Obergefell v. Hodges is a classic case of judicial tyranny, its date will live in infamy

[Eman623]

To be more accurate, recognize another state's marriage license for litigations purposes under the full faith and credit clause e.g. for alimony payments.

A question: should Loving have been decided the same way? That states could forbid interracial marriages but must recognize ones from other states? The 14A is definitely about race, but it only applied at the federal level at the time of its ratification. Or has incorporation cracked that particular nut, and now states are bound by the 14A too.

Generally I agree with your position. From a constitutional POV it would have been less activist-y for the court to allow states the option to license or not license SSMs, but require them to recognize other states' SSMs per Full Faith and Credit.

In practice, I don't think it matters much. The country is pretty solidly in favor of gay marriage now and I don't think a single state would keep it illegal for long if Obergefell were suddenly overturned. If the case had never happened, I think most if not all states would already have laws on the books permitting SSMs, even if they called them other things.

Bottom line, we got to the right place even if the SCOTUS short-circuited the normal process. Bad SCOTUS!

 

[johnwk]

That's it? That is all you have to say? Nothing new at all that we haven't covered . Damn you're pathetic.

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

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.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

It’s absolutely astounding how you can be so ignorant of case law that established the principle of judicial review, and the concept of requiring an articulation of reasons to restrict rights, and the recognition of un-enumerated rights as well as the supremacy clause of the constitution. Are you stupid or just lying. It must be one or the other

 

[johnwk]

It’s absolutely astounding how you can be so ignorant of case law that established the principle of judicial review, and the concept of requiring an articulation of reasons to restrict rights, and the recognition of un-enumerated rights as well as the supremacy clause of the constitution. Are you stupid or just lying. It must be one or the other

Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

Please provide your rebuttal to Judge Hensley’s COMPLAINT, with respect to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision, where she asserts Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”


73. The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), repudiates the “reasoned judgment” test for determining “fundamental rights” and prohibits judges from recognizing “fundamental rights” that are unmentioned in constitutional text unless those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Id. at 231.

74. Dobbs did not purport to overrule Obergefell, but its rationale is incompatible with the idea that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.” The court-invented right to homosexual marriage—like the court-invented right to abortion—is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” so Obergefell had no constitutional justification for imposing same-sex marriage on all 50 states.

In fact, Obergefell blatantly ignored 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 in Obergefell contradicts its own method [historical foundation] used to arrive at its conclusion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

That complaint was garbage yesterday, garbage today and will still be garbage tomorrow. Furthermore...your comment:

Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

Does not even make any sense because that is not what the complaint says-is not what Dobbs says- and saying that it that it is a fundamental right contradicts everything that you have been saying

The complaint makes the claim that Dobbs, repudiates the “reasoned judgment” test for determining “fundamental rights” and prohibits judges from recognizing “fundamental rights” that are unmentioned in constitutional text unless those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

However The Supreme Court has affirmed marriage as a fundamental right numerous times, notably in key cases like Loving v. Virginia (1967) and definitively for same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), solidifying it as a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a principle traced back through about 14 significant rulings recognizing the importance and personal nature of marriage.

All of those cases still stand

In addition, in Obergefell , the high court found that there is no substantial difference between same sex and opposite sex couples and affirmed that same sex marriage is a fundamental right.

Lastly , there is in fact a long tradition of homosexual pair bonding in this country , and since Stonewall and the birth of the gay rights movement in 1969- has been largely out in the open and part of the fabric of society

And, in 2004, over two decades ago, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, holding that same-sex couples could no longer be excluded from civil marriage rights in the state. Since that time, same sex couples have become accepted members of their communities all across the country. It is no longer an issue for mature, mentally well people.

I am still waiting for you to grow a spine and state exactly what your problem is with gay marriage, and I am not buying your pseudo constitutional- belief in rule of law bullshit. You are clearly trying to bend constitutional law justify discrimination and exclusion .

You don't give a **** about the constitution and for Hensley , it is not really about religious rights. In both cases it is motivated by bigotry and a need to persecute gay people

Gay people are born that way ,bigots are made. What happened to you?

 

[johnwk]

Does not even make any sense because that is not what the complaint says-is not what Dobbs says- and saying that it that it is a fundamental right contradicts everything that you have been saying

The complaint makes the claim that Dobbs, repudiates the “reasoned judgment” test for determining “fundamental rights” and prohibits judges from recognizing “fundamental rights” that are unmentioned in constitutional text unless those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to Judge Hensley’s COMPLAINT, with respect to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision, where she asserts Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

It is plain to see the Dobbs decision conflicts with the logic used in Obergefell (and Griswold v. State of Connecticut, Lawrence v Texas) by rejecting the idea that unenumerated rights (not in the Constitution) become fundamental just because they’re important to modern liberty, instead demanding deep historical roots; Justice Thomas explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell based on Dobbs’ history-focused reasoning.

Has Dobbs been overruled?

Has the Tenth Amendment been repealed?

Has Article V been repealed?

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to Judge Hensley’s COMPLAINT, with respect to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision, where she asserts Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

It is plain to see the Dobbs decision conflicts with the logic used in Obergefell (and Griswold v. State of Connecticut, Lawrence v Texas) by rejecting the idea that unenumerated rights (not in the Constitution) become fundamental just because they’re important to modern liberty, instead demanding deep historical roots; Justice Thomas explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell based on Dobbs’ history-focused reasoning.

Has Dobbs been overruled?

Has the Tenth Amendment been repealed?

Has Article V been repealed?

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

All of this blather about Dobbs is just a smoke screen and another red herring logical fallacy to distract from the fact that GAY marriage is well established as a fundamental right by law and tradition. This is just another example of you throwing feces at the wall ,hoping that something will stick .The assertions in the complaint carries no weight whatso ever and the complaint admits that Dobbs does not overturn Obergfell

The compliant is meaningless. It has no force of law. And while the Dobbs decision may be seen as conflicting with Obergefell, it is a little more complicated that, You seem to be unable to understand that it in no way invalidates Obergefell , to wit:

While the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization explicitly stated it did not intend to cast doubt on precedents unrelated to abortion, its legal reasoning is seen by many legal scholars as fundamentally conflicting with that of Obergefell v. Hodges.

While the Dobbs majority tried to limit its scope, the decision's reliance on strict historical grounding poses a direct challenge to Obergefell, a point emphasized by Justice Thomas and many legal observers who see the foundation for same-sex marriage as weakened.

However:

We have already addressed the historical grounding of same sex relationships .

In addition:

The majority opinion in Dobbs, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, insisted the decision was unique to abortion because abortion involves the "critical moral question posed by abortion" (the destruction of "potential life"), which distinguishes it from other rights like contraception or same-sex marriage. The opinion explicitly stated, "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion".

Key Points from Dobbs & Reactions:

• Majority's Stance: The Dobbs majority opinion stated it "does not cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," including Obergefell, treating marriage as a distinct right
• Extra Layer in Obergefell: Some argue Obergefell has a second layer of protection—the Equal Protection Clause—that Dobbs didn't address, providing some buffer.

So , I am STILL waiting for you to grow a spine and own up to the real basis of your bigotry . What the **** is wrong with you? It is definitely not your supposed love of your bastardized interpretation of the constitution


Regarding you idiotic questions:

Has Dobbs been overruled? Irrelevant

Has the Tenth Amendment been repealed? Also irrelevant. We have been all through that. The rights reserved to the states are not absolute and the exercise of those rights may not conflict with the 14th amendment. The fact that you keep bringing that up makes ne thinlk that you have a learning disability ….or tat you’re just plain stupid.

Has Article V been repealed? We have been all through that also. . Judicial review. Strict scrutiny and rational basis review. Case law that carries the full weight of the articles of the constitution as well as the amendments that extend the bill of rights to state law,

Your quixotic references to Dobbs is laughable and if you were smarter it would embarress you

 

[johnwk]

All of this blather about Dobbs is just a smoke screen

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to Judge Hensley’s COMPLAINT, with respect to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision, where she asserts Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

Has Dobbs been overruled?

Has the Tenth Amendment been repealed?

Has Article V been repealed?

 

[johnwk]

Obergefell is incompatible with Dobbs . . . homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right​

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision confirms Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), repudiates the “reasoned judgment” test for determining “fundamental rights” and prohibits judges from recognizing “fundamental rights” that are unmentioned in constitutional text unless those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Id. at 231.

Dobbs did not purport to overrule Obergefell, but its rationale is incompatible with the idea that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.” The court-invented right to homosexual marriage—like the court-invented right to abortion—is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” so Obergefell had no constitutional justification for imposing same-sex marriage on all 50 states.

Obergefell blatantly ignored 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 in Obergefell contradicts its own method [historical meanings] used to arrive at its conclusion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to Judge Hensley’s COMPLAINT, with respect to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision, where she asserts Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

Has Dobbs been overruled?

Has the Tenth Amendment been repealed?

Has Article V been repealed?

Holy shit!! WHAT!! The same shit that you already posted....and that I responded to all over again. Seems like you have really lost you mind for real this time!!!

You can't seem to decide if gay marriage is a fundamental right or not

I am STILL waiting for you to grow a spine and own up to the real basis of your bigotry . What the **** is wrong with you? It is definitely not your supposed love of your bastardized interpretation of the constitution

 

[johnwk]

Holy shit!! WHAT!! The same shit that you already posted....and that I responded to all over again.

The bottom line is:


• Dobbs has not been overruled and is current law.
• The Tenth Amendment has not been repealed. Issuing marriage licenses is within powers reserved by the States and people therein.
• Article V has not been repealed, and is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions of our federal Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The bottom line is:


• Dobbs has not been overruled and is current law.
• The Tenth Amendment has not been repealed. Issuing marriage licenses is within powers reserved by the States and people therein.
• Article V has not been repealed, and is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions of our federal Constitution.

Get over yourself!! You don't know what you're blathering about . You're knowledge of constitutional law is abysmal. I have addressed each of those inane points, Do you have a learning disability?

Oberegfell has not been overruled either. Deal with that fact

I am am still convinced that your opposition to same sex marriage has little or nothing to do with the law at all. There is something that you don't have the guts to come out and say. Or, you lack the introspection to even understand it yourself.

 

[johnwk]

Get over yourself!! You don't know what you're blathering about . You're knowledge of constitutional law is abysmal. I have addressed each of those inane points, Do you have a learning disability?

Oberegfell has not been overruled either. Deal with that fact

I am am still convinced that your opposition to same sex marriage has little or nothing to do with the law at all. There is something that you don't have the guts to come out and say. Or, you lack the introspection to even understand it yourself.

The bottom line is:


• Dobbs has not been overruled and is current law.
• The Tenth Amendment has not been repealed. Issuing marriage licenses is within powers reserved by the States and people therein.
• Article V has not been repealed, and is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions of our federal Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The bottom line is:


• Dobbs has not been overruled and is current law.
• The Tenth Amendment has not been repealed. Issuing marriage licenses is within powers reserved by the States and people therein.
• Article V has not been repealed, and is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions of our federal Constitution.

You're a ******* broken record!! Or, just broken . I believe that I have gotten to you. Pushed you over the edge, You've been reduced to a jabbering fool. Don't do anything rash. The gay mafia might come for you.

 

[johnwk]

You're a ******* broken record!! Or, just broken . I believe that I have gotten to you. Pushed you over the edge, You've been reduced to a jabbering fool. Don't do anything rash. The gay mafia might come for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

View attachment 1198514

Yup !! You're broken . I'll leave you alone now. I don't want to push you any further over the edge.

Let me know when you grow a spine and are ready to discuss the real reasons who you're opposed to gay marriage , like an adult. Are you an adult?

Be safe. Help is available

Mental Health Hotline

 

[meaner gene]

Obergefell is incompatible with Dobbs . . . homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right​

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) decision confirms Obergefell (2015) is incompatible with Dobbs (2022), in that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.”

The Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), repudiates the “reasoned judgment” test for determining “fundamental rights” and prohibits judges from recognizing “fundamental rights” that are unmentioned in constitutional text unless those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Id. at 231.

Dobbs did not purport to overrule Obergefell, but its rationale is incompatible with the idea that homosexual marriage is a “fundamental right.” The court-invented right to homosexual marriage—like the court-invented right to abortion—is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” so Obergefell had no constitutional justification for imposing same-sex marriage on all 50 states.

Obergefell blatantly ignored 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 in Obergefell contradicts its own method [historical meanings] used to arrive at its conclusion.

This is the classical living document vs fixed context of the US Constitution.
Many changes have occurred under law, that weren't amended into the constitution.
A change with constitutional support was a woman's right to own property, and have credit in her own name, yet it took a specific constitutional amendment to vote.
A change without underlying constitutional support, are the rape in marriage laws.
Going by needing historical support for such laws, or specific mention in the constitution, would show they have no constitutional or historical support.
Which is the flaw in requiring historical support for newly recognized rights.

 

[johnwk]

Let me know when you grow a spine and are ready to discuss the real reasons who you're opposed to gay marriage , like an adult. Are you an adult?

As an adult and one who supports and defends our written constitution, and the documented legislative intent under which it was adopted which gives context to its text, I give my full support to the four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—which have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage federally recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

 

[johnwk]

This is the classical living document vs fixed context of the US Constitution.
Many changes have occurred under law, that weren't amended into the constitution.
A change with constitutional support was a woman's right to own property, and have credit in her own name, yet it took a specific constitutional amendment to vote.
A change without underlying constitutional support, are the rape in marriage laws.
Going by needing historical support for such laws, or specific mention in the constitution, would show they have no constitutional or historical support.
Which is the flaw in requiring historical support for newly recognized rights.

You seem to ignore that the Tenth Amendment leaves to the States and people therein, the exclusive power over all the objects which, ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

So, the fact is, there is no flaw under federalism, our constitution's design.

 

[meaner gene]

As an adult and one who supports and defends our written constitution, and the documented legislative intent under which it was adopted which gives context to its text, I give my full support to the four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—which have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage.

The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage federally recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

Or under the 14th amendment which extended equal protection to the states.
And like any contract, the marriage contract has to be recognized by every court, in order to be legally enforceable. To prevent someone signing a contract in one jurisdiction, fleeing to another to escape his obligations under the contract.
Hence why the federal government needing to recognize contracts from all of the several states, as only they have jurisdiction in the case of parties resident in different states.