SCOTUS Changed The Constitution To Include (Just) Some Behaviors (Their Favorites, Not Ours)

[Ravi]

How did they change the constitution?

By creating a new protected class which includes for the first time non religion based behaviors, just some, which are exclusionary to other minority behaviors which currently don't enjoy the same rights. The irony is that the very language they cite "that no American be disparaged from the priveleges and immunities of others" was used to disparage a whole host of other behaviors currently excluded from special class protection from regulation by the majority.

That's a new addition. Which of course is not only unworkable, inequal and unfair, but also not allowed. Only Congress may make substantive additions to the Constitution..

A new protected class wasn't created. Instead, a persecuted class was removed from persecution. That is correct under the constitution and as it should be.

What are you talking about non religion based behaviors? The constitution may protect religious belief but it also protects rights of all no matter if they are religious based or not.

Are you going to say owning a gun is religious based????????????

 

[Silhouette]

How did they change the constitution?

By creating a new protected class which includes for the first time non religion based behaviors, just some, which are exclusionary to other minority behaviors which currently don't enjoy the same rights. The irony is that the very language they cite "that no American be disparaged from the priveleges and immunities of others" was used to disparage a whole host of other behaviors currently excluded from special class protection from regulation by the majority.

That's a new addition. Which of course is not only unworkable, inequal and unfair, but also not allowed. Only Congress may make substantive additions to the Constitution..

A new protected class wasn't created. Instead, a persecuted class was removed from persecution. That is correct under the constitution and as it should be....What are you talking about non religion based behaviors? The constitution may protect religious belief but it also protects rights of all no matter if they are religious based or not...Are you going to say owning a gun is religious based????????????

Please describe for me how Polygamist-Americans and Incest-Americans are different from Gay-Americans? And tell the world how it is that just gays are being persecuted by being denied marriage but polygamists and incest are not being persecuted by being denied marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

Gay Marriage and Supreme Court What You Need to Know
***************
As Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pointed out two years ago, there are two different visions of what marriage is on offer. One view of marriage sees it as primarily about consenting adult romance and care-giving. Another view of marriage sees it as a union of man and woman—husband and wife—so that children would have moms and dads.
Our Constitution is silent on which of these visions is correct, so We the People have constitutional authority to make marriage policy.
The debate over whether to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships is unlike the debate over interracial marriage. Race has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, and there were no reasonable arguments ever suggesting it did....

Laws that banned interracial marriage were unconstitutional and the Court was right to strike them down. But laws that define marriage as the union of a man and woman are constitutional, and the Court shouldn’t strike them down.
The only way the Court could strike down state laws that define marriage as the union of husband and wife is to adopt a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution based primarily on the emotional needs of adults and then declare that the Constitution requires that the states (re)define marriage in such a way...

Equal protection alone is not enough. To strike down marriage laws, the Court would need to say that the vision of marriage that our law has long applied equally is just wrong: that the Constitution requires a different vision entirely.
But the Constitution does not require a new vision of marriage...

Everyone in this debate is in favor of marriage equality. Everyone wants the law to treat all marriages in the same ways.
The only disagreement our nation faces is over what sort of consenting adult relationship is a marriage. Since the U.S. Constitution doesn’t answer that question, the people and their elected representative should...

Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother to any children their union produces. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.
Marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other—and to take responsibility for their children.
Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

*************

What the SCOTUS just did was to tell the states "we know what's best for children and you are no longer able to weigh in on that question." Considering the potential for how children are raised over a couple of generations, it is UNFATHOMABLE that just 5 people in DC took away that decision from the Governed and acted like kings and queens. They litereally changed the fundamental fabric of our country, without Constitutional provisions, using an unworkable new standard "Just some of our favorite behaviors are now allowed to fundamentally redefine marriage to the detriment of children; and even the meaning of the words "mother" and "father"....while leaving the question open for polygamy and incest to also tell the Governed to shove-it; since in the interest now of equality and the new standard of "the interest of kids in marriage doesn't matter SAYS WE 5", one deviant sex behavior is as good as another as long as the adults are consenting.


The trouble is, this isn't a judicial interpretation of the Constitution; because if it was, it would've HAD TO include language covering any and all deviant sex behaviors, not just the Court's contemporary favorites. Leaving the others out and knowing they were on their way to their Courtroom in the very near future (The Browns v Utah), means that the Court did not interpret anything from the Constitution that can be pointed to. In other words, they just made up a botched mock-up of a new class without actually having the authority to do so. On behavior is as good as another and another and another. The majority no longer has a say so...apparently...and that is NOT a Constitutional provision. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what's in the Constitution. What are local laws about if not about human behaviors? Do we now not self-govern? Which behaviors are "the favorites" and which arent'? Who determines that if the yardstick of majority-approval has been removed? Forever forward, just 5 people on the Supreme Court will now weigh the question of which behavior can no longer be regulated?

Therefore, the Constitution has been fundamentally altered. Therefore the Ruling on June 26, 2015 is inapplicable to the states.

 

[Syriusly]

How did they change the constitution?

By creating a new protected class which includes for the first time non religion based behaviors, just some, which are exclusionary to other minority behaviors which currently don't enjoy the same rights. The irony is that the very language they cite "that no American be disparaged from the priveleges and immunities of others" was used to disparage a whole host of other behaviors currently excluded from special class protection from regulation by the majority.

That's a new addition. Which of course is not only unworkable, inequal and unfair, but also not allowed. Only Congress may make substantive additions to the Constitution..

A new protected class wasn't created. Instead, a persecuted class was removed from persecution. That is correct under the constitution and as it should be....What are you talking about non religion based behaviors? The constitution may protect religious belief but it also protects rights of all no matter if they are religious based or not...Are you going to say owning a gun is religious based????????????

Please describe for me how Polygamist-Americans and Incest-Americans are different from Gay-Americans?

They are as different as straight Americans.

If you cannot make an argument as to why you object to polygamous marriage or sibling marriage- that is your problem- not ours.

 

[Syriusly]

Therefore, the Constitution has been fundamentally altered. Therefore the Ruling on June 26, 2015 is inapplicable to the states.

Therefore you just show your delusions and your meltdown continue.

Americans are getting married now in all 50 states- regardless of the gender of their spouse.

Life is very good.

 

[Silhouette]

They are as different as straight Americans.

If you cannot make an argument as to why you object to polygamous marriage or sibling marriage- that is your problem- not ours.

You may be right or you may be wrong, depending on if the Court wants to continue along its line of reasoning and thereby purposefully or inadvertently take away the right, permanently of 300 million people to self-govern. If the Court tries from now on to say anything about polyamory-orientation marriage or incest-orientation marriage "being a question best left to the states"...I'm going to fall off my chair laughing.

This ball is rolling right back into their court and they will have to parse out exactly what makes polyamorous-Americans intrinsically different than homosexual-Americans; as to the new class they just created out of thin air June 26, 2015. That conversation of course will lead to how homosexuals and polygamists are identified only by behaviors...which will lead to ..."how do we decide which behaviors have rights and which don't"...which will lead to "is this limited just to sexuality or can other behaviors now petition?"...which will lead to "wait a minute, are we now going to have to sit on and decide every question of law regarding human behaviors"?

And I'm going to be tickled pink watching this overreaching and treacherous Court chase its own tail round and round and round..

 

[Syriusly]

They are as different as straight Americans.

If you cannot make an argument as to why you object to polygamous marriage or sibling marriage- that is your problem- not ours.

This ball is rolling right back into their court and they will have to parse out exactly what makes polyamorous-Americans intrinsically different than homosexual-Americans; ..

Polyamourous Americans are different from gay couples are different from mixed race couples.

All three have been banned at one time.

If you cannot come up with any reason why polygamous marriage should be banned- why do you want it banned?

 

[Skylar]

I am curious- how many threads do you think Silhouette will start in her continuing melt down over the Court saying people can get married?

1 a day? 2 a day?

It is rather amusing to watch, in a sick sort of way.

I thought 'perverted court' was cute. I've added it to my list of Silisms.

 

[Silhouette]

Polyamourous Americans are different from gay couples are different from mixed race couples.

All three have been banned at one time.

No,

Polyamorous & homosexual are both sexual orientations, fluxuating, acquired, behavioral. Race is what you are unquestioningly born as. The first two are behavioral, like drug addictions. The third is what you are born as.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Race is what you are unquestioningly born as. The first two are behavioral, like drug addictions. The third is what you are born as.

Using your logic, interracial marriage bans were justified.

Blacks could marry.

Whites could marry.

No one was denied marriage based on race.




Whites marrying blacks though, that is a behavior and could be banned.



>>>>