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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

...the traditional meaning of marriage, which dates back 4,000 years

What do you imagine marriage was like for women 4,000 years ago?

 

[johnwk]

None of your arguments hold water

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Persons my friend..
Keep trying

 

[johnwk]

Persons my friend..
Keep trying

Now you are making shit up.


The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly declares :

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

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nothing in the Constitution requires that.

Because Race is different than sex.

Loving got it right.

In what respect is race different than sex, in your opinion?

 

[martybegan]

In what respect is race different than sex, in your opinion?

It is kind of obvious. Race is a cosmetic difference, sex is obviously not.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Where in the 14th does it specifically say "Same Sex Marriage"?

Where in the 14th does it mention race? Yet you said Loving got it right

 

[martybegan]

Where in the 14th does it mention race? Yet you said Loving got it right

Race was the entire reason for the 14th amendment, it's clear in the intent of the writers.

 

[johnwk]

Where in the 14th does it mention race? Yet you said Loving got it right

I take it you have never taken a course in constitutional construction.

Let us establish what the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is.



Intent of constitution



16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.





The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.





16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”



Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.



Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )





Also see par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )



Also note that under the rules of constitutional construction

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law

Meaning of Language

Ordinary meaning, generally



”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Now

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.

They had a problem with them because they were not equal in that the parties in the union could still be denied benefits granted to married couples. From my best recollection things like insurance benefits or not being allowed to see or visit their partner they required medical treatment and visitors were restricted to family members only.

 

[martybegan]

They had a problem with them because they were not equal in that the parties in the union could still be denied benefits granted to married couples. From my best recollection things like insurance benefits or not being allowed to see or visit their partner they required medical treatment and visitors were restricted to family members only.

Actually they wanted the name. The States could have made civil unions exactly like marriages except for the name, or turn all marriages into civil unions and leave it to the ministers/officials to call it what it was.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I have left nothing out with respect to the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction . . . The" intention of the lawmaker is the law."

Let us review the very words of some of our Supreme Court members.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1812 – 1845) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

And Supreme Court Justice Henry Billings Brown, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903) noted the following:

"Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the law making power will prevail, even against the letter of the statute, or, as tersely expressed by Justice Swayne in Smythe v. Fike, 23 Wall. 374, 380: "A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The" intention of the lawmaker is the law."

And Justice Hugo Black, in Foster v. United States, 303 U.S. 118, 120 (1938) states:

“Courts should construe laws in harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose.”

The bottom line is, the above quotations made by previous Supreme Court members is in total harmony with Justice Thomas who stated with reference to Obergefell v. Hodges: “But … 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.”

Your latest screed in no way even attempts to address the points that I made in my last post, Those being the fact that :

1) 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional Law
does not conflict with case law or unenumerated rights

2) Am Jur 2d frequently is a summary of the judicial power established by landmark case law such as Marbury v. Madison.(Judicial Review)

3) Am Jur 2d acknowledges and categorizes rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution (unenumerated rights) by summarizing how courts have identified them. (Unenumerated rights)


Nor have you ever dealt with the requirement that the courts utilize an appropriate level of scrutiny to cases that involve the limitation or denial of rights as has been the case since the United States v. Carolene Products (1938)

As usual when cornered, you pivot to an entirely different angle and throw fresh dung at the wall in the hope that something will stick

Now her , you provide 3 out of context and ambiguous quotes from former justices that rail against violating legislative intent and ignoring precedent.

You have a few problems with this

• At least two of those passages pre-date U.S. V Carolene which require courts to consider whether there is a rational basis or at lease a rational basis for a restriction on rights
• Legislative intent is not sacrosanct where the legislation itself may be to vague, broad or otherwise unconstitutional
• There is no mention of marriage-leave along marriage being between a man and a woman- anywhere in the constitution so Obergefell does not violate legislative intent nor does it overturn any precedent .
• The only Federal legislation that declared that marriage is between a man and a woman was the Defense of Marriage Act which was effectively struck down two years prior with the United States v. Windsor ruling (2013 )
• You repeatedly and willfully ignore Marbury v. Madison (1803) is which established judicial review, the Supreme Court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional, cementing the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government and making the Court the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution
• Lastly, your idol, Uncle Clarance , has no problem with ignoring precedent when it suits him as he did in Roe v Wade, so your invoking precedent -if it did apply- is disingenuous at best

Another epic failure for you…………But keep trying

 

[johnwk]

Your latest screed in no way even attempts to address the points that I made

Your deflections and ramblings are noted.


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.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It is kind of obvious. Race is a cosmetic difference, sex is obviously not.

Cosmetic?!?

I believe the court uses the term immutable in that they cannot be changed, unlike one's political party or religious affiliations (not that anyone should have to)

 

[martybegan]

Cosmetic?!?

I believe the court uses the term immutable in that they cannot be changed, unlike one's political party or religious affiliations (not that anyone should have to)

I think the courts take a word like immutable to mean "protected", or at least the lefty ones do.

 

[johnwk]

Nor have you ever dealt with the requirement that the courts utilize an appropriate level of scrutiny

One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring the black male and is nothing more than a subjective opinion. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started, with impunity, to ignore the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and went on to impose its own ideas of social justice and court-ordered social reforms using these “tests”. Some of the important cases which demonstrate the Court’s assumption of legislative power by using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Same old smoke and mirrors. Instead of addressing my points, you shapeshift into yet another line of attack…in the case of this first invented “problem” you just resurrected it from an earlier post

We have already discussed the significance or lack thereof of the 39th congress debates on the 14th… Which were decades before United States v. Carolene Products (1938) which- as you should know by know – requires the government to justify the denial or restriction of rights,

An opinion written at the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment carries no weight whatsoever in that case law, which I will present below, has evolved since then . While the opinion asserts that discrimination may be permitted -except on the basis race, color or former condition of slavery, that is no longer the case.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

• 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.

First of all that is an appeal to tradition logical fallacy that has no place in law. Ther is no mandate that says things must always stay the same.

It is also yet another attempt on your part to divert the conversation away from the inconvenient facts tat I have presented and that you cannot deal with so in tat respect it’s a Red Herring Logical Fallacy as well.

Furthermore it is bullshit. Marriage has been evolving for centuries marriage in Western culture wasn't always strictly man-and-woman in the modern sense; while heterosexual unions were the norm for property/lineage, historical records show diverse practices like polygamy among early Hebrews, same-sex bonds (like Theban Sacred Band), and shifting reasons (not love) for marriage, with the romantic, exclusive, heterosexual ideal developing much later, becoming dominant only in recent centuries as an institution for emotional fulfillment, not just property transfer or alliances.

Early Western & Ancient Practices:

• Ancient Greece & Rome: Marriage was primarily for producing legitimate heirs and transferring property/alliances, not love. Men could have wives and concubines, and same-sex relationships existed, though not necessarily exclusive ones.
• Biblical Times: Early figures like King Solomon had multiple wives and concubines (polygamy).
• Purpose: For centuries, marriage was a practical contract for economic stability, family alliances, and ensuring male inheritance, not romantic love.

Shifting Definitions:

• Love Marriage: The idea of marrying for romantic love is a relatively recent concept, gaining traction in Western cultures only in the last few centuries, especially after the 19th century.
• Monogamy: The strictly monogamous, sexually exclusive model became a tiny minority until the last few centuries in Western Europe and North America.
• Gender Roles: The "breadwinner husband, homemaker wife" model and the expectation for women to marry and focus on family also developed more recently, as noted by the National Women's History Museum.

_______________________

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

• 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.

Total and unadulterated bullshit that ignores the validity of case law and the concept of judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

• The majority’s opinion blatantly ignores and renders meaningless the Tenth Amendment's powers reserved to the States and people therein.

Then tenth amendment is not superior to the 14th , as much as conservatives would like it to be. There is no valid interpretation of the tenth Amendment that would allow states- in exercising powers reserved to them -to violate due process, and equal protection under the law, or absolve them of the responsibility to articulate valid reasons for denying or restricting rights