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

[80zephyr]

Remember, the 14th says we can't discriminate now just because we think a behavior is icky!

Silhouette- are you in favor of polygamous marriages?

Are you in favor of incestuous marriages?

Who cares what we are in favor of? Equality is the goal here. That is what the gays championed. They seem happy with their own equality while letting everyone else be less than equal.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

Nope. Since marriage is now a federal issue, the states can't "make laws as they see fit".

Mark

Unequal protection under the law and due process are both federal issues. Just ask Virginia when they tried interracial marriage bans.

Smiling....remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

*Notices ^^ Syriusly didn't answer Zephyr's poignant questions..*

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

Tennessee reminds the Nation that ignorance, hate, and bigotry are alive and well – unfortunately.

And as a consequence it reminds the Nation that the Constitution and its case law are as much needed today as during any period of America's history.

No, as I read the brief synopsis of the cases, they are less about asking that gay marriage not be legal and more about asking the US Supreme Court to clarify what law on the books in Tennessee is to be used as a guideline for these brand new idea(s) of "marriage".

You didn't read a thing. As Tennessee hasn't filed any suit. A guy named Dave did. In County court. Tennessee didn't ask for any clarrification by the Supreme Court on any issue related to same sex marriage.

Anyone who had read a 'brief synopsis' would know that. Anyone who was making shit up as they went along wouldn't.

And you didn't.

My guess is that polygamy is going to get brought up; repeatedly. It will be interesting to see how the Judicial branch legislates or directs states to legislate new laws to accommodate any and all sexual-behaviors-as-identities that currently exist, and extend possibilities for those that could also exist in the future..

Remember, the 14th says we can't discriminate now just because we think a behavior is icky!

My guess is that Dave's newest iteration of the same lawsuit will go the way of the first one:

No where.

 

[Skylar]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized. How do you account for this vast, half century long discrepancy between what you assume must happen.....and what actually did?

Based on the SCOTUS ruling, how can any state rationally turn down a polygamous marriage?

Which state recognizes polygamy as legal?

 

[Skylar]

Oh and Jen and Zeph.....if you want incest marriage and polygamy....tell us why. Make your case.

Remembering of course that Obergefell mentions neither.

 

[TNHarley]

I will add that so many counties quit doing marriage licenses all together. Better than pulling that Kim Davis bullshit..
Luckily my father in law is friends with the mayor, and he wed my wife and I. Wanna know the kicker? He is gay lol.
He is in the closet, but dude is gay as shit.

It must make Tennessians proud that in order to prevent 'gay marriages'- they make it hard for all Tennessians to get married.

Courthouse shouldn't be doing marriage shit anyways
Like I said, at least they are doing it the right way. If you cant accept that, you are just as bigoted as they are.

 

[Silhouette]

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized.

So if incest had nothing to do with Loving and polygamy had nothing to do with Loving, what exactly does homosexuality have to do with Loving? For instance, when the SCOTUS tries to assert via Obergefell that "gay marriage is now legal", where on the books in Tennessee and many other states does it say "marriage can be between anyone now"? Why just gays? If you seek to limit the new description invisibly imposed upon the books, undermining thousands of years of understood purpose for the reason for licensing marriage in the first place (expectation of children/remedy for orphaned or single parent children), what gives ANY state the right to limit marriage between consenting adults after Obergefell used Loving (which was about race to qualify for existing man/woman marriage laws) to justify homosexuality, which matches no law and has no reference as protected in the US Constitution? (race does, specifically)??

How can you in the same breath argue "gay is legal" but "polygamy and incest are not" when each of those examples are marriage between consenting adults? Are you saying their isn't true "marriage equality"? And if so, there must be a vehicle for discernment. Who decides? You? 5 People on the High Court? That's why when I refer to Obergefell, I always include that the Court used the wrong interpretation of Loving and the 14th to advance "just some of their favorite" repugnant deviant sexual BEHAVIORS but not others.." It's to demonstrate that you cannot at once cite the 14th in the name of "marriage equality" while simultaneously arguing that "just some get it but not others"...

Which is why anyone who insists Obergefell is the "law of the land now" is at once and the same time insisting "polygamy and adult incest marriage are also the law of the land now". Tennessee is calling for clarification on these and other issues and it's going to be a very embarrassing day for those 5 Justices when these issues arrive in front of them...

 

[Syriusly]

I will add that so many counties quit doing marriage licenses all together. Better than pulling that Kim Davis bullshit..
Luckily my father in law is friends with the mayor, and he wed my wife and I. Wanna know the kicker? He is gay lol.
He is in the closet, but dude is gay as shit.

It must make Tennessians proud that in order to prevent 'gay marriages'- they make it hard for all Tennessians to get married.

Courthouse shouldn't be doing marriage shit anyways
Like I said, at least they are doing it the right way. If you cant accept that, you are just as bigoted as they are.

They are doing what the right way? Allowing marriages only to people who is friends with the mayor? LOL.

I don't really care how hard or inconvenient Tennessee makes it for its citizen's to get married- if Tennessee decides to make it so that everyone has to go to Georgia to get married- its okay with me.

 

[Syriusly]

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

Mark-where in Loving or Obergefell does the court define what marriage is?

By allowing same sex to marry.

Mark

Once again Mark shows his deep- deep- disregard for the inconvenient facts and his ignorance of the actual court cases.

 

[Syriusly]

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized.

So if incest had nothing to do with Loving and polygamy had nothing to do with Loving..

Silhouette- are you for incestuous marriages- or against incestuous marriages?

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, the 14th says we can't discriminate now just because we think a behavior is icky!

Silhouette- are you in favor of polygamous marriages?

Are you in favor of incestuous marriages?

Who cares what we are in favor of? Equality is the goal here. That is what the gays championed. They seem happy with their own equality while letting everyone else be less than equal.

Mark- do you think that Mildred and Richard Loving were 'happy with their own equality while letting everyone else be less than equal'?

Tell us Mark- what persons do you think are not being treated equally- and that you want to be able to legally marry

Incestuous couples?
Polygamous families?

Rather than you blaming gays on your unhappiness- tell us what the marriage utopia you dream of.

 

[80zephyr]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

Nope. Since marriage is now a federal issue, the states can't "make laws as they see fit".

Mark

Unequal protection under the law and due process are both federal issues. Just ask Virginia when they tried interracial marriage bans.

Smiling....remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And like I said, if what you stated is true, then every form of marriage has to be legal.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

They haven't in any case, SCOTUS cannot make any laws, they can only rule on cases and how laws are enacted

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized. How do you account for this vast, half century long discrepancy between what you assume must happen.....and what actually did?

Based on the SCOTUS ruling, how can any state rationally turn down a polygamous marriage?

Which state recognizes polygamy as legal?

You must be kidding.

Oh and Jen and Zeph.....if you want incest marriage and polygamy....tell us why. Make your case.

Remembering of course that Obergefell mentions neither.

What Obergefell DID MENTION was equality. Everything else is logic. Now, I admit, you and logic have never met, so I am sure that point will be lost on you.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized.

So if incest had nothing to do with Loving and polygamy had nothing to do with Loving..

Silhouette- are you for incestuous marriages- or against incestuous marriages?

What difference does it make? We are talking application of law here, not what someone believes.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

There is no 'clusterfuck'

Americans of either gender are getting married in all 50 states.

Working just fine.

Nope They have now opened themselves up to defining what marriage is. Any ruling that supersedes the states must include all rational questions as to who has the right to marry.

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized. How do you account for this vast, half century long discrepancy between what you assume must happen.....and what actually did?

Based on the SCOTUS ruling, how can any state rationally turn down a polygamous marriage?

Which state recognizes polygamy as legal?

You must be kidding.

Oh and Jen and Zeph.....if you want incest marriage and polygamy....tell us why. Make your case.

Remembering of course that Obergefell mentions neither.

What Obergefell DID MENTION was equality. Everything else is logic. Now, I admit, you and logic have never met, so I am sure that point will be lost on you.

Mark

As Skylar pointed out Obergefell didn't mention incest or polygamy- neither did Loving.

Now- are you in favor of legalizing incestuous marriage?

Or against it?

 

[Syriusly]

By that nonsense standard, they 'opened themselves up' in 1967 with the Loving Decision. As they overturned interracial marriage bans.

And yet predictably, neither incest marriage nor polygamy were legalized.

So if incest had nothing to do with Loving and polygamy had nothing to do with Loving..

Silhouette- are you for incestuous marriages- or against incestuous marriages?

What difference does it make? We are talking application of law here, not what someone believes.

Mark

I am asking for someone's opinion- and since you are here offering your opinion about everything else- why are you so coy about this?

Are you for legal incestuous marriage?

Or against legal incestuous marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

Nope. Since marriage is now a federal issue, the states can't "make laws as they see fit".

Mark

Unequal protection under the law and due process are both federal issues. Just ask Virginia when they tried interracial marriage bans.

Smiling....remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And like I said, if what you stated is true, then every form of marriage has to be legal.

Mark

Like Skylar said- you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

I think Tennessee is calling them out saying "hey, so tell us how we CAN or CANNOT write our marriage law, since "between one man and one woman" is no longer the limit. Please tell us what the limit is."

And, of course, when you take away the majority's ability to regulate licensing and create a precedent that "sexual behaviors are = race protections" you have to delineate which sexual behaviors? All of them? Just some? Is marriage limited only to two? And if so, why? Isn't polygamy a sexual orientation too? Etc.

The Court will have to clarify the mess for Tennessee (and all other 49 states).....annnnnndd...good luck with that one Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer! This could even be a prelude to some judicial impeachments by the time this thing gets to SCOTUS.

Yep. If the states can't say what marriage is, then petition the court to decide. They set themselves up for this clusterfuck.

Lol

Mark

This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

The states are at liberty to write marriage laws as they see fit – but the 14th Amendment requires them to allow all those eligible to enter into marriage contracts to indeed do so – including same-sex couples.

Nope. Since marriage is now a federal issue, the states can't "make laws as they see fit".

Mark

Unequal protection under the law and due process are both federal issues. Just ask Virginia when they tried interracial marriage bans.

Smiling....remember, you don't actually know what you're talking about.

And like I said, if what you stated is true, then every form of marriage has to be legal.

Mark

Says you, citing yourself. Yet in the 50 years or so since Loving v. Virginia when the Supreme court did *exactly* what you insisted they never had the authority to do....neither incest marriage nor polygamy became legal.

That's half a century of history contradicting your assumptions. And you citing the same hapless source that insisted that same sex marriage is still banned in Arkansas: yourself.

And you have no idea what you're talking about. See how that works?

 

[Silhouette]

I am asking for someone's opinion- and since you are here offering your opinion about everything else- why are you so coy about this?

Are you for legal incestuous marriage?

Or against legal incestuous marriage?

90% of people are not for stripping children legally of either a mother or father. That means when they sit and think about it, 90% of people are in fact against gay marriage. They just are afraid to talk about it.

What does it matter if a person agrees with incest or polygamy? They're already legal. And if you're saying they're not, you'd better cite the law that says a person can be discriminated against as to marriage because of a sexual orientation... Right? And if only some sexual orientations (which are still repugnant to the majority) are allowed to marry while others (also, just the same, repugnant to the majority) cannot? Please explain how this can be under "marriage equality" as to "sexual orientation" citing specific language from the 14th Amendment.

I won't be holding my breath because to answer that question using logic would be exceedingly difficult to do..

 

[mdk]

90% of people are not for stripping children legally of either a mother or father. That means when they sit and think about it, 90% of people are in fact against gay marriage. They just are afraid to talk about it.

Does this mean that 90% of the people voting in your poll are opposed to divorce as well? Nobody is afraid to talk about gay marriage on this forum. Stop playing the victim.