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

[rightwinger]

Long overdue

In spite of RW claims of gloom and doom
Nobody cares anymore and people don’t look twice at same sex couples

 

[johnwk]

Long overdue

In spite of RW claims of gloom and doom
Nobody cares anymore and people don’t look twice at same sex couples

Ignoring our system's rule of law is not "Long overdue".

Why the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges needs to be revisited and overturned.

Obergefell v. Hodges reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014 Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Some of the glaring problems with the majority opinion in Obergefell 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.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Ignoring our system's rule of law is not "Long overdue".

Why the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges needs to be revisited and overturned.

Obergefell v. Hodges reversed the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which appropriately upheld, on November 6, 2014 Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Some of the glaring problems with the majority opinion in Obergefell 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.

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.

Obergefell is a simple decision based on the 14th Amendment

Equal protection under the law

The government does not get to pick which marriages it supports and which it finds “yucky”

See Loving v Virginia

 

[rightwinger]

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 . . .

Thomas has a lot of nerve
Respecting our legal tradition meant that blacks could not marry whites.

Some opinion from a black judge married to a white woman. When Thomas was born, he could be arrested for marrying a white woman……THAT was tradition

 

[johnwk]

Obergefell is a simple decision based on the 14th Amendment

Equal protection under the law

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fact is, no person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

 

[rightwinger]

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fact is, no person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Do you know how silly that sounds?
Gays are persons

That same argument was used in Loving v Virginia

You are free to marry a person of your same race
You are free to marry a person of the opposite sex

The courts laughed at that argument in both casses

 

[johnwk]

Do you know how silly that sounds?
Gays are persons

No. I don't know how silly that sounds. As I demonstrated, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Pedophiles are also "persons".

 

[rightwinger]

No. I don't know how silly that sounds. As I demonstrated, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Pedophiles are also "persons".

Do you realize that defense was used in both Obergefell and Loving and laughed at?

The Government has no business in telling you who you are allowed to love or marry just because some people find it yucky

 

[johnwk]

Do you realize that defense was used in both Obergefell and Loving and laughed at?

The Government has no business in telling you who you are allowed to love or marry just because some people find it yucky

Pedophiles are also "persons".

 

[rightwinger]

Pedophiles are also "persons".

Persons engaged in an illegal act

Homosexuality is not illegal

 

[johnwk]

The Government has no business in telling you who you are allowed to love or marry just because some people find it yucky

The government is not obligated to issue marriage licenses.

 

[johnwk]

Persons engaged in an illegal act

Homosexuality is not illegal

No person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

 

[rightwinger]

The government is not obligated to issue marriage licenses.

But they do

Thus are expected to provide equal protection under the law.

 

[rightwinger]

No person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

And you double down on that stupid argument

Kentucky is deciding which marriages it supports and which it considers yucky

Telling straights they can marry whom they want and gays can’t is not equal protection

 

[johnwk]

But they do

Thus are expected to provide equal protection under the law.

No person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Siblings may not marry each other under law

 

[rightwinger]

No person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

Siblings may not marry each other under law

You keep doubling down on a failed argument
The courts laughed at it

The state can provide a valid reason why siblings can’t marry.

They could not provide a valid reason why gays can’t marry

 

[johnwk]

You keep doubling down on a failed argument

You still can't refute the fact that every "person" under Kentucky's marriage amendment is treated equal as required under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection requirement.

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fact is, no person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any homosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any heterosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly declares :

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You seem to forget 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.

 

[rightwinger]

You still can't refute the fact that every "person" under Kentucky's marriage amendment is treated equal as required under the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection requirement.

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The fact is, no person under Kentucky's marriage amendment is denied the equal protection of the law.

“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.”


A man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay man may marry a woman and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

A gay woman may marry a man and Kentucky’s constitutional amendment recognizes it as a “marriage”.

So, as it turns out, rightwinger, no “person” is denied the equal protection under Kentucky’s law. Every person is treated EQUAL.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any homosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment does not read:

". . . nor deny to any heterosexual [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly declares :

". . . nor deny to any person [singular] within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You seem to forget 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.

Rinse/Repeat
still fail

Why don’t you just admit that you hate gays?
Everyone else has gotten over it

 

[johnwk]

Rinse/Repeat
still fail

Why don’t you just admit that you hate gays?

I don't hate gays. But I do support and defend our written Constitution which includes the Tenth Amendment and powers reserved by the States and people therein, and likewise includes Article V, which is the only lawful way to alter the terms and conditions under which the States and people therein ratified our Constitution.

You seem to support the Humpty Dumpty theory of language being applied to our Constitution's meaning:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”


I certainly agree with Justice Thomas who stated ". . . the precedent 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.”

 

[rightwinger]

don't hate gays. But I do support and defend our written Constitution which includes the Tenth Amendment and powers reserved by the States and people therein

Yea…..but those states don’t get to ignore the other amendments