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

[the_human_being]

No it is not high. That's exactly what the vote was. It has traditionally been up to vote. Nearly all states have voted on the issue. Some states voted for same sex marriage while the voters in other states voted against it in their states. It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.

feel free to provide a link.

but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.

i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.

there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.

but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.

Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:

Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com

that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.

marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.

I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

 

[mdk]

The nation lost. Marriage lost. Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee. The Supreme Court has opened a Pandora's box which opens up court arguments for incestial and polygamous marriages. A tradition that has endured since Adam and Eve has been destroyed by five men with lifetime appointments.

At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

 

[the_human_being]

It never before was a one size fits all issue. People in different states are different. That's just a fact.

It's also a fact that people within a state are different. Something as basic as who one wishes to marry(human being of consenting age, of course), shouldn't be determined by people using their religious biases as a basis for their decision. THAT'S unconstitutional.

They most probably didn't. I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.

Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. They destroyed the marriage institution a long, long, long time ago.

What has that at all to do with the facts that the votes of the people of Kentucky were made null and void? They say gasoline is cheaper in Louisiana than it is in Florida but that has no bearing on the discussion either.

 

[bodecea]

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

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.

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.

What majority are you talking about? In Kentucky alone, 75% of voters voted against same sex marriage. The issue of marriage has long been a tradition of State's rights of determination. This was a power grab by a very small majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. The decision was by a single vote - not even by a 2/3 majority.

So...you think equal treatment under the law is something to be voted on?

 

[the_human_being]

At least you're not being dramatic or anything. lol. In what way has your marriage been destroyed as a result of this ruling?

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

 

[mdk]

feel free to provide a link.

but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.

i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.

there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.

but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.

Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:

Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com

that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.

marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.

I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

No, that is claim you're merely assigning to me and it is nothing more than a dirty tactic used by those unable to discuss issues honestly.

 

[konradv]

I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.

Then what's their problem? Why would they insist on minding someone else's business? You'd think that would get them a load of rock salt in their ass!

They were minding their own business. They exercised their right to vote their views.

Who someone else wants to marry is none of their business. The only reasons given for banning same sex marriage are religious in nature and that's unconstitutional.

 

[the_human_being]

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

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.

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.

What majority are you talking about? In Kentucky alone, 75% of voters voted against same sex marriage. The issue of marriage has long been a tradition of State's rights of determination. This was a power grab by a very small majority of the justices of the Supreme Court. The decision was by a single vote - not even by a 2/3 majority.

So...you think equal treatment under the law is something to be voted on?

I think the majority of the people should rule. If 75% of any group of registered voters vote in favor of something then I say they should have the say - not the 25% who lost in the vote.

 

[the_human_being]

Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:

Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com

that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.

marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.

I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

No, that is claim you're merely assigning to me and it is nothing more than a dirty tactic used by those unable to discuss issues honestly.

That's exactly what you are saying. Live with it.

 

[mdk]

"Marriage has been reduced to where it's only going to require two or more people filling out a form and submitting it to the office of a probate judge with the required filing and handling fee." That is what is was before Obergefell.

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

 

[konradv]

I think the majority of the people should rule. If 75% of any group of registered voters vote in favor of something then I say they should have the say - not the 25% who lost in the vote.

I think the NRA would tend to disagree.

 

[the_human_being]

I would bet you that many of the 75% of the Kentucky voters who voted against same sex marriage were non-religious.

Then what's their problem? Why would they insist on minding someone else's business? You'd think that would get them a load of rock salt in their ass!

They were minding their own business. They exercised their right to vote their views.

Who someone else wants to marry is none of their business. The only reasons given for banning same sex marriage are religious in nature and that's unconstitutional.

So you claim that 75% of the voters in Kentucky are Christians? My my. That is good to hear. Not true but good to hear anyways.

 

[the_human_being]

It will prevent the primary goal of the gay and lesbian community from forcing county clerks, justices of the peace, notary publics, and pastors from performing a marriage ceremony for them since they no longer will have any legal standing to force their desires upon anyone.

Not a single pastor or church has been forced to marry ANY couple against their wishes. County Clerks and notaries do not marriage ceremonies.

Notaries can perform marriage ceremonies. County clerks issue licenses as was the case of the Kentucky clerk who was jailed. That will soon be over.

So? Most people can perform a marriage ceremony. Preforming a marriage is not a requirement to be notary. Again, county clerks do not perform marriage services. It is becoming abundantly clear that you do not know what you're talking about.

I responded to a post that claimed notaries could not perform marriage ceremonies idiot.

Being a notary doesn't automatically make you eligible to perform a marriage. An electrician can perform a marriage but that isn't a requirement for the job.

You really are some kind of stupid aren't you? Yes being a notary does make one eligible to perform a marriage.

 

[Timmy]

The court didn't make up the shit . They took the laws that are in place and made sense out of them.

We have a system where if u are married in one state it carries over to all of them . Why shouldn't gay marriage get the same treatment . And why do people even care? I thought conservatives were for freedom ?

 

[mdk]

that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.

marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.

I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

No, that is claim you're merely assigning to me and it is nothing more than a dirty tactic used by those unable to discuss issues honestly.

That's exactly what you are saying. Live with it.

Nope, not even close. That is a position you're assigning to me and nothing more.

In the meantime, gays continue to marry and all you can do is stomp your feet and claim the sky is falling. You're the very of impotent rage. Live with it.

 

[konradv]

So you claim that 75% of the voters in Kentucky are Christians? My my. That is good to hear. Not true but good to hear anyways.

What they are is irrelevant. Civil rights shouldn't be up for a vote.

 

[the_human_being]

I think the majority of the people should rule. If 75% of any group of registered voters vote in favor of something then I say they should have the say - not the 25% who lost in the vote.

I think the NRA would tend to disagree.

Wll, certainly the gay and lesbian community disagree. I'm sure many other disagree. So?

 

[jillian]

feel free to provide a link.

but again, the vote is irrelevant since states can't pass laws that violate the constitution. and the constitution includes all of the caselaw on the issue of equal protection.

i'm still not certain why this doesn't resonate for you but for the fact that you don't like the outcome.

there are a lot of cases that I don't like the outcome to. most of them violate prior precedent and are made up out of whole cloth by an activist rightwing branch of the court that legislates from the bench.

but those decisions are law as well... as was bush v gore even though it had the temerity to limit itelself to the single case before it and violated 200 years of jurisprudence on the issue of election law.

Mainly because I'm a Christian Conservative and support small government and the rights of the people of the states to govern themselves.
Here's one of just many links:

Lexington, KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader | Kentucky.com

that's nice... we don't live under the articles of confederation. and you are free to be a Christian conservative. you are not free to make the rest of us live under your religious beliefs.

marry whom you wish. leave everyone else alone.

I have and I will. But you do have to admit that it was not the will of the people in many states. Therefore, to claim it is the will of the people is a lie.

The will of the people is irrelevant if it violates The US Constitution. It was the will of the people, via their elected representatives, to pass silly gun restrictions in D.C. The SCOTUS wisely ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

So you claim there is no further need for the people of a state to vote. Just have 5 justices of the Supreme Court make up the laws for all the people. Got you now.

who said that?

the simple fact is that under the supremacy clause of the constitution you claim to love, state laws cannot violate the federal constitution. that includes the CASELAW interpreting and applying the constitution because we live in a common law country which has a legal system based on the british system.

I think you should continue to stamp your feet though.

 

[konradv]

I think the majority of the people should rule. If 75% of any group of registered voters vote in favor of something then I say they should have the say - not the 25% who lost in the vote.

I think the NRA would tend to disagree.

Well, certainly the gay and lesbian community disagree. I'm sure many other disagree. So?

The Constitution is important to people. That's why.

 

[paddymurphy]

marriage has always been a State level Contract, outside the control of the feds.

marriage as a status is a state issue. (not contract). and has always been in the federal purview when the grant of status violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Again, see Loving v Virginia.

you can't win this one. the decision was impeccable... no matter what the wingers say.

Marriage is not a contract?

LOL impeccable...

It's a contract before God, not the State.

Big government lovers want State approval of their contract so they can acquire cash and prizes.

And if you don't believe in God? Can't be married?

If government was not involved in marriage, why would two atheists get married?

Government is and must be involved in marriage. Just like the government is where real estate records are filed and kept. There are certain rights and responsibilities that go with being married. Spouse have property rights; they are often covered under their spouses benefit plans; they inherit without paying taxes in most states; they have obligations for the debts of their spouse. And when the marriage ends, marriage creates obligations. A spouse has to support the other one so that taxpayers don't have to; if they cannot agree to a division of their property, the court decides.