Tennessee Reminds SCOTUS: Separation of Powers: Passes Resolution Calling Out Gay Marriage Decision

[Silhouette]

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Well, I'm not a lawyer representing the cases in Tennessee...so technically you have a point..

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

No, they ruled that ones state's law was unconstitutional.

That's the answer liberals always give. They ignore the 10th and would erase all State lines if they could.

Liberals prefer totalitarianism.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Explain the FAA then? Or, the Air Force?

Federal overreach.

Really, the FAA and the Air Force are invalid because the Founders forgot to plan for them? Gonna stand on that one when Washington thought the Constitution might be valid for maybe 20 years?

The Air Force and the FAA are departments of the Federal government. See how that works?

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Personally, I don't care

What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.

The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.

 

[Syriusly]

The decision has been made. Why can you not accept it is the question?

..lol... Because the decision was made illegally. It will be challenged. .

This is just one of the fundamental delusions you have.

The Supreme Court cannot make an illegal decision.

Of course it can. They did in Dred Scott.

Mark

And what was 'illegal' about Dred Scott?

Lol. Sorta like asking what was illegal about the Holocaust. Nothing, I suppose, since the government made it legal.

Mark

No one disagrees that Dred Scott was a terrible decision- but it was entirely legal.

Which is why in order to reverse Dred Scott, the 13th and 14th Amendments were passed.

Shockingly enough the difference between legal and illegal is whether or not the government makes something legal or illegal.

 

[Syriusly]

This is just one of the fundamental delusions you have.

The Supreme Court cannot make an illegal decision.

Of course it can. They did in Dred Scott.

A bad decision, not an illegal decision, Marky...

Nope, its illegal. Just nobody higher up to force them to comply with the law.

The founders understood that our nation could pass laws that were not constitutional, and that we would have to work against them.

There was nothing illegal about Dred Scott, Marky. And the SC has the final say.

The lack of mental acuity in this thread is...frightening.

Mark

We don't hold that against you Mark.

We have come to expect it.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Personally, I don't care

What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.

The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.

And it doesn't.

The system is working as designed.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Personally, I don't care

What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.

The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.

And it doesn't.

The system is working as designed.

Except, the Supreme Court can't make laws for all 50 States.

 

[Syriusly]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

This kind of reaction reminds me of the pouty people in southern states who sought to negate the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, which required desegregation in public schools. The Court frowned upon their recalcitrant efforts:

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

As set forth in the syllabus, Cooper v. Aaron stands for the following propositions:

1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483....

2. This Court rejects the contention that it should uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify its holding in the Brown case have been further challenged and tested in the courts....

And yet some persons in Tennessee have filed a lawsuit in a state county court challenging the Court's ruling in Obergefell. Here's what they say is their argument:

The legal question is really very straightforward: If Tennessee’s current marriage license law, passed in 1995, is unconstitutional, which is what the Obergefell Court ruled, then who passed the new law to replace the old one? Courts can’t pass laws, and the legislature has not passed a new law since last June, so it stands to reason that there is no marriage licensure law in Tennessee.

Source: Lawsuit to Challenge Obergefell

The argument is disingenuous. The Court did not invalidate state marriage laws on their face. In other words, state marriage laws were not declared void ab initio. The Court merely found that depriving same sex couples the same right to marriage enjoyed by opposite sex couples violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. State marriage laws limiting marriage to opposite sex couples were thus unconstitutional as applied to same sex couples. The marriage laws still exist, but the portions that limit the right to marry to opposite sex couples cannot be enforced. Same sex couples are thus entitled to state issued marriage licenses on the same statutory terms as opposite sex couples are entitled to get them.

If marriage license laws were rendered void ab initio as a result of Obergefell, then no couples--not even opposite sex couples--would be lawfully married. That's absurd. The litigants in the Tennessee case did not stumble upon a magic bullet to "do away with same sex marriage" and "upset and nullify" the Court's ruling in Obergefell. Their efforts will be rejected and put to shame the same as the segregationists' efforts were treated.

Keep chomping on that popcorn Sil ... you might have to buy a few more cases of the stuff to get you and your anti-gay ilk through these trying times.

Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?

Why is it the Right takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, yet back those states that enact harsh gun ownership laws?

So here is the thing- I am fascinated by the states that have passed laws legalizing marijuana- and I applaud their efforts- but if the Federal government decided tomorrow to go into Washington and Oregon and Colorado and arrest every pot shop owner in each state- it could do so.

What you want though is for States to be able to pass laws that are unconstitutional- and be able to ignore the Supreme Court protecting the rights of Americans against unconstitutional laws.

I support the Supreme Court when it overturned unconstitutional marriage laws(Loving and Obergefell) just as I support the Supreme Court when it overturns unconstitutional gun laws.

What about you?

 

[Syriusly]

The Tennessee House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, passing a resolution expressing disagreement with the high court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage....With a 73-18 vote, the chamber passed the measure to not only disagree with the constitutional analysis used in Obergefell v. Hodges but to say the “judicial imposition of a natural marriage license law” is contrary to previous actions taken by the Tennessee legislature....On Wednesday, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Old Hickory, the sponsor of the measure, told The Tennessean that her effort is focused on reminding the Supreme Court about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government. Tennessee House passes resolution criticizing same-sex marriage decision

More:

the resolution coincided with a lawsuit filed in Williamson County that seeks to halt the issuing of marriage licenses until a court settles the matter, Lynn told Stewart, "What we're doing here is very important."..

The lawsuits...

Second anti same-sex marriage lawsuit filed in Tennessee February 5, 2016 A second lawsuit has been filed in Tennessee challenging the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling overturning bans on same-sex marriage....The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Bradley County. It says the U.S. Supreme Court cannot overturn a law and then decide what the law should be. That should be up to the state legislatures, the lawsuit says.... a similar case in Williamson County on Jan. 21.“These lawsuits have had the additional positive effect of helping an increasing number of Tennesseans begin to appreciate the important constitutional boundaries that the United States...Supreme Court crossed in its Obergefell decision," Fowler said

Essentially, TN is forcing the US Supreme Court to cite in the US Constitution where it derived "gay marriage has to be legal" as a written law imposed upon the states. From what I can glean.. Loving v Virginia mentioned nothing about gay marriage...so case law doesn't exist. There is no mention I can tell in the Constitution where gay sex behaviors (just but not others) are specifically protected behaviors... So the SCOTUS is going to have its work cut out for it "explaining" the legal justification for Obergefell besides just their current mantra "gay marriage's time has come"...

Why do you hate gays?

Why do you hate pedophiles?

Mark

I hate child molesters- because they rape children.

Now- why do you hate persons who have consensual sex between adults(who can provide consent)?

 

[Syriusly]

Why is it the left takes great pride in telling us how the law works concerning states that are against gay marriage, and yet back those states that allow sanctuary cities and legalizing drugs that stand directly against federal law?

If a state were smart, they would tell the federal government to get fucked, just like the liberals states do ala illegals and drugs.

Mark

Because laws ONLY work for the cult of LGBT and when they don't, they are illegally changed. You may have heard of this before..

Yes we have heard all of your bullshit before.

And it is still bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

The 10th doesn't give the States the power to violate the privileges and immunites of federal citizens. Nor to offer unequal protection under the law.

Fringe conservatives keep forgetting the 14th. And would strip federal citizens of many of their rights if they could.

Fringe leftists apparently keep forgetting the 14th as well...when they cite how "polygamy isn't legal". "!

The only ones bringing up polygamy are the fringe anti-gay lunatics.

 

[Syriusly]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

Obergefell never so much as mentions polygamy or incest.

Try again.

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Loving v Virginia never so much as mentions homosexuality...

And Loving v. Virginia didn't legalize homosexuality or gay marriage.

See how that works?

Loving v. Virginia overturned unconstitutional state law against mixed race marriage
Obergefell overturned unconstitutional state law against same gender marriage.

No court has overturned laws against incestuous or polygamous marriage.

You can go to court arguing that you believe you have that right. Go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Personally, I don't care

What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.

The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.

And it doesn't.

The system is working as designed.

Except, the Supreme Court can't make laws for all 50 States.

The Supreme Court doesn't make any laws at all.

 

[Syriusly]

The right to marry is recognized and protected (Loving v. Virginia, Obergefell v. Hodges). With homosexuality beyond the authority of the State to regulate (Lawerence v. Texas).

Show me where the right to incest or the right to polygamy is recognized by any court, law, or ruling.

Obergefell 2015. And the 14th Amendment which doesn't allow arbitrary discrimination. There, you've been shown.

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

And if they are not- if the State cannot provide a rational basis for a legitimate government interest- why are they illegal?

I agree with you- they do have a rational basis- but if as Silhouette argues that there is no rational basis- why is she against them?

 

[Syriusly]

Loving v. Virginia does however explicitly cite the right to marry. Which is what Obergefell cited the Loving decision as doing.

Show us any ruling, any law, any court that recognizes the right to incest and the right to polygamy.

You can't. And 'poof'. There goes your entire argument.

So then polygamists can also now legally marry? .

No more than gays could legally marry after Loving v. Virginia- or for that matter- no more than you could marry your brother after Loving.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests".

We don't have to- if you don't think there is a 'legitimate government interest'- are you therefore in favor of incestuous marriage?

After all- you have told us that the most important thing for a child is to have their biological mother and father as their parent- so you must support incestuous marriage right?

 

[Syriusly]

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Well, I'm not a lawyer representing the cases in Tennessee...so technically you have a point..

You are not any lawyer and know jack shit about the law.

Which is why you believe gay marriage is still not legal.

 

[mdk]

Laws against incestuous marriage and bigamy are rationally related to legitimate government interests, thus they are not arbitrary.

Please delineate those "legitimate government interests". I know BTW what you will cite so think carefully before you reply. "Gay marriage" is the only one of the three 1. Bigamy 2. Incest and 3. Gay marriage...that deprives children of either a mother or father for life.

Your argument will be, logically and naturally, that "states objections to bigamy and incest are for the psychological and physical well being of the children they anticipate will be involved".. So you will pitch, hypocritically, that states SHOULD be allowed to regulate marriage on behalf of the children who might come to theoretical harm...just NOT in the case of gay marriage.. which of course violates the 14th Amendment's intent of blind equality...

...Checkmate...

Gays can marry in all 50 states and you can't do jack-shit about it.


...Checkmate...

Personally, I don't care

What I do care about is that our constitutional system operates as it is supposed to.

The way it's supposed to work, is that The Supreme Court can't make laws.

The law banned gays from marrying was made void meaning gays could now marry. No new law was made, just the striking down of unconstitutional one.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they ruled that ones state's law was unconstitutional.

That's the answer liberals always give. They ignore the 10th and would erase all State lines if they could.

Liberals prefer totalitarianism.

And by totalitarianism you mean not having the State tell consenting adults that they cannot marry.

Conservatives prefer 'freedom'- by which they mean having the State tell you who you can- or cannot marry- or have sex with.