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

[Dante]

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

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.

The Catholic Church has NO moral authority to speak on the subject of little boys. As a matter of fact this thread has my stomach churning and I feel the need to take a 35 minute shower.

The Church is still paying millions of dollars out to people who as children were trusted around Catholic leaders

disgusting

 

[Skylar]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Where did Paddy say that sex is a requirement of marriage?

And while you're at it, show me where I said that sex was a requirement of marriage. If you're going to troll, at least do so competently.

 

[martybegan]

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

'Society' elected the Presidents and Senators who put the people on the Court.

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

There you are again....complaining about a state's PA law. This thread is about the Obergefell decision. They have nothing to do with each other.

They are related, and my point was in response to a comment made by paddy.

 

[martybegan]

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

That's why you want incest marriage?

Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.

 

[Pop23]

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Where did Paddy say that sex is a requirement of marriage?

And while you're at it, show me where I said that sex was a requirement of marriage. If you're going to troll, at least do so competently.

"Like to do the nasty" is clearly speaking of something also known as "bumping uglies"

Your assumption that "like to do the nasties" has anything to do with a law that "doing nasties" is not a qualification for.

 

[martybegan]

Another stunning revelation by none other than our very own NYcarbineer.

We elect our servants, not our masters.

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.

If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.

Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.

The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.

The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.

The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism

The purpose of the 13th and 14th amendment for example, was to address the issue of that time .. slavery and equality among race. History shows the women's suffrage movement tried to use the 14th amendment to extend its intent to include women's equal rights and "equality" between genders as well. It failed, based on the fact it wasn't the original intent and purpose behind establishing the 14th amendment initially, as it focused was on equality among race not gender. That is the proper way to "correctly" interpret the Constitution. Women never gave up their cause, and they looked WITHIN the wording of the Constitution to have their separate concerns for equality addressed legislatively and through the Amendment process. They would see their right debated and later ADDED to the Constitution in addressing their fight for an equal voice. Two seperate equality issues, two amendments that address each one, allowing each a voice from "the people" and their respective legislatures. This is how the Constitution is properly followed as the Founders have given us clear specific instruction to do.

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Same sex advocates wanted the right to marry based on inheritance, taxes and the dignity of their children.

Same sex siblings could make the same claim and their could be no Compelling State Interest to deny these individuals this fundamental right.

If there is, point those out.

So? If sibling marriage cannot be denied equal treatment then it shouldn't be denied equal treatment.

 

[Pop23]

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

That's why you want incest marriage?

Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.

Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).

What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage" Deflecting from obvious problems.

 

[Pop23]

If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.

Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.

The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.

The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.

The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism

The purpose of the 13th and 14th amendment for example, was to address the issue of that time .. slavery and equality among race. History shows the women's suffrage movement tried to use the 14th amendment to extend its intent to include women's equal rights and "equality" between genders as well. It failed, based on the fact it wasn't the original intent and purpose behind establishing the 14th amendment initially, as it focused was on equality among race not gender. That is the proper way to "correctly" interpret the Constitution. Women never gave up their cause, and they looked WITHIN the wording of the Constitution to have their separate concerns for equality addressed legislatively and through the Amendment process. They would see their right debated and later ADDED to the Constitution in addressing their fight for an equal voice. Two seperate equality issues, two amendments that address each one, allowing each a voice from "the people" and their respective legislatures. This is how the Constitution is properly followed as the Founders have given us clear specific instruction to do.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Same sex advocates wanted the right to marry based on inheritance, taxes and the dignity of their children.

Same sex siblings could make the same claim and their could be no Compelling State Interest to deny these individuals this fundamental right.

If there is, point those out.

So? If sibling marriage cannot be denied equal treatment then it shouldn't be denied equal treatment.

Come up with a compelling state interest in denying entrance to a law that does not use sex as a qualification?

Do it, it can't be that hard.

 

[martybegan]

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

That's why you want incest marriage?

Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.

Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).

What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.

I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.

They are participating in a gay wedding as a business, for profit. They are a business open to the public. They are accountable to business laws.

 

[bodecea]

When you begin to understand how our constitution works, perhaps, you can add something intelligent to discussions like these. There reason for a Bill of Rights and for the 14th Amendment was to insure that certain rights are protected from infringement even if the majority wants to infringe.

But defining marriage isn't an infringement to everyone not included. Two brothers unable to marry aren't infringed upon, it's what society determined. You guys play fast and loose with terminology.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Same sex advocates wanted the right to marry based on inheritance, taxes and the dignity of their children.

Same sex siblings could make the same claim and their could be no Compelling State Interest to deny these individuals this fundamental right.

If there is, point those out.

Therefore, do the legal legwork and get the courts to rule on your same sex sibling marriage thing. It's not gonna get decided by itself.

 

[Skylar]

We elect them to make decisions like who to appoint to the Supreme Court. We want them to appoint justices who share our view of the constitution. We want them to use the constitution as it was intended; to protect the rights of all Americans from infringement by the government. Here, that is precisely what they did. Protected the rights of American citizens from infringement upon those rights by a state government.

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.

Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.

Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.

Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.

Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.

Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.

Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.

The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.

The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.

The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism

The purpose of the 13th and 14th amendment for example, was to address the issue of that time .. slavery and equality among race. History shows the women's suffrage movement tried to use the 14th amendment to extend its intent to include women's equal rights and "equality" between genders as well. It failed, based on the fact it wasn't the original intent and purpose behind establishing the 14th amendment initially, as it focused was on equality among race not gender. That is the proper way to "correctly" interpret the Constitution. Women never gave up their cause, and they looked WITHIN the wording of the Constitution to have their separate concerns for equality addressed legislatively and through the Amendment process. They would see their right debated and later ADDED to the Constitution in addressing their fight for an equal voice. Two seperate equality issues, two amendments that address each one, allowing each a voice from "the people" and their respective legislatures. This is how the Constitution is properly followed as the Founders have given us clear specific instruction to do.

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Same sex advocates wanted the right to marry based on inheritance, taxes and the dignity of their children.

Same sex siblings could make the same claim and their could be no Compelling State Interest to deny these individuals this fundamental right.

If there is, point those out.

So? If sibling marriage cannot be denied equal treatment then it shouldn't be denied equal treatment.

Come up with a compelling state interest in denying entrance to a law that does not use sex as a qualification?

Do it, it can't be that hard.

English please.

 

[OKTexas]

No, by officiating SSMs they endorsed the concept before hearing any arguments on it, that is demonstrated bias

Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.

You keep telling yourself that. LMAO

Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.

Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?

I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.

Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state. But you think a judge with the full knowledge they will be considering a case on SSM couldn't possibly be endorsing SSM by officiating such a marriage before the case ever reaches the court. Could your bias be getting in the way of your common sense?

 

[martybegan]

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.

They are participating in a gay wedding as a business, for profit. They are a business open to the public. They are accountable to business laws.

The question is are their rights being infringed?

 

[Pop23]

If you want Incest Marriage, make your case for it.

Why should it be legal?

Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.

After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.

That's why you want incest marriage?

Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.

Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).

What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.

I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.

Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.

 

[Skylar]

Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.

Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.

For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.

Which, obviously, no one does.

Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?

And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.

Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.

I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.

We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.

The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.

They are participating in a gay wedding as a business, for profit. They are a business open to the public. They are accountable to business laws.

Ah, but this is Marty. And law he doesn't like is invalid. Any ruling he disagrees with is invalid. Any legal term he doesn't agree with, he ignores. Any legal standard that's inconvenient to his argument, his ignores.

The law doesn't. Which is why Marty's insistence of what the law 'really' says so rarely matches what it actually does say. His is an argument of glorious irrelevance. As its based on standards that the law simply doesn't use: Marty's opinion being irrefutable law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is an infringement on the rights of those excluded. Whether that infringement is permissible depends on the reason for the infringement. If there is a compelling reason for the infringement, it is constitutional. There is no reason to exclude gay people from marriage, compelling or otherwise. Your ignorance and bigotry and desire to force others to live according to your faith is not a compelling reason.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Where did Paddy say that sex is a requirement of marriage?

And while you're at it, show me where I said that sex was a requirement of marriage. If you're going to troll, at least do so competently.

"Like to do the nasty" is clearly speaking of something also known as "bumping uglies"

Your assumption that "like to do the nasties" has anything to do with a law that "doing nasties" is not a qualification for.

If a state is going to establish a legal civil union between a man and a woman, then the state has to accept the legal consequences of that action as it relates to other pairs of individuals who are sufficiently similar to the man woman pair to qualify for equal protection under the law.

 

[Pop23]

The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.

The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.

The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism

The purpose of the 13th and 14th amendment for example, was to address the issue of that time .. slavery and equality among race. History shows the women's suffrage movement tried to use the 14th amendment to extend its intent to include women's equal rights and "equality" between genders as well. It failed, based on the fact it wasn't the original intent and purpose behind establishing the 14th amendment initially, as it focused was on equality among race not gender. That is the proper way to "correctly" interpret the Constitution. Women never gave up their cause, and they looked WITHIN the wording of the Constitution to have their separate concerns for equality addressed legislatively and through the Amendment process. They would see their right debated and later ADDED to the Constitution in addressing their fight for an equal voice. Two seperate equality issues, two amendments that address each one, allowing each a voice from "the people" and their respective legislatures. This is how the Constitution is properly followed as the Founders have given us clear specific instruction to do.

There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.

Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.

Paddy:

Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.

Same sex advocates wanted the right to marry based on inheritance, taxes and the dignity of their children.

Same sex siblings could make the same claim and their could be no Compelling State Interest to deny these individuals this fundamental right.

If there is, point those out.

So? If sibling marriage cannot be denied equal treatment then it shouldn't be denied equal treatment.

Come up with a compelling state interest in denying entrance to a law that does not use sex as a qualification?

Do it, it can't be that hard.

English please.

It was in English, but I've read most of your posts, it appears all you understand is the lost language of gibberish.

I don't speak that.