Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Faun]

Why are you posting about incest again? Didn't you say this issue isn't about incest?

And who knows how you think I've lost when Iowa says...

State of Iowa
Marriage Instructions​

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANTS TO READ THIS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING APPLICATION!

Iowa law provides that marriage is a civil contract between two persons who are (1) 18 years of age or older; (2) not already married to each other or still legally married to someone else; (3) not closely related by blood or first cousins; and (4) legally competent to enter into a civil contract. ​

Sucks to be you. And not just because you lost this argument.

Because iowa only prohibits marriage between opposite sex couples, not to closely related.

http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/Incest Statutes 2013.pdf

So Sayeth those that practice this law.....

Sucks to be you. Of course, you enjoy sucking, so there's that

Sadly, that list of incest statutes doesn't help you since we're not talking about incest. We're talking about close-family marriage. Just because you're a pervert who can't stop fantasizing about incest doesn't mean anyone else here shares your personal interests.

You know, the type of marriage Iowa says they prohibit.



The rest of your post is nothing but your typical, I know you are, but what am I, pre-K knee-jerk responses.

Find a post in which I attributed family marriage to incest.

Go ahead imbecile. You can't.

I did claim same sex marriage created the legality of family marriage.

Which now you finally have come to grips with pervert.

#1823, where you're asserting this list of incest statutes applies to marriage.

I'm asserting am I? By providing a list of those considered in violation of the marriage law.

Do you never get tired of looking like an imbecile?

Do you not read your own citations or do you not understand them?

You posted a list of incest statutes.

Even worse for you, you're claiming that incest statute is applicable to marriages in Iowa.

 

[Silhouette]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

And started here, locked without explanation: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I assume the rapidly popular thread was closed because LGBTers were engaging in a flame war with Pop?. I hope threads some don't like here can't be purposefully sabotaged with flaming so they are "locked" away from the public view? That would be another form of suppression of free speech. Maybe punish the posters instead of the popular topic next time? The original thread had thousands of views and hundreds of posts in less than a week's time. It received 6 "informative" and 3 "thank you" rankings.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. Roberts is wrong because equal protection is not a states rights prerogative.

2. Scalia is wrong because the Court is neither implicitly or explicitly barred from 'ending debate'. In fact, ending debate is if anything closer to the proper role of the Court than not.

3. Thomas is wrong because the Court IS part of the 'normal democratic process' for this nation. Why on earth does he think he's there?

4. Alito is wrong because marriage has never been held to be limited to the 'key reason' of children. Even if one concedes that children are an extremely important component of the marriage condition, their importance does not rise to the level of effecting the exclusion of all other reasons not related to children.

So there you have it, why the minority is dead wrong, in 4 clear and concise points.

 

[BULLDOG]

Since you are concerned about the rights of future children who do not exist yet, how do you know what those nonexistent children might want? Are you positive that many of those future children would prefer to stay orphans with no real family than to have loving parents to raise them? Are you saying a same sex couple is incapable of being a loving family?

 

[Silhouette]

Since you are concerned about the rights of future children who do not exist yet, how do you know what those nonexistent children might want? Are you positive that many of those future children would prefer to stay orphans with no real family than to have loving parents to raise them? Are you saying a same sex couple is incapable of being a loving family?

I'm positive that children are in the custody of the 100s of millions to make that determination for them/us (all children grow up and become We The People). Not just 5 liberal Justices who sought to bar them from the marriage contract (radical) revision table.. I'd say if you wanted to narrow it down, those amicus briefs from adult children raised in gay homes pleading with the Court to not force gay marriage on the states was as close to "the horse's mouth" as you're going to get.

It seems to me that you are advocating depriving kids of either a mother or father as a social experiment. And since it's a social experiment, then society HAD DAMN WELL BETTER BE INVOLVED in that decision...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since you are concerned about the rights of future children who do not exist yet, how do you know what those nonexistent children might want? Are you positive that many of those future children would prefer to stay orphans with no real family than to have loving parents to raise them? Are you saying a same sex couple is incapable of being a loving family?

I'm positive that children are in the custody of the 100s of millions to make that determination for them/us (all children grow up and become We The People). Not just 5 liberal Justices who sought to bar them from the marriage contract (radical) revision table.. I'd say if you wanted to narrow it down, those amicus briefs from adult children raised in gay homes pleading with the Court to not force gay marriage on the states was as close to "the horse's mouth" as you're going to get.

It seems to me that you are advocating depriving kids of either a mother or father as a social experiment. And since it's a social experiment, then society HAD DAMN WELL BETTER BE INVOLVED in that decision...

Gays can have children without being married, so unless you plan to outlaw that, your point is useless.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The dissenting justices' opinions are not consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence and are consequently invalid.

 

[TheOldSchool]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

And started here, locked without explanation: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I assume the rapidly popular thread was closed because LGBTers were engaging in a flame war with Pop?. I hope threads some don't like here can't be purposefully sabotaged with flaming so they are "locked" away from the public view? That would be another form of suppression of free speech. Maybe punish the posters instead of the popular topic next time? The original thread had thousands of views and hundreds of posts in less than a week's time. It received 6 "informative" and 3 "thank you" rankings.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

Well they are free to have their own opinion, as people on the wrong side of history have always had.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since you are concerned about the rights of future children who do not exist yet, how do you know what those nonexistent children might want? Are you positive that many of those future children would prefer to stay orphans with no real family than to have loving parents to raise them? Are you saying a same sex couple is incapable of being a loving family?

He's saying the government should take children away from single parents and give them to man/woman married couples.
He may not know he's saying that, but he is.

In other words, he's insane, living in his own imaginary universe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

And started here, locked without explanation: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I assume the rapidly popular thread was closed because LGBTers were engaging in a flame war with Pop?. I hope threads some don't like here can't be purposefully sabotaged with flaming so they are "locked" away from the public view? That would be another form of suppression of free speech. Maybe punish the posters instead of the popular topic next time? The original thread had thousands of views and hundreds of posts in less than a week's time. It received 6 "informative" and 3 "thank you" rankings.

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

Well they are free to have their own opinion, as people on the wrong side of history have always had.

I don't recall the RWnuts putting this much importance in the opinions of the 4 judges who dissented in the case that made GW Bush president.

 

[BULLDOG]

Since you are concerned about the rights of future children who do not exist yet, how do you know what those nonexistent children might want? Are you positive that many of those future children would prefer to stay orphans with no real family than to have loving parents to raise them? Are you saying a same sex couple is incapable of being a loving family?

I'm positive that children are in the custody of the 100s of millions to make that determination for them/us (all children grow up and become We The People). Not just 5 liberal Justices who sought to bar them from the marriage contract (radical) revision table.. I'd say if you wanted to narrow it down, those amicus briefs from adult children raised in gay homes pleading with the Court to not force gay marriage on the states was as close to "the horse's mouth" as you're going to get.

It seems to me that you are advocating depriving kids of either a mother or father as a social experiment. And since it's a social experiment, then society HAD DAMN WELL BETTER BE INVOLVED in that decision...

Are you saying that all orphans would have a mother and a father now if it weren't for gay marriage? Unless you can guarantee that your claim is false.

 

[mdk]

Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their biological and adoptive children. It does ensure that their children will never have married parents. Unless you plan on outlawing gays from raising their biological or adoptive children than you are merely shouting at the rain.

 

[Dante]

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

And started here, locked without explanation: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I assume...

...

The Supreme Court decides cases of law

Images from your link includes protesters against gay marriage with messages of:

Repent! Repent!

People Get Ready Jesus Is Coming

REPENT! REPENT!

SATAN Is King Of All The Children Of PRIDE

What is wrong with these images?

 

[Dante]

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”​

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

You quote Justice Thomas speaking to his hysteria that same-sex couples will demand churches endorse and participate in same-sex marriages

You then claim gay couples demanding Catholic adoption agencies will be or are being taken to court because of gay marriages?

WRONG. SATAN is King of Dumb Statements Like YOurs Becuase They Make No Sense ANd SAtan Is King Of NonSense. You Should Repent! REpent!

Gay people have been fostering children and adopting children for a log time now

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since you are concerned about the rights of future children who do not exist yet, how do you know what those nonexistent children might want? Are you positive that many of those future children would prefer to stay orphans with no real family than to have loving parents to raise them? Are you saying a same sex couple is incapable of being a loving family?

I'm positive that children are in the custody of the 100s of millions to make that determination for them/us (all children grow up and become We The People). Not just 5 liberal Justices who sought to bar them from the marriage contract (radical) revision table.. I'd say if you wanted to narrow it down, those amicus briefs from adult children raised in gay homes pleading with the Court to not force gay marriage on the states was as close to "the horse's mouth" as you're going to get.

It seems to me that you are advocating depriving kids of either a mother or father as a social experiment. And since it's a social experiment, then society HAD DAMN WELL BETTER BE INVOLVED in that decision...

How would you protect constitutional rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

 

[Dante]

...

How would you protect constitutional rights once you've abolished the Supreme Court?

please, be serious

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court decides cases of law...Images from your link includes protesters against gay marriage with messages of:..Repent! Repent!..People Get Ready Jesus Is Coming....REPENT! REPENT!...SATAN Is King Of All The Children Of PRIDE

What is wrong with these images?

Yep...what is wrong with these images?...I can't imagine where the general public is getting the idea that your cult is evil. Maybe it's the penchant you have for getting really inappropriate things really close to children onlookers? You only have yourselves to blame... 1987's Gay Manifesto Then & Now. How Much of it Rings True Today? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where on earth would anyone get the idea that your cult is evil?

 

[Silhouette]

Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their biological and adoptive children. It does ensure that their children will never have married parents. Unless you plan on outlawing gays from raising their biological or adoptive children than you are merely shouting at the rain.

Then according to your "anyone who has children must be able to marry" argument and logic, applied equally, means that singles, polygamists and incest parents may now all legally marry. Unless you're eager to discriminate against people having children already having the benefits of marriage?