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

[pknopp]

LOL, some States require it, and it sure as hell is regulated by government.

Wasn't that tried with civil unions? The SSM people wanted the word marriage, and I'm OK with it as long as it goes through the legislative process.

I care less what one calls it as long as all benefits are the same.

 

[martybegan]

I care less what one calls it as long as all benefits are the same.

The people who pushed Obergfell on us wanted the name.

Civil Unions weren't enough.

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, but marriage was always man and woman, or man and women. SSM is a new concept and thus equal shouldn't be figured out judicially, but legislatively.

Then pushed on States that don't like it via full faith and credit.

The govt being involved in marriage isnt that old. The first laws over marriage were made last century.
And that doesnt matter. The constitution doesnt list parameters for the 14th.

 

[martybegan]

The govt being involved in marriage isnt that old. The first laws over marriage were made last century.
And that doesnt matter. The constitution doesnt list parameters for the 14th.

Then it's up to the courts to figure out what is "equal" and to me the got it wrong in Obergfell.

States can determine it legislatively in this case.

 

[Marener]

American history and historical precedent.

I'm sure they would have ruled on Loving the same way.

Dobbs doesn’t say “human history”. It says “the nation’s history and tradition”.

You’re just making shit up. It’s all you ever do.

Are you going to try and tell us that interracial marriage is deeply rooted in American history and tradition?

 

[martybegan]

Dobbs doesn’t say “human history”. It says “the nation’s history and tradition”.

You’re just making shit up. It’s all you ever do.

Are you going to try and tell us that interracial marriage is deeply rooted in American history and tradition?

Not talking about Dobbs, and the 2nd amendment is explicit about arms, as well as the right to keep and bear them. And the whole point of the 2nd amendment was a '**** you" to European history where arms were limited to the nobility and the elite.

Mixed marriages were around prior to and during the time of laws against it, depending on where you were in the country.

 

[Marener]

Not talking about Dobbs, and the 2nd amendment is explicit about arms, as well as the right to keep and bear them. And the whole point of the 2nd amendment was a '**** you" to European history where arms were limited to the nobility and the elite.

Mixed marriages were around prior to and during the time of laws against it, depending on where you were in the country.

Why aren’t you talking about Dobbs? It’s where this SCOTUS explains their interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Laws against interracial marriage were around since before the founding of the nation. Interracial marriage was never deeply rooted in our history or tradition.

 

[martybegan]

Why aren’t you talking about Dobbs? It’s where this SCOTUS explains their interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Laws against interracial marriage were around since before the founding of the nation. Interracial marriage was never deeply rooted in our history or tradition.

Whoops, went to Bruen.

Dobbs is about correcting the whole made up "right to privacy" bullshit.

Again, race and sex are two different things.

And the intent of the 14th amendment was to prevent discrimination based on race.

 

[80zephyr]

Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country.

It was equal. Any man could marry any woman.

 

[Marener]

Whoops, went to Bruen.

Dobbs is about correcting the whole made up "right to privacy" bullshit.

Again, race and sex are two different things.

And the intent of the 14th amendment was to prevent discrimination based on race.

Dobbs established their concept of what Equal Protection meant.

The 14th amendment doesn’t say shit about marriage and since it isn’t rooted in this nation’s history and tradition, the standard that Dobbs laid out wouldn’t extend equal protection to interracial marriage.

I’m guessing you didn’t know any of this.

 

[martybegan]

Dobbs established their concept of what Equal Protection meant.

The 14th amendment doesn’t say shit about marriage and since it isn’t rooted in this nation’s history and tradition, the standard that Dobbs laid out wouldn’t extend equal protection to interracial marriage.

I’m guessing you didn’t know any of this.

In the matter of Abortion.

stretching things from one concept to another is what gets progressives in trouble Constitutionally in the first place.

 

[Marener]

In the matter of Abortion.

stretching things from one concept to another is what gets progressives in trouble Constitutionally in the first place.

So judicial Calvinball.

There’s no rules or standards. That’s what you’re saying. The logic and standards of one case doesn’t cross into any other case.

 

[martybegan]

So judicial Calvinball.

There’s no rules or standards. That’s what you’re saying. The logic and standards of one case doesn’t cross into any other case.

Not at all.

It's why we have a Supreme Court in the first place.

Also, why we have the amendment process. Want something clarified into a right? Amend the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

Not at all.

It's why we have a Supreme Court in the first place.

Also, why we have the amendment process. Want something clarified into a right? Amend the Constitution.

If the logic from Dobbs applies to other cases, then this SCOTUS would not have agreed with the ruling on Loving.

The standard they laid out in Dobbs would overturn a lot of cases.

That said, I don’t think this court will because they don’t actually apply their logic in all situations. They just make shit up to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway.

 

[Meathead]

It was once illegal for interracial couples to marry. Equal protection.

Now how the **** is that relevant? You can marry a horse or your boyfriend for all I care.

Still, I wouldn't call either one of them cornerstones of society since time immemorial.

 

[martybegan]

If the logic from Dobbs applies to other cases, then this SCOTUS would not have agreed with the ruling on Loving.

The standard they laid out in Dobbs would overturn a lot of cases.

That said, I don’t think this court will because they don’t actually apply their logic in all situations. They just make shit up to justify whatever they wanted to do anyway.

That's your idiot interpretation of it, because you need to link loving to Obergfell due to laziness.

Wow, different things applying to different situations, WHAT A ******* CONCEPT!!

 

[Marener]

That's your idiot interpretation of it, because you need to link loving to Obergfell due to laziness.

Wow, different things applying to different situations, WHAT A ******* CONCEPT!!

It’s what they wrote in Dobbs. It seems like you probably never read that decision.

You’re saying their interpretation of the equal protection clause only applies to abortion, or anything else they don’t like. But their interpretation of the equal protection clause in Dobbs doesn’t apply to things they do like, such as interracial marriage.

That’s a shitty way to run a country.

 

[martybegan]

It’s what they wrote in Dobbs. It seems like you probably never read that decision.

You’re saying their interpretation of the equal protection clause only applies to abortion, or anything else they don’t like. But their interpretation of the equal protection clause in Dobbs doesn’t apply to things they do like, such as interracial marriage.

That’s a shitty way to run a country.

it's what you think they wrote it Dobbs, just like you think they decided Presidents are above the law.

It's called strict constructionism, something you don't understand.

 

[Marener]

it's what you think they wrote it Dobbs, just like you think they decided Presidents are above the law.

It's called strict constructionism, something you don't understand.

Strict constructionism wouldn’t have allowed Loving.

You clearly didn’t read Dobbs so don’t tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

 

[martybegan]

Strict constructionism wouldn’t have allowed Loving.

You clearly didn’t read Dobbs so don’t tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

yes it would have, because the whole point of the 14th amendment was to prevent that sort of thing.

Harlan's dissent in Plessey applies to Loving as well, but condoning it.