have been around for thousands of years too.

So was slavery

Gays marrying the opposite sex was how gays used to get people off their backs and be able to survive

None of that alters the fact they were treated just like all other men and women under the law. We have now been reduced to granting rights base on actions and preferences instead of genetics, no way anything could go wrong there.

 

[johnwk]

Today, Justice Kennedy has established beyond any reasonable doubt that he will not follow some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction, nor the text of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent which gives context to its language.

In regard to the text of the 14th Amendment which Justice Kennedy asserts is violated when a state refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple, the fact is, the language of the 14th Amendment is crystal clear:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that a state is forbidden to deny any person [singular] within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws.”

Those words simply declare that whatever laws a state passes, any person is to get the equal protection of those laws. It mentions nothing about forbidding state laws which make distinctions based upon sex!

Now that we have established what the text of the 14th amendment declares, let us documented the the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment, which was summarized as follows by one of its supporters.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shellabarger, Cong. Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that the Court, under our Constitution, is to follow the rules of common law when handing down its decisions. Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

Finally, Justice Kennedy also ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is stated as follows:

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.-- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment to remotely suggest it was intended to forbid the states to refuse to issue a marriage license to same sex couples.

Now, why is the Congress of the United States not drawing up Articles of Impeachment for a Justice on our Supreme Court who blatantly has violated the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction in order to impose his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness, or justice upon the entire population of these United States?

And particularly, why is the Republican Party Leadership not taking the initiative to start the impeachment process to rid ourselves of a Justice who has engaged in judicial tyranny?

JWK


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[toxicmedia]

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Judges and Justices are free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law...and they just did.

You do realize that Obamacare and gay marriage nationwide are done deals...don't you?

 

[Skylar]

It took all the complication of the issue for you to feel like you have an argument?

Try this...

States that ban gay marriage are depriving persons of liberty

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

And I repeat, you have yet to even read the Obergefell decision or to determine the legal logic they used in overturning state marriage laws. Until you are aware of that reasoning its quite impossible for you to claim it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you. And you refuse to even read the ruling you are railing against.

In the most real sense imaginable, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[johnwk]

The myth of the 14th Amendment forbidding distinctions based upon sex

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action which makes a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour, and also include discrimination based upon sex, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution!

This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the intended prohibition on state legislated race-based discrimination, enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state distinctions based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?


Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination and which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges?

The bottom line is, our SC, including Justice Ginsburg, is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, our Supreme Court is in fact using its office of public trust to impose a majority of the Court’s sense of justice and fairness without the consent of the governed as outlined in Article V of our Constitution.

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Freewill]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

This is why I had hoped the scotus would slip and dodge the issue. It's a social wedge issue. Like abortion and Roe. People are being hurt and being denied personal liberties because of others' religious beliefs. But, imo, sometimes its better for the overall good that public opinion fully digest the unfairness, and form a political remedy. That way those who have the discriminatory beliefs don't have the opportunity to declare themselves martyrs.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right. If it were a right the states couldn't limit who could marry. But by this SCOTUS's ruling I guess maybe there are no limits.

If nothing else I hope this shuts up the left wing about gun control. Gun ownership is a long standing tradition, is actually mentioned as a right and there is no harm with me owning a BAR, AK47 or a hand gun.

 

[Skylar]

The myth of the 14th Amendment forbidding distinctions based upon sex

And what part of the Obergefell decision do you disagree with? Specifically. Just quote the passage you believe has no constitutional foundation.

But if you refuse to read the ruling, how can you claim its logic is invalid? As you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

This is why I had hoped the scotus would slip and dodge the issue. It's a social wedge issue. Like abortion and Roe. People are being hurt and being denied personal liberties because of others' religious beliefs. But, imo, sometimes its better for the overall good that public opinion fully digest the unfairness, and form a political remedy. That way those who have the discriminatory beliefs don't have the opportunity to declare themselves martyrs.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

Not really true, they've always had the same liberty as everyone else. They were being treated equally under the law.

That is an exceedingly useless consolation which fails to distract freedom loving Americans from your intolerance.

What in the blue fuck makes you think a gay person gets any benefit from marrying someone of the opposite sex?

The freedom to do something you don't want to...hmmm

When did that begin to make sense to anyone.

Oh! never mind, a Texas Conservative, that explains a lot

No offense

You are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

Have you read the Obergefell decision? If so, feel free to tell us how their reasoning was invalid. We have no obligation to prove the Supreme Court was right. Its you that needs to demonstrate they were wrong.

And I don't think you've even looked at the Obergefell decision.

I repeat, you are not establishing how the 14th Amendment forbids a state to make its own rules when issuing a marriage license. I sympathize with your feelings but our judges and Justices are not free to impose their personal sense of justice and fairness as the rule of law.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

And I repeat, you have yet to even read the Obergefell decision or to determine the legal logic they used in overturning state marriage laws. Until you are aware of that reasoning its quite impossible for you to claim it is invalid. The burden of proof is on you. And you refuse to even read the ruling you are railing against.

In the most real sense imaginable, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

See post #28

The court bastardized the 14th just as they have so much of the rest of the Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

This is why I had hoped the scotus would slip and dodge the issue. It's a social wedge issue. Like abortion and Roe. People are being hurt and being denied personal liberties because of others' religious beliefs. But, imo, sometimes its better for the overall good that public opinion fully digest the unfairness, and form a political remedy. That way those who have the discriminatory beliefs don't have the opportunity to declare themselves martyrs.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

The Supreme Court ignored the constitutional requirement to observe the rules of common law, Article VII.

Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country is, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

JWK




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

 

[Freewill]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

This is why I had hoped the scotus would slip and dodge the issue. It's a social wedge issue. Like abortion and Roe. People are being hurt and being denied personal liberties because of others' religious beliefs. But, imo, sometimes its better for the overall good that public opinion fully digest the unfairness, and form a political remedy. That way those who have the discriminatory beliefs don't have the opportunity to declare themselves martyrs.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

The Supreme Court ignored the constitutional requirement to observe the rules of common law, Article VII.

Under the rules of common law, long standing customs are protected. In this case, a long standing custom, which dates back to the founding of our Country is, marriage was considered to be a union between one male and one female.

JWK




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

You are absolutely 100% correct, in my opinion. But as has been shown, It doesn't not matter what any fair thinking person thinks the SCOTUS will make law any why they see fit, and did.

 

[Freewill]

Why are you picking on Kennedy, 4 others did the same.

This is why I had hoped the scotus would slip and dodge the issue. It's a social wedge issue. Like abortion and Roe. People are being hurt and being denied personal liberties because of others' religious beliefs. But, imo, sometimes its better for the overall good that public opinion fully digest the unfairness, and form a political remedy. That way those who have the discriminatory beliefs don't have the opportunity to declare themselves martyrs.

Once again a false paradigm is given then argued against. First of all saying that anyone of religion is automatically disqualified from the discussion is BS. you get your belief system from some where just as those who have faith do. YOU are being the bigot by trying to eliminate the majority of the country from the argument. Also there are economic consideration with gay marriage. I can see the need to protect a woman and to help a woman who is not in the work force so she can raise her children, men too. But that is not the case with gay marriage, most times.

Marriage is a rite not a right.

Says you. Our law recognizes marriage as a right. The supreme court rules on the law. Not on your personal opinion.

Before the SCOTUS usurped its authority where is it spelled out as a right? Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS? No where that is where you folks just made it a right out of sail cloth. And please don't quote pass SCOTUS decisions, they all dealt with marriage between man and woman.

So it is my opinion against yours, prove yours.

 

[SwimExpert]

Where is marriage spelled out in the COTUS?

Yes, where is marriage in the constitution? Where does it say that the states have any right to regulate marriage?