- Thread starter
- #181
We are here talking about the rule of law, and adhering to the rule of law.
Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy
- Thread starter johnwk
- Start date
We are here talking about the rule of law, and adhering to the rule of law.
- Thread starter
- #182
Obergefell v. Hodges and DeBoer v. Snyder equals, platitudes and personal feelings vs rule of law
.
According to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in DeBoer v. Snyder which upheld Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages, and unlike the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which based its opinion on irrelevant historical notations, platitudes and personal predilections related to sex, the opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder is actually based on the terms and conditions set forth in our existing constitutions, federal and state, and long standing rules which govern the application of our system’s rule of law, e.g., the opinion points out:
As shown, compliance with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in this setting requires only a rational relationship between the legislation and a legitimate public purpose. And a State does not behave irrationally by insisting upon its own definition of marriage rather than deferring to the definition adopted by another State. Preservation of a State’s authority to recognize, or to opt not to recognize, an out of-state marriage preserves a State’s sovereign interest in deciding for itself how to define the marital relationship. It also discourages evasion of the State’s marriage laws by allowing individuals to go to another State, marry there, then return home. Were it irrational for a State to adhere to its own policy, what would be the point of the Supreme Court’s repeated holdings that the Full Faith and Credit Clause “does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own public policy?”
The bottom line is, there are glaring problems with the majority opinion in Obergefell, some of which are:
• The opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusions, rather than the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish specific and limited objectives, which the majority opinion falsely asserts have been violated.
• While the majority opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusion, it blatantly ignores the historical definition of marriage within Western culture, which dates back to the 6th and 9th centuries as being a union between one man and one woman. Hence, the majority opinion contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.
• The majority opinion knowingly flaunts and subjugates Article V of the Constitution requiring consent of the governed, which is the only lawful and democratic way, within the terms of our Constitution, to accommodate and acknowledge changing times.
• The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores and renders meaningless the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein.
• The majority opinion blatantly assumed a legislative authority not granted by the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to.
• The proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.
.
A precedent setting case, as Justice Thomas correctly points out, “. . . should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with . . . ” which is exactly what the majority opinion Justices’ did when agreeing with Justice Kennedy who authored the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
.JWK
Mamdani’s smiley faced Democratic socialism will only work for the rats in charge of handing out the “free” government cheese which Mamdani has promised.
.
According to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in DeBoer v. Snyder which upheld Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriages, and unlike the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which based its opinion on irrelevant historical notations, platitudes and personal predilections related to sex, the opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder is actually based on the terms and conditions set forth in our existing constitutions, federal and state, and long standing rules which govern the application of our system’s rule of law, e.g., the opinion points out:
As shown, compliance with the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses in this setting requires only a rational relationship between the legislation and a legitimate public purpose. And a State does not behave irrationally by insisting upon its own definition of marriage rather than deferring to the definition adopted by another State. Preservation of a State’s authority to recognize, or to opt not to recognize, an out of-state marriage preserves a State’s sovereign interest in deciding for itself how to define the marital relationship. It also discourages evasion of the State’s marriage laws by allowing individuals to go to another State, marry there, then return home. Were it irrational for a State to adhere to its own policy, what would be the point of the Supreme Court’s repeated holdings that the Full Faith and Credit Clause “does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own public policy?”
The bottom line is, there are glaring problems with the majority opinion in Obergefell, some of which are:
• The opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusions, rather than the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed the Fourteenth Amendment to accomplish specific and limited objectives, which the majority opinion falsely asserts have been violated.
• While the majority opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusion, it blatantly ignores the historical definition of marriage within Western culture, which dates back to the 6th and 9th centuries as being a union between one man and one woman. Hence, the majority opinion contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.
• The majority opinion knowingly flaunts and subjugates Article V of the Constitution requiring consent of the governed, which is the only lawful and democratic way, within the terms of our Constitution, to accommodate and acknowledge changing times.
• The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores and renders meaningless the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein.
• The majority opinion blatantly assumed a legislative authority not granted by the terms and conditions set forth in the Constitution. In essence, a majority on our Supreme Court set itself up as members of an unelected, omnipotent, constitutional convention, and substituted their personal feelings and predilections as being within the terms and conditions under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to.
• The proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.
.
A precedent setting case, as Justice Thomas correctly points out, “. . . should be respectful of our legal tradition, and our country and our laws, and be based on something – not just something somebody dreamt up and others went along with . . . ” which is exactly what the majority opinion Justices’ did when agreeing with Justice Kennedy who authored the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
.JWK
Mamdani’s smiley faced Democratic socialism will only work for the rats in charge of handing out the “free” government cheese which Mamdani has promised.
And another point went flying right over another leftist's head. Have a lovely day.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Your continued bigotry disguised as legal theory is noted
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
We are talking about your bastardized interpretation of the law that you use to justify discrimination. If you cared about adhering to the rule of law you would promote equality for gay people . Instead you pull one nonsensical "theory" after another out of who knows what to justify your bigotry which you attempted to hide in the guise of legalese . Then you slipped up and revealed yourself for what you are with that highly offensive horseshit about gays not being denied rights because they can marry someone of the opposite sex.
You're finished here. Go and start another thread on gay marriage, I'll be there to hold your feet to the fire
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Really??? I don't think so. Tell us more about what you consider a traditional family.
- Thread starter
- #187
Nope. We are talking about “Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy”
The majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.
I dare say, to embrace Obergefell v. Hodges as you apparently do, and ignore the 6th Circuit opinion in DeBoer v. Snyder which is actually based on the terms and conditions set forth in our existing constitutions, federal and state, and long standing rules which govern the application of our system’s rule of law, is to be delinquent in one's civic duty by not speaking out and against the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which based its opinion on irrelevant historical notations, platitudes and personal predilections related to sex, and subjugates the very foundations of our system's rule of law.
For example, Judge Sutton in DeBoer v. Snyder correctly highlights federalism, a fundamental feature of our system of government to support the Court’s ruling. He says, in respect to the definition of marriage:
“There are many ways, as [the] lower court decisions confirm, to look at this question: originalism; rational basis review; animus; fundamental rights; suspect classifications; evolving meaning. The parties in one way or another have invoked them all. Not one of the plaintiffs’ theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.”
Indeed . . . "in the hands of state voters"!
What is glaringly obnoxious and concerning about the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges is, while the opinion relies upon irrelevant platitudes and historical notations to arrive at its conclusion, it blatantly ignores the historical definition of marriage within Western culture, which dates back to the 6th and 9th centuries as being a union between one man and one woman. Hence, the majority opinion contradicts its own method used to arrive at its conclusion.
JWK
They are not “progressives”. They are Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the very kind who disarmed the good people of Cuba, stole their property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist and the barrel of a gun.
.
Last edited:
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
You have already spewed that horseshit about western culture and I addressed it. Yet you, instead of presenting a counter argument......just mindlessly repeat it. Pathetic!
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Ah the bullshit de jour -intended to provide a smoke screen for bigotry is FEDERALISM !!! I find it hysterical how you bleat and prattle on about the rule of law , yet everything you say and most of those who you quote, show nothing but contempt for the rule of law
The Rule of Law is deeply embedded in the U.S. Constitution, yet your Judge Sutton seems to think that we are a still Federation governed by the articles on Confederation , rather than being a Constitutional Republic.
As I have tried to school you in the past, rights reserved to the states are not absolute and may not be exercised in a manner that violates any other part of the Constitution. Allow me to also remind you that all other circuit courts that ruled on the marriage issues, struck down the states bans on same sex marriage. Yrt to desperately cling to the 6th circuit ruling as if it singularly will validate your views.
Now for an aside . The DeBoer v. Snyder was about more than marriage, It was about the best interest of children. It was a pivotal same-sex marriage case originating in Michigan, where lesbian couple April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse sued to jointly adopt their children but were forced to challenge Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage as the underlying issue.
Prior to the 6th circuit ruling U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman ruled Michigan's ban unconstitutional, acknowledging the harm to children raised by same-sex parents.
That’s right. Harm to children. Children deserve to have the security and financial benefits of having two legal parent. Now before you go off on a tangent about the number of children do not have two legal parents I will stop you right there.
This is different. Many children do not have two parents for many reasons-all related to complex social forces , These children were denied that opportunity because of a legal issue born of bigotry.
None of that is surprising because it is apparent that throughout the long debate and legal wrangling over same sex marriage, the bigots showed little compunction for punishing the children and using them as pawns to thwart gay marriage,
I doubt that you’re any different
Another failing grade Dude. You need to quit while you’re behind
- Thread starter
- #190
Instead of projecting your insulting personal beliefs about me, why not engage in a productive dialogue on what you QUOTED FROM ME?
For example, what passages from the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges confirm the 39th Congress, which framing and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, intended to forbid the States to make distinctions based upon sex, and would thus make Kentucky's marriage amendment un-constitutional?
“Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”
Or, what exactly is it that Judge Sutton wrote when upholding a ban on same-sex marriage, that you disagree with, and why?
JWK
They are not “progressives”. They are Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the very kind who disarmed the good people of Cuba, stole their property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist and the barrel of a gun.
Last edited:
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
I am not projecting, Do you even understand what projecting is? I am not assigning my feelijg or beliefs to you You are the bigot and I am not. Nor am I assuming anything about you. You told us very clearly what you are - A bigot who has no respect for, or understanding of gay people. I made every effort to engage in a productive dialogue with you but then realized that you are manipulating legal theories-with the help of quotes from other bigots – to justify denying gay people equal protection under the law
We have been all through that 39th congress bullshit way too many times . I am beginning to think that you have a learning disability
Who said that and what the **** is it supposed to mean . Yu need t provide some context . It does not even make any sense
Now I’m starting to think that you’re just stupid. I explained that length. I find it interesting and telling that you have nothing further to say about DeBoer v. Snyder and my point about children. Typical of how you avoid, ignore and run away from anything that you can't or wont deal with
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #192
Obergefell v. Hodges now challenged in U.S. District Court in Texas by Judge Dianne Hensley
Some great news. Obergefell v. Hodges is currently being challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by Judge Dianne Hensley ___ Hensley v. Steel, filed 12/19/2025.
Here is a link to the COMPLAINT challenging the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
See page 17 “Claim No. 4: The Courts Should Overrule Obergefell And Declare That Homosexual Marriage Is Not A Constitutional Right”
Some great news. Obergefell v. Hodges is currently being challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by Judge Dianne Hensley ___ Hensley v. Steel, filed 12/19/2025.
Here is a link to the COMPLAINT challenging the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
See page 17 “Claim No. 4: The Courts Should Overrule Obergefell And Declare That Homosexual Marriage Is Not A Constitutional Right”
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Give me a ******* break!! This is your entire response to my post excoriating you on your bigotry and challenging you to address the issue of your contempt for the rules of law and disregard for children who suffer when their parents are the subject of discrimination.?Obergefell v. Hodges now challenged in U.S. District Court in Texas by Judge Dianne Hensley
Some great news. Obergefell v. Hodges is currently being challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by Judge Dianne Hensley ___ Hensley v. Steel, filed 12/19/2025.
Here is a link to the COMPLAINT challenging the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
See page 17 “Claim No. 4: The Courts Should Overrule Obergefell And Declare That Homosexual Marriage Is Not A Constitutional Right”
Just one more of many example of how you away and hide behind whatever new crap you can come up with instead of engaging in an adult debate .
You don't even realize what an ass you're making of yourself., do you ? You're your own worst nightmare
This is just another bullshit case that is going no where, SCOTUS has already shown that they are unwilling to revisit this issue. Its the same shit that Kim Davis was shot down on This challenge stems from Hensley's refusal to officiate same-sex weddings, Good ******* luck
Your posting this as "good news" just confirms your bigotry and contempt for gay rights.
- Thread starter
- #194
No.
JWK
Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist and barrel of a gun!
- Thread starter
- #195
You apparently have not read page 17 of Judge Hensley's COMPLAINT “Claim No. 4: The Courts Should Overrule Obergefell And Declare That Homosexual Marriage Is Not A Constitutional Right”, which contains a list of particulars and legal subject matter that substantiates her complaint.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Holy shift ! You’re still here ?? “Homosexual” marriage You’re no longer even trying to hide your contempt.
This complaint is garbage. Every single argument that she mages has been address ad nauseum on this thread and on your previous desperate screed assailing gay marriage.
Each time you have ignored it and ran like hell, after which you would pivot to some other inane , bogus made up bullshit.
You really seem to be loosing your mind over this issue. Still waiting for you to explain what you think that a compelling government reason or rational basis might be to justify prohibiting gay marriage,
- Thread starter
- #197
With respect to your assertion that Hensley's claims are "garbage" you offer no rebuttal to any of the claims which are found in her COMPLAINT, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 19th, 2025, a number of which I find quite compelling and grounded in the rule of law.
One claim contends that the Obergefell ruling is unconstitutional in that our system does not delegate authority to judges and Justices to "invent" fundamental constitutional rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Obergefell did just that.
Keep in mind that in the Dobbs 6-3 decision the S.C. found that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. The majority opinion emphasized that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and that no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another claim is, five unelected Justices in Obergefell substituted their personal policy preferences as the rule of law and superior to existing and well established state laws.
Neither judges nor Justices are vest with legislative power making authority.
So, as it turns out, Hensley's claims are not "garbage" as you contend.
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
Complete and unadulterated hogwash. You seem to need help in reading comprehension. I have, in fact addressed each and every point that you raised. I am not going to keep relitigating the facts that I have already presented, and to which you have had no meaningful response.
With respect to your assertion that Hensley's claims are "garbage" you offer no rebuttal to any of the claims which are found in her COMPLAINT, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 19th, 2025, a number of which I find quite compelling and grounded in the rule of law.
One claim contends that the Obergefell ruling is unconstitutional in that our system does not delegate authority to judges and Justices to "invent" fundamental constitutional rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Obergefell did just that.
Keep in mind that in the Dobbs 6-3 decision the S.C. found that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. The majority opinion emphasized that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and that no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another claim is, five unelected Justices in Obergefell substituted their personal policy preferences as the rule of law and superior to existing and well established state laws.
Neither judges nor Justices are vest with legislative power making authority.
So, as it turns out, Hensley's claims are not "garbage" as you contend.
I will add that Hensley's claim that here religious freedom is bullshit. If that were the real issue, she would have simply petition for a religious exemption like clergy has.
In your case, your claim of love for the constitution and the rule of law is also bullshit. In both cases , made up grievances are being used to mask the ugly face of bigotry
I see that once again you are avoiding the question that I have asked several times: “what compelling government interest rational basis is there for banning same sex marriage”?
Another question: Has same sex marriage had any negative impact on society, or you , personally, and if so how? Why are you so obsessed with overturning it? Why do you have this pathological need to deprive these people- AND THEIR CHILDREN- of the benefits of marriage when it really costs you nothing?
I am nor really expecting an honest answer- or any answer at all.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #199
According to you.
One claim contends that the Obergefell ruling is unconstitutional in that our system does not delegate authority to judges and Justices to "invent" fundamental constitutional rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Obergefell did just that.
Keep in mind that In the Dobbs 6-3 decision the S.C. found that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. The majority opinion emphasized that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and that no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Last edited:
TheProgressivePatriot
Platinum Member
That's it? That is all you have to say? Nothing new at all that we haven't covered . Damn you're pathetic.
According to you.
And as I predicted , you can't address why you oppose gay marriage on a persona level and without invoking bogus legal theories. My guess is that you lack the introspection to actually know. You're just wired that way,. It's an essential aspect of your identity
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Strangling China's crude imports is not new and destabilizing Miramar (Burma)- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 1
-
Newsome has California paying his wife millions for anti-masculinity film.- Started by Nostra
- Replies: 6
-
-
