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

[martybegan]

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

Like the blue States ignore the 2nd?

 

[rightwinger]

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.”

Hard to imagine that Thomas would have such a strict view of marriage given that he is married to a white woman.

A marriage that would have gotten him arrested at the time he was born.

 

[martybegan]

Hard to imagine that Thomas would have such a strict view of marriage given that he is married to a white woman.

A marriage that would have gotten him arrested at the time he was born.

Once again, race and sex are not the same thing, and it's intellectual laziness to apply one to the other.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again, race and sex are not the same thing, and it's intellectual laziness to apply one to the other.

Of course race and sexuality are not the same thing
But marriage is

 

[martybegan]

Of course race and sexuality are not the same thing
But marriage is

Loving was with regards to race, and based on historical precedent with regards to equality and the 14th amendment.

Obergfell took a new concept and pretended it was the same as Loving, which it was not.

Obergfell should have made States recognize SSM licenses from other States that created them legislatively under full faith and credit, but should not have required them to issue them themselves.

 

[johnwk]

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

Correct. And you posted that to say what?

 

[rightwinger]

Loving was with regards to race, and based on historical precedent with regards to equality and the 14th amendment.

Obergfell took a new concept and pretended it was the same as Loving, which it was not.

Obergfell should have made States recognize SSM licenses from other States that created them legislatively under full faith and credit, but should not have required them to issue them themselves.

Loving related to race
Obergefell related to sexuality

Both related to the 14th Amendments application to marriage.

 

[johnwk]

Hard to imagine that Thomas would have such a strict view of marriage given that he is married to a white woman.

A marriage that would have gotten him arrested at the time he was born.

All of which has nothing to do as to whether or not Kentucky's marriage amendment violates the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Loving related to race
Obergefell related to sexuality

Both related to the 14th Amendments application to marriage.

And one was right, and the other was wrong.

 

[johnwk]

Loving related to race
Obergefell related to sexuality

Both related to the 14th Amendments application to marriage.

What wording in the Fourteenth Amendment forbids distinctions in law based upon sex? If there was such wording, the Nineteenth Amendment would not have been necessary to prohibit the abridgement of the right to vote being based upon sex.

 

[rightwinger]

And one was right, and the other was wrong.

In your opinion

Obergefell has been in effect for ten years.
The world did not end, the sun still rose every morning

The public has now accepted it and is no longer offended by same sex marriage

Time to move on

 

[rightwinger]

What wording in the Fourteenth Amendment forbids distinctions in law based upon sex?

Equal protection under the law

 

[martybegan]

In your opinion

Obergefell has been in effect for ten years.
The world did not end, the sun still rose every morning

The public has now accepted it and is no longer offended by same sex marriage

Time to move on

Actually, as progressives usually do, they went too far. The Trans idiocy, forcing people to work same sex weddings. The backlash is currently underway.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, as progressives usually do, they went too far. The Trans idiocy, forcing people to work same sex weddings. The backlash is currently underway.

It didn’t go too far
Same sex marriage is working
Mixed race marriage is working

They got it right

 

[martybegan]

It didn’t go too far
Same sex marriage is working
Mixed race marriage is working

They got it right

Again comparing them like they are the same.

Which they are not.

 

[johnwk]

What wording in the Fourteenth Amendment forbids distinctions in law based upon sex?

Equal protection under the law

We have already gone over that and your opinion has been debunked.

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 does not read:

". . . nor deny to any bestialist [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.

 

[johnwk]

It didn’t go too far
Same sex marriage is working
Mixed race marriage is working

They got it right

Violating our Constitution's terms and conditions is never right.


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.

• 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.

 

[rightwinger]

Violating our Constitution's terms and conditions is never right.


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.

• 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.

Copy and paste is not your friend

None of your arguments hold water

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country.

Yet not equally applied nor defended.

 

[pknopp]

Yet not equally applied nor defended.

No doubt.......sadly. Look at the people running interference for those who molested teen girls but want to arrest librarians over books.