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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

• 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.

It’s called case law . Deal with it. Again …..Marbury v. Madison. The fact that you just do not approve of how things work is your problem and yours alone

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

So what ? Another logical fallacy. This time a false equivalency fallacy. As I have said, It’s not about sex discrimination. The fact the a sufficient number of states did not ratify it has no bearing on the validity of the Obergfell decision.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Except that nothing was “dreamed up” Read the opinion and maybe you’ll understand

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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).

It actually started in 1938 as I have schooled you. It's how things work. The will of the people is subservient to the bill of rights. Get over it , It is the proper role of the courts to step in and protect those rights when the states fail to

 

[Unkotare]

After Loving v. Virginia it was just a matter of time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

NOW you are showing your true colors . That statement makes it clear that all of you convoluted , quasi-legal "opinions" are shaped by your bigotry. There is no other way to put it. It is not about the constitution, it is about the contempt that you have for gay people. It's about your willingness to disregard their right to make the same choices as others. It's about the dignity that you would deny them :

• When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are, in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.
  
  In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.
  
  Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.
  
  One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)

In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

 

[johnwk]

NOW you are showing your true colors

I support and defend our Constitution, and do not try to shoehorn my personal predilections into its meaning.

The reference to "person" found in the Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention of "gay" or "sex". And, nowhere in our Federal Constitution, other than the Nineteenth Amendment is "sex" mentioned.

The States are free to make distinctions in law based upon sex, excepting of course the prohibition mentioned in the Nineteenth Amendment.

Four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage. The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, and usher in same-sex marriages was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

 

[johnwk]

Except that nothing was “dreamed up” Read the opinion and maybe you’ll understand

Unlike you I have. Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having absolutely nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I support and defend our Constitution, and do not try to shoehorn my personal predilections into its meaning.

The reference to "person" found in the Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention of "gay" or "sex". And, nowhere in our Federal Constitution, other than the Nineteenth Amendment is "sex" mentioned.

The States are free to make distinctions in law based upon sex, excepting of course the prohibition mentioned in the Nineteenth Amendment.

Four states—Nevada, California, Colorado, and Hawaii—have exercised their reserved Tenth Amendment powers and amended their state constitutions to specifically allow or protect same-sex marriage. The only lawful way to make same-sex marriage recognized and protected under our federal Constitution is to do so under the terms mentioned in Article V.

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which would have forbid the States to make distinctions in law based upon sex, and usher in same-sex marriages was rejected in 1982 by an insufficient number of States approving the amendment.

None of that codswallop negates or in any way refutes my assessment of your bigoted and inane statement that gay people's rights have not been violated , It is insensitive, disrespectful and utterly moronic.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Unlike you I have. Justice Kennedy in authoring the opinion, went on and on, page after page, with irrelevant historical notations having absolutely nothing to do with the debates of the 39th Congress which actually framed and helped to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Are you ever going to get over that 39th congress crap that I have already schooled you on numerous times ??

 

[johnwk]

Non of that codswallop negates or in any way refutes my assessment of your bigoted and inane statement that gay people's rights have not been violated , It is insensitive, disrespectful and utterly moronic.

Your insulting comments do not advance your cause.

I support and defend our Constitution, and do not try to shoehorn my personal predilections into its meaning.

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.


“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.”

 

[Foxfyre]

Equal protection has long been a cornerstone of the country.

And equal protection is everybody abiding by the same laws. For most of our nation's history, marriage has been defined as a legal union/protections between one woman and one man with certain rules/regs/laws re who can legally marry.

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting any state from creating rules/regs/laws for a legal union/protections between same sex people but states should never have been required to defined a same sex union as 'marriage' when legal precedent/tradition/custom had never required that for most of our nation' history.

 

[pknopp]

And equal protection is everybody abiding by the same laws. For most of our nation's history, marriage has been defined as a legal union/protections between one woman and one man with certain rules/regs/laws re who can legally marry.

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting any state from creating rules/regs/laws for a legal union/protections between same sex people but states should never have been required to defined a same sex union as 'marriage' when legal precedent/tradition/custom had never required that for most of our nation' history.

All well and fine outside of the facts of federal tax benefits tied to being married.

 

[Foxfyre]

All well and fine outside of the facts of federal tax benefits tied to being married.

Traditional families have been the backbone of this country since its inception. Traditional families, most especially those who own land/homes almost invariably result in more stable, safer communities with less crime, better schools, more prosperity, more opportunity, more likelihood of neighbors looking out for neighbors and having each other's backs than any other social construct.

Federal and state governments who promote and encourage that via ANY means, including the tax code, demonstrate one of the finest example of what 'promoting the general--general meaning everybody's--welfare as was intended by our Constitution.

 

[pknopp]

Traditional families have been the backbone of this country since its inception.

Tradition families like banging a porn star while your wife sits at home with your newborn?

Traditional families, most especially those who own land/homes almost invariably result in more stable, safer communities with less crime, better schools, more prosperity, more opportunity, more likelihood of neighbors looking out for neighbors and having each other's backs than any other social construct.

Federal and state governments who promote and encourage that via ANY means, including the tax code, demonstrate one of the finest example of what 'promoting the general--general meaning everybody's--welfare as was intended by our Constitution.

Don't think for a second that I take you seriously.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your insulting comments do not advance your cause.

I support and defend our Constitution, and do not try to shoehorn my personal predilections into its meaning.

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.


“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.”

My insulting comments? You have insulted the sensabilities of all decent and thinking people. Your inane and bigoted comment that gay people have equal rights because they can marry a person of the opposite sex like everyone else is beyond the pale. I am a stareight male married to a women yet I was highly offended by that . You have revealed yourself for what you really are . All of your pseudo legal bullshit is null and void . You no longer have any credibility here

 

[Foxfyre]

Tradition families like banging a porn star while your wife sits at home with your newborn?



Don't think for a second that I take you seriously.

So you just made the list for my New Year's Resolution. Only the most despicable and intellectually dishonest would post what you posted and not feel the least bit remorseful as well as intentionally trying to disrupt a good thread. Have a lovely evening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your insulting comments do not advance your cause.

Not only have you demeaned and denigrated gay people with your bigoted bovine excrement claiming that their rights have not been violated because they can marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else- you have also diminished and degraded the institution of marriage itself. I am guessing that you do not have a high opinion of marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Traditional families have been the backbone of this country since its inception. Traditional families, most especially those who own land/homes almost invariably result in more stable, safer communities with less crime, better schools, more prosperity, more opportunity, more likelihood of neighbors looking out for neighbors and having each other's backs than any other social construct.

And that includes gay couples. We have had gay marriage now long enough that they have become part of the fabric of society. They participate in and contribute to the community in all of the same ways that heterosexuals couples do . It has been normalized They are part of the tradition. If you cant accept that , it's your problem and your problem alone

 

[johnwk]

Not only have you demeaned and denigrated gay people with your bigoted bovine excrement claiming that their rights have not been violated because they can marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else- you have also diminished and degraded the institution of marriage itself. I am guessing that you do not have a high opinion of marriage.

Your continued insulting comments are noted.