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

[bucs90]

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes, a State can legally limit Civil Marriage to two people, even if a person religion says that they can multiple religious spouses.

The SCOTUS already ruled on that.


>>>>

How is that not religious discrimination?

 

[bucs90]

Yup. And he insists that Supreme Court rulings apply onto to the people mentioned in the suit or to the city or State they sued.

So apparently McDonald v. Chicago only applies to Chicago. Or perhaps, only to McDonald.

Its gonna be a bummer for all those Americans that thought they had a right to self defense with a firearm. But don't live in Chicago.

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, watch:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

And Obergefell didn't sue any other State. He sued the State he was a resident in.

Next fallacy.

Which means the ruling cannot, "extend", to any of, "The United States".

Not true. Once SCOTUS rules a states action lawful or unlawful...it applies to any other state that is partaking in that action/inaction. Countless examples of law enforcement related rulings.

 

[Debra K]

Ok. So in simple terms then....

What types of marriage ARE legal and which ARE NOT??? I'm 100% fine with gay marriage btw but I find the legislation aspect interesting.

We know:
Man and woman marriage is legal
Same sex marriage is legal

What else is or isnt....and where is the document or law stating it?

Two consenting adults regardless of gender that are not too closely related to one another can marry. That last part varies from state to state.

But....SCOTUS said the state cannot define marriage. So...how can it vary state by state if the states cannot define it??

That's not what the Supreme Court said. Here is the link to the Obergefell ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

After you read the case, come back and tell us what the Supreme Court really said.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How is that not religious discrimination?

A claim of religion Religion does not exempt one from laws of general applicability.

To quote a well known Conservative Justice that recently passed: "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."

And like the people who tried to claim that their religious views should allow them to discriminate against negros, they were lost because the laws were of general applicability.



NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC. | Leagle.com

>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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"...

Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.

But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?

For example...is polygamy now legal?

no. stupid question.

If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan

are you ******* kidding me?

....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".

Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????

absolutely not. again, stupid question.

And if it is

it isn't

...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.

okay...

polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.

Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes.

Because there is no law in place in any of the states authorizing persons to enter into a marriage contract written to accommodate two people only, pursuant to state contract law.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter in to a given state's marriage law – law unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

One's rights cannot be 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist, regardless his religious beliefs.

Last, bigamy is fraud because it violates the contract one enters into with the state, where in the context of that marriage law you're married to only one person; the fraud occurs when one lies and seeks to deceive the state when attempting to 'marry' a third person while already married to another.

 

[bucs90]

Personally I don't give a crap about homo marriage one way or another. Doesn't affect me. If Mitchell and Cam from Modern Family wanna be married go for it.

But as a legal issue I do find it interesting. SCOTUS basically legalized one form of marriage but didn't specify where the line stops. By saying the state cannot define marriage they indeed legalized the type in question (same sex) but didn't that open the door to ANY marriage so long as the parties involved call it marriage?

For example...is polygamy now legal?

no. stupid question.

If so....what's stopping a government employee from offering 10 different girls at a strip club a "marriage" so they can get on his government health insurance plan

are you ******* kidding me?

....and then reap the fun from it as they then have good benefits and he can legally pay them for anything he wants since they're his "wives".

Sounds absurd. But under the ruling...isn't it legal now????

absolutely not. again, stupid question.

And if it is

it isn't

...honestly...I'm fine with it. I for one think we need to stop trying health insurance to employment.

okay...

polygamy is illegal for all people. the sex of the parties involved does not matter, hence nobody is discriminated against.

Ok but what if polygamy is their religion? Then it's discriminating. Right?

Correct.

But polygamy isn't marriage, it's just living together, having nothing to do with same-sex couples seeking to marry, as the states can't criminalize people 'living in sin.'

Bigamy is another matter altogether – three or more people seeking to marry.

Laws prohibiting bigamy are Constitutional because bigamy is committing fraud upon the state, something the states are at liberty to regulate, and as such religion cannot be used to 'justify' violating valid laws or challenging their constitutionality in court.

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes.

Because there is no law in place in any of the states authorizing persons to enter into a marriage contract written to accommodate two people only, pursuant to state contract law.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter in to a given state's marriage law – law unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

One's rights cannot be 'violated' by being denied access to a law that doesn't exist, regardless his religious beliefs.

Last, bigamy is fraud because it violates the contract one enters into with the state, where in the context of that marriage law you're married to only one person; the fraud occurs when one lies and seeks to deceive the state when attempting to 'marry' a third person while already married to another.

Yes because the state defines it as 2 people. Being devils advocate...is that discriminatory against those whose religion believes a man can have many wives??

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

That's the 11th amendment that says that.

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, watch:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

And Obergefell didn't sue any other State. He sued the State he was a resident in.

Next fallacy.

Which means the ruling cannot, "extend", to any of, "The United States".

Not true. Once SCOTUS rules a states action lawful or unlawful...it applies to any other state that is partaking in that action/inaction. Countless examples of law enforcement related rulings.

I'm regard to the amendments, yes. So far, there is no amendment concerning marriage, just like there's no amendment giving you the right to vote, nor any amendment giving you the right to sell, or purchase alcohol.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Polygamy/Bigamy...same concept...and yeah I am referring to the marriage part.

How would it be fraud against the state? If a man loves two women and they all 3 want to be married...and it's part of their religion...can a state legally deny that?

Yes, a State can legally limit Civil Marriage to two people, even if a person religion says that they can multiple religious spouses.

The SCOTUS already ruled on that.


>>>>

How is that not religious discrimination?

It isn't.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

How is that not religious discrimination?

A claim of religion Religion does not exempt one from laws of general applicability.

To quote a well known Conservative Justice that recently passed: "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."

And like the people who tried to claim that their religious views should allow them to discriminate against negros, they were lost because the laws were of general applicability.



NEWMAN v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC. | Leagle.com

>>>>

So much for equal protection.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And they don't, they rule on it.

They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.

Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

They made law when they legalized gay marriage in all 50 States.

Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So much for equal protection.

Equal protection and special exemption - don't mean the same things.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. They ruled that state laws against it violated the Constitution.

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

Let's all know if you find the FAA there.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

So much for equal protection.

Equal protection and special exemption - don't mean the same things.


>>>>

Oh, here comes the double standard...lol

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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

Nope. Read the constitutional question that they were answering. It wasn't limited to a single state.

Seriously, Bill.....there's no super secret loophole that you suddenly discovered.

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Id. at 388 U. S. 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).

Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

Which amendment is that? I've never seen, "marriage", anywhere in the Constitution.

Let's all know if you find the FAA there.

Why did you leave out the Air Force this time?...lol

 

[Debra K]

And yet marriage equality will continue to be the reality in Tennessee as well as the other 49 states and there is nothing you bigots can do about it.

Hating the SIN of homosexuality isn't being a bigot.

If you believe something is a sin, don't do it. Apply your personal morals to your own life. The sexual practices of two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own bedroom, is none of your business nor the state's business. When people are motivated by animosity and seek to impose their morals on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws, that is bigotry. Lawrence v. Texas made it clear: Moral disapproval alone is not enough to justify state intrusion into private matters. There must exist a legitimate public interest and purpose to justify state regulation. That is the core of due process.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Show me where marriage exists in The Constitution.

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So......where does the constitution say a right has to be enumerated in the constitution to exist?

Bill?

If The Constitution doesn't give the Federal government a power, that means, they don't have that power.

The issue has nothing to do with 'Federal powers.'

The issue concerns the fact that the states are subject to the Constitution and its case law, including 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

This was a matter between private citizens and their states, where their states of residence sought to deny them their right to due process and equal protection of the law, in violation of the 14th Amendment, where the Amendment and its case law are binding on the states.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It doesn't, equality does.

Ah, so SCOTUS can't rule on marriage laws. Gotcha sport.

Sure it can. That's it's job, the last stop to figure out whether a law is Constitutional or not? Just because the FAA and toaster ovens aren't in the Constitution doesn't mean the SC can't rule on them.

Too bad for you, The Constitution says you're wrong:


"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

No, the Constitution says you're wrong:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

The Constitution can't be changed via legislation...LMAO

You said it yourself, marriage isn't in the Constitution. Now you just fucked yourself.