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

[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.

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.

I support gay marriage 100%. Gay marriage bans are a classic example of big government intrusion in our private lives.

You see, that's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

 

[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.

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.

The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

That's what I've been saying all along...lol

The Supreme Court can ONLY say that a law is constitutional, or unconstitutional. Period. (a real period, not an Obama period)

 

[80zephyr]

..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.

The government passing or upholding an illegal law is illegal, even if at the time it is not recognized as such.

Our rights in the Constitution are considered God given. If the government chose to take one of those rights away, it would be an illegal law.

Mark

 

[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.

I support gay marriage 100%. Gay marriage bans are a classic example of big government intrusion in our private lives.

You see, that's the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

So you and I both believe in gay marriage.

And because of that, I 'prefer totalitarianism'- and you 'prefer tolerance'

 

[80zephyr]

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?

You and I see it differently. Marriage is a state issue, therefore they have overstepped their authority and the states have every right to fight it.

And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.

Mark

 

[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.

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.

The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.

Not technically true (the Supreme Court ruled regarding 3 state's laws) but the principle applies to all State laws- just as the Supreme Court only overturned one State law against mixed race marriages- but it effectively overturned all such similar state laws.

 

[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.

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.

The government passing or upholding an illegal law is illegal, even if at the time it is not recognized as such.

Our rights in the Constitution are considered God given. If the government chose to take one of those rights away, it would be an illegal law.

Mark

And who would say which law is an illegal law?

So you believe that slavery was illegal for the entire history of the United States....and that women always had the right to vote.....etc...etc.

 

[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.

The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.

They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.

 

[80zephyr]

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)?

That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.

A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.

Mark

 

[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?

You and I see it differently. Marriage is a state issue, therefore they have overstepped their authority and the states have every right to fight it.
k

So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.

 

[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)?

That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.

A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.

Mark

No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.

 

[80zephyr]

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.

The government passing or upholding an illegal law is illegal, even if at the time it is not recognized as such.

Our rights in the Constitution are considered God given. If the government chose to take one of those rights away, it would be an illegal law.

Mark

And who would say which law is an illegal law?

So you believe that slavery was illegal for the entire history of the United States....and that women always had the right to vote.....etc...etc.

Yes, logically if the Constitution were to be followed, those were also illegal laws. The ONLY REASON the SCOTUS exists is to make sure that any law that is passed comports to the Constitution and is legal.

That they fail to do so does not change the fact that they let stand an illegal law.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

More:

The lawsuits...

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?

You and I see it differently. Marriage is a state issue, therefore they have overstepped their authority and the states have every right to fight it.
k

So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.

Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.

Mark

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

The Supreme Court only voided one law, in one state.

They voided every gay marriage ban in every state. The Brown decision didn't invalidate only Kansas' laws concerning school segregation.

No, it didn't. The Supreme Court can't make law 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?

And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.

No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.

If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)

But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)

 

[80zephyr]

More:

The lawsuits...

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)?

That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.

A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.

Mark

No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.

I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs. There are no "rules" in nature. Man applies the rules based on his own morality to define a civilization. We set the rules based on our own definitions of what we think are right.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

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:

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:

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?

You and I see it differently. Marriage is a state issue, therefore they have overstepped their authority and the states have every right to fight it.
k

So you think that mixed race marriages were still illegal after Loving v. Virginia.

Nope. They got that one right. Race does not determine marriage, gender does. What they(finally) did was to overturn an illegal law.

Mark

Ah so we have the court of Mark deciding what is an illegal law- not the Supreme Court.

Why should the Court of Mark have precedence over the Supreme Court?

 

[Syriusly]

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)?

That is the point. You(and society) are using your moral compass to disqualify an activity pursued by others based on your condition of "consent". And we all realize that "consent" is also a moral construct dreamed up by those who want to draw their own line in the sand.
Consent is nothing more than an agreed upon age that society can live with. One day you can drink at 18, and the next you have to be 21.

A society that sets the age of consent based on its moral code is a society of bigots.

Mark

No- a person who tries to rationalize why child rape is just a 'moral construct' is just a person rationalizing why rape is okay.

I am using the exact argument that you use against anyone would dislikes gay marriage. And yes, child rape, murder, arson, etc., are all laws based on moral constructs.k

No you aren't- and that you cannot tell the difference between child rape- and the marriage of two consenting adults- is rather frightening.

 

[80zephyr]

More:

The lawsuits...

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?

And yes, the federal government could raid every marijuana shop in Colorado. They won't though, because the left doesn't want them to. Now, they certainly would invade a state that denies gay marriage because the left would want them to.

No- no one would 'invade' a state in either case.

If the DEA and the FBI started arresting marijuana growers and shop owners in Colorado and Oregon and Washington- local and state police would not interfere. Possibly State governments would go to court arguing that the Federal government was overstepping its boundaries- which the states would probably lose(Federal Drug laws are a real stretch of the Commerce clause)

But if for instance, Alabama refused to conduct 'gay marriage, the Supreme Court would intervene and issue a court order requiring the States to follow the Constitution- and if the States agent refused to comply- they would be arrested for contempt of court (see Kim Davis)

Yes, Davis is a good example. When a state stands up for its "rights" concerning illegals and pot, the liberals get their way.

And when a state stands up for its "rights" concerning marriage, the left gets their way again.

Mark