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

[paddymurphy]

You conveniently ignore the 14th amendment which requires that all state laws not deprive citizens or equal protection of the law or life,liberty or property without due procedure. That means that any state law is subject to constitutional challenge regardless of whether it involved a power that could be only exercised by the state. You simply do not understand that the enumeration of powers deal with powers delegated to Congress and has nothing to do with the authority of the Supreme Court.

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

Non-material restriction? you just make up terms you present as legal terms. Our rights are not up for popular vote. If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that.

 

[bodecea]

So...to ask the OP....how is your case against legalized gay marriage going? Backwards, it would seem.

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

again... read Marbury v Madison.... it's never how our constitutional construction has been done.

come on marty.... what's is "DUE" process absent caselaw.

what is "EQUAL" protection absent caselaw.

you're demanding something that never existed.

now let me tell you what REALLY never existed...

corporations are not people with religious beliefs... at least not until hobby lobby was decided by rightwing activist judges

money is not speech or was not until citizens united because of rightwing activist judges

the highest courts of every state are the final determining stop in the application of that state's election law... except of course for bush v gore which, after being decided by rightwing activist judges who then turned around and said that decision applies to no other case ever.

there is no private right of gun ownership... or at least there wasn't until heller was decided by rightwing activist judges.

marriage equality? based on the precedent of loving v Virginia which found marriage to be a fundamental right which couldn't be abridged except for a significant state interest in the limitation.


now you getting it?

The point is the caselaw has been overstepping its bounds the past few decades, going from interpreting to creating. The court was never designed for that.

You don't like certain decisions due to political reasons, I have issue with the process being bastardized in general.

And Bush v. Gore is a poor example because no one can be objective with that decision, and yes, it is a mess case that even I can't come to a conclusion on.

 

[paddymurphy]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

 

[Seawytch]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

 

[martybegan]

They had every right to marry under previous laws just as any other person of their gender and many availed themselves of that right. Behavior does not create a protected class.

Being gay is not behavior any more than being straight is. A person can be gay and never engage in a sex act just as a person can be straight and remain celibate.

Then you can prove gay by a objective and reliable test. Good. Now what is that test?

what are you blathering about?

thank you. THAT woman is annoyingly stuck on stupid (marty is a mary, no?)

i'm pretty sure marty is a he.

but that doesn't make him any more correct on this issue.

Yes I am a he, and I don't think you are replying to one of my posts, but pops23's.

 

[martybegan]

i'm pretty sure marty is a he.

but that doesn't make him any more correct on this issue.

I always thought Marty was a butch lesbian.

oh well

No, I'm a fat sarcastic Star Trek fan

 

[martybegan]

Equal protection of the law requires things to be equal, and that is something that is a matter of debate, which should be handled by the legislative process when equality is not confirmed.

It requires that the law not deprive people of rights others enjoy without a compelling reason. There is no reason, compelling or otherwise, to deprive two adults of the protection that the laws on marriage provide.

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat, the ability to get 5 progressive idiots to agree to it notwithstanding.

There does not have to be a compelling reason to overturn the laws passed in the 1990s and beyond that excluded gays from marriage. You have had this ass backwards for days. The government has to have a compelling reason to deny one group of people protection of the laws. There is no reason to not allow gay people to marry. Tradition is not a valid reason.

Those laws only clarified what was assumed to be the norm, which was marriage required 1 man, 1 woman.

Tradition as not a valid reason may be true, but it should have been decided by the people of the State through their legislature, not the courts.

Loving corrected a non-material restriction to an existing situation OSM, Oberfell created a new situation that has only been even considered for 30 years.

Non-material restriction? you just make up terms you present as legal terms. Our rights are not up for popular vote. If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that.

Race is a non material restriction.

 

[Pop23]

Incest can be the rape of a child. But adults also can be incestuous as well.

Since marriage involves adults, your claim is without basis

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

nah... you've already proven you have zero understanding and your "views" are governed by your bigotry.

but it's actually "equal protection", not due process. and it doesn't say the government can't regulate. it says there has to be a good reason for the limitation.

now run along wackadoodle.

You could attempt an adult conversation, but that would mean you would need to be an adult I guess.

1. The states of Iowa and Maryland both allow same sex family members to marry. Maryland requires vaginal penetration as the basis of incest, so same sex male family members to Marry

Here is the iowa statute, find the excluded pairs, all opposit sex:

Iowa Code 595

2. These marriages must be recognized in all 50 States

3. No state requires sex as a requirement of a valid marriage.

So tell me the societal harm (which is far different than individual harm) that gives the State the right to deny same sex siblings the right to marry? And because the right to marry was declared a fundamental right, the States compelling interest to do so.

And Icky or tradition has already been rejected by the courts.

It would not be equal application of the law to only allow same sexed siblings to marry.

I really think you should try though since you seem to think you've got a case. We're all behind you 100%.

Go for it...but you're all talk. You're nothing but a bloviating bigot using the same tired arguments the racist bigots used.

Who said it, Pops or R.D. McIlwaine III?


“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)

Darn SeaWytch doesn't know how to read.

Both iowa and Maryland already allow it. It's already legal.

Now for your equal protection nonsense.

Equal protection must be on the basis that excluding all from due process protects all from a great societal harm. Prior to Obergfell it worked as only male/ female pairs could Marry. Now we've include male/male and female/female, neither of which can cause that great societal harm.

If you think there is, make your case. Remember, sex is not a requirement in marriage.

Why do you hate the equality you brought to the country.

Reread your quotes, those appear to be from you.

 

[paddymurphy]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

 

[paddymurphy]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

 

[Seawytch]

no wacko. your homophobia does not make homosexuality the same as incest. and incest is still a valid basis for the state to intervene as most incestuous relationships are based in some level of abuse...

but thanks for playing.

you can go back to fantasizing about homosexual sex now since you seem obsessed with it.

Abuse is illegal in marriage. Regardless of gender makeup.

But then there's also that whole due process mess as well.

nah... you've already proven you have zero understanding and your "views" are governed by your bigotry.

but it's actually "equal protection", not due process. and it doesn't say the government can't regulate. it says there has to be a good reason for the limitation.

now run along wackadoodle.

You could attempt an adult conversation, but that would mean you would need to be an adult I guess.

1. The states of Iowa and Maryland both allow same sex family members to marry. Maryland requires vaginal penetration as the basis of incest, so same sex male family members to Marry

Here is the iowa statute, find the excluded pairs, all opposit sex:

Iowa Code 595

2. These marriages must be recognized in all 50 States

3. No state requires sex as a requirement of a valid marriage.

So tell me the societal harm (which is far different than individual harm) that gives the State the right to deny same sex siblings the right to marry? And because the right to marry was declared a fundamental right, the States compelling interest to do so.

And Icky or tradition has already been rejected by the courts.

It would not be equal application of the law to only allow same sexed siblings to marry.

I really think you should try though since you seem to think you've got a case. We're all behind you 100%.

Go for it...but you're all talk. You're nothing but a bloviating bigot using the same tired arguments the racist bigots used.

Who said it, Pops or R.D. McIlwaine III?


“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”

(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))

“[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”

(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)

Darn SeaWytch doesn't know how to read.

Both iowa and Maryland already allow it. It's already legal.

Now for your equal protection nonsense.

Equal protection must be on the basis that excluding all from due process protects all from a great societal harm. Prior to Obergfell it worked as only male/ female pairs could Marry. Now we've include male/male and female/female, neither of which can cause that great societal harm.

If you think there is, make your case. Remember, sex is not a requirement in marriage.

Why do you hate the equality you brought to the country.

Reread your quotes, those appear to be from you.

Whatever you say R.D. McIlwaine the 3rd. I thought for sure you'd gone beyond the veil by now. Oh, it's not him, it's just Pops using the same bigoted rhetoric as the guy who argued against interracial marriage? Silly me.

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionist, not literalist.

list a few distinction if you are able to

Strict constructionists favor what is written over interpretation, but allow for interpretation due to things like increases in technology and such, but always in the eye of people's freedoms, and not government's ability to curtail them.

It's why a strict constructionist doesn't try to limit free speech to a written press or someone standing in front of the town square.

And yet, you support state laws that curtail the freedom of Americans to marry.

No I don't. I oppose the courts forcing States to change their marriage laws without the support of the people via the legislature.

I have zero issue with SSM when it is allowed via legislative action, and would probably vote for it if it was put up for a referendum. I would also have no issue with forcing States that banned SSM from having to recognize legal SSM marriage licenses from States that DID issue them, under full faith and credit.

So, you would be perfectly happy with millions of Americans being denied a right enjoyed by millions of other Americans?

It's not a right as far as the constitution (as I read it) is concerned.

 

[martybegan]

There is also no compelling reason to overturn centuries of precedent by judicial fiat

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

No, that is what the 14th Amendment is for; to protect citizens from the deprivation of their rights by state governments. Amendments are for folks like you who do not like that the Supreme Court acts to protect eh rights to folks you either fear or hate.

The 14th amendment was not designed to allow the federal government to make each state a carbon copy of each other. Again, it all boils down to how you consider the word "equal"

No. It was designed to prevent any state from infringing on the rights of citizens. That you are too fucking stupid to understand what equal protection of the laws means is your problem. Apply your strict constructionist approach and you find that any law that treats people differently without a compelling reason for different treatment violates that principle.

I guarantee I am far smarter than you are. You can't be an idiot and get a Masters Degree in Chemical Engineering.

 

[Seawytch]

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail didn't apply to race.

Again, Marty doesn't really mind when marriage rights are won through the courts...as long as it's people he doesn't think are icky doing it...and apparently convicted murderers on death row are okay to use the courts. You gays though, you have to do it like no other group has had to secure the same rights before. Why? Because Marty says so.

 

[bodecea]

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

So that's why Obergefell came about....or else the Supreme Court would have just said..."look at Loving, guys". Duh.

 

[Seawytch]

says who? Even teat nut Jefferson on his best day stated people should NOT have to live under rules written by previous generations

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

You seem to think it is. You don't have a problem with marriage rights being won by other groups through the courts. You're fine with divorced couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS. You're fine with interracial couples being granted the right to marry by the SCOTUS and you're fine with convicted prisoners winning their right to marry through the courts.

There's only time where the SCOTUS ruling on the right to marry has you screaming "judicial tyranny".

Hmmmmm, what's the difference in the cases? {thoughtful head scratch}

It's because its such a huge change, something that was never considered when the laws creating State marriage contracts were made, that the only proper way to do it is through the legislatures.

On all those other cases, it was still 1 man, 1 woman. In those other cases marriages of those types were allowed on and off for centuries either here or in Europe or other places. SSM however, is a concept only 30-40 years old.

And there you have it. Marriage rights have been won throught the courts. This is a historical fact. That's how they have been secured through history.

Gays though...they have to do it another way because Marty thinks gays are oogie.

 

[martybegan]

That's what we have legislatures for, and the amendment process for.

That is NOT what Jefferson was speaking to.

But it is about time we all said screw it! and started up a new convention process to start over. If people are so divided, let them see how better or worse they can do. We owe NOTHING to previous generations in the way of idol worship

So precedent is worthless?

No. Precedent is wonderful. The precedent of Loving and the other cases that held that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause gave us Obergefell.

Loving applied to Race, not sexuality.

Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail didn't apply to race.

Again, Marty doesn't really mind when marriage rights are won through the courts...as long as it's people he doesn't think are icky doing it...and apparently convicted murderers on death row are okay to use the courts. You gays though, you have to do it like no other group has had to secure the same rights before. Why? Because Marty says so.

Then why I am I 100% OK when it is changed by the legislative process?

You are looking for hate because thats all you can see as a reason for opposition. You won't find it here.

Let go to gay adoption for example, I could care less if gays adopt, hell, more adoptions = more gooder?

So how does that jive with your position that I do this because of "icky"?