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

[johnwk]

Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country.

You are absolutely correct that "Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country", and that protection is found in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the documented legislative intent for which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person [singular] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, according to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, no “person” [singular] is denied the equal protection under Kentucky's marriage law as is required by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Now, as to the legislative intent of the Fourteen Amendment, as summarized by one of its supporters during its framing by the 39th Congress:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” _ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


As I pointed out, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that Kentucky was under no constitutional obligation to license or recognize same-sex marriages, effectively upholding Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment:

“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.”

Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[johnwk]

What Obergfell should have done is say "you can't force States to Issue same sex marriage licenses, but you can force them to accept same sex marriage licenses issued by other States."

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I say in general, in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[Marener]

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.

Alito, who is generally a real piece of shit, said that we have to be careful when saying what the 14th does and doesn’t cover when it’s not explicitly mentioned.

The 14th amendment doesn’t say anything about marriage let alone race.

 

[martybegan]

Alito, who is generally a real piece of shit, said that we have to be careful when saying what the 14th does and doesn’t cover when it’s not explicitly mentioned.

The 14th amendment doesn’t say anything about marriage let alone race.

He said be careful, he didn't say apply it the way you want to do.

Alito is one of the good guys.

 

[johnwk]

Nothing in the Constitution requires that.

Because Race is different than sex.

Loving got it right.

And the time line confirms nowhere in our Constitution have the states been forbidden to make distinctions based upon sex other than the Nineteenth Amendment.

Let us look at the associated historical time line for the truth and facts.

On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment is adopted, the first Section reading as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note that there is no language concerning any restriction based upon “sex”.

In 1870, two years later, the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Note once again there continues to be no restrictive referenced in our Constitution with respect to “sex”.

Fifty years later, on August 18th, 1920, the American People decide to provide restrictive language into our Constitution concerning “sex” by their adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. But the amendment is narrowly worded and limits the protection against “sex” discriminations as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

At this very time there is an active movement in the United States to adopt an “Equal Rights Amendment” and it persists for decades. The proposed amendment is intentionally designed to prohibit distinctions based upon “sex” as follows:

Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

In the 1970s, Congress sets a seven year deadline for the ratification of the ERA which was later extended by three years to 1982. But despite efforts to secure ratification of the amendment, a sufficient number of States wisely refuse to adopt the Equal Rights Amendment. Some of the reasons for its rejection were, it would lead to women being drafted into the military, unisex bathrooms, and even legalization of homosexual marriages.

So, having reviewed the historical evidence, it become obvious a majority on our Supreme Court falsely asserted the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a right to same-sex marriages.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and make it mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Marener]

He said be careful, he didn't say apply it the way you want to do.

Alito is one of the good guys.

Alito is absolutely a piece of shit who just makes up reasons to justify whatever he wants.

That’s why his reasoning in Dobbs doesn’t apply to anything else you guys don’t want it to apply to.

He’s a partisan hack like you, which is why you like him.

 

[martybegan]

Alito is absolutely a piece of shit who just makes up reasons to justify whatever he wants.

That’s why his reasoning in Dobbs doesn’t apply to anything else you guys don’t want it to apply to.

He’s a partisan hack like you, which is why you like him.

LOL, the progressives do that, not Alito.

 

[Marener]

LOL, the progressives do that, not Alito.

If Alito doesn’t do that, then you’d have to admit that he would have voted against Loving v Virginia since interracial marriage isn’t deeply rooted in American history and tradition, therefore the equal protection clause doesn’t protect it.

Dobbs is a bad decision whose only saving grace is that Alito and his pieces of shit don’t actually believe what they wrote in their decision.

 

[martybegan]

If Alito doesn’t do that, then you’d have to admit that he would have voted against Loving v Virginia since interracial marriage isn’t deeply rooted in American history and tradition, therefore the equal protection clause doesn’t protect it.

Dobbs is a bad decision whose only saving grace is that Alito and his pieces of shit don’t actually believe what they wrote in their decision.

I don't have to admit anything based on your bullshit interpretation of things.

Dobbs fixed Roe, and Roe was bullshit.

 

[johnwk]

Alito is absolutely a piece of shit who just makes up reasons to justify whatever he wants.

That’s why his reasoning in Dobbs doesn’t apply to anything else you guys don’t want it to apply to.

He’s a partisan hack like you, which is why you like him.

Why do you revert to name-calling? How about defending the majority opinion in Obergfell and show us any written passage from the opinion confirming the 39th Congress intended to overturn the historical meaning of marriage and forbid the States to make distinctions based upon sex when issuing a marriage license?

 

[Marener]

I don't have to admit anything based on your bullshit interpretation of things.

Dobbs fixed Roe, and Roe was bullshit.

It’s not my interpretation. It’s what they wrote in Dobbs.

If you had actually read it, you wouldn’t look this stupid.

Like Alito, you don’t really give a shit what they said in Dobbs. All you care about is that they ended Roe.

 

[martybegan]

It’s not my interpretation. It’s what they wrote in Dobbs.

If you had actually read it, you wouldn’t look this stupid.

Like Alito, you don’t really give a shit what they said in Dobbs. All you care about is that they ended Roe.

No, it's your interpretation. You don't quote what you are referencing, because I have a feeling you got this bullshit from some article and just regurgitate it.

I read the decision when it came out, and nothing you are claiming applies.

 

[pknopp]

You are absolutely correct that "Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country", and that protection is found in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the documented legislative intent for which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.

The text of the Fourteenth Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person [singular] of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, according to the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, no “person” [singular] is denied the equal protection under Kentucky's marriage law as is required by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Now, as to the legislative intent of the Fourteen Amendment, as summarized by one of its supporters during its framing by the 39th Congress:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” _ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


As I pointed out, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that Kentucky was under no constitutional obligation to license or recognize same-sex marriages, effectively upholding Kentucky’s Constitutional Amendment:

“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.”

Nowhere in the majority opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges, is there a shred of evidence confirming that by the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection or due process clause, or the documented legislative intent under which the Fourteenth Amendment was agreed to by the States when ratifying the amendment, was Kentucky‘s decision to not issue same-sex marriage licenses in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You've lost this one.

 

[Marener]

No, it's your interpretation. You don't quote what you are referencing, because I have a feeling you got this bullshit from some article and just regurgitate it.

I read the decision when it came out, and nothing you are claiming applies.

Here’s the quote, dipshit.

The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to this Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.”

 

[martybegan]

Here’s the quote, dipshit.

The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to this Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.”

Link it.

In any event that doesn't mean what you say it means.

 

[Marener]

Link it.

In any event that doesn't mean what you say it means.

How old are you that you need a link to Dobbs?

Jesus.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

You don’t know what the **** it means.

 

[martybegan]

How old are you that you need a link to Dobbs?

Jesus.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

You don’t know what the **** it means.

There is context above and below your snippet.

And you like an idiot think what he wrote applies to your position?

wrong.

 

[Marener]

There is context above and below your snippet.

And you like an idiot think what he wrote applies to your position?

wrong.

Yeah, you’d have to be an idiot to think anything that Alito writes actually means anything.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, you’d have to be an idiot to think anything that Alito writes actually means anything.

If you go to the next paragraph or so he puts what you quoted into more context.

On occasion, when the Court has ignored the “[a]ppropriate limits” imposed by “‘respect for the teachings of history,’” Moore, 431 U. S., at 503 (plurality opinion), it has fallen into the freewheeling judicial policymaking thatcharacterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905). The Court must not fall prey tosuch an unprincipled approach. Instead, guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of ourNation’s concept of ordered liberty, we must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term “liberty.” When we engage in that inquiry in the present case, the clear answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect —————— 21Four Essays on Liberty 121 (1969). Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) 15 Opinion of the Court the right to an abortion.22