Chief Justice Roberts is an activist judge, much like the other conservative justices on the court. Justice Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer provided adequate arguments without invoking their own personal religious beliefs unlike the justices that formed the dissenting opinion. And you'll notice that it was a DISSENTING opinion. Meaning that it was NOT the opinion of the majority of the court.

You, and Roberts both try to warp the constitution so as to fit your own personal world view. The constitution does not work like that.

But you don't get to do that. Not to deny people their human rights. You're no better than the arabs in the middle east you hate so much.

Seriously, take that remedial course. It'll do you a lot of good.

(July 17, 2018 at 9:20 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 5:55 pm)Cecelia Wrote: It's absolutely clear that SteveII has zero clue how the US constitution works.

Democratically, laws cannot be passed that go against the constitution.  I highly recommend taking a remedial course in US Government in order to correct your flawed understanding of the US constitution and the Supreme Court.  Banning Same Sex Marriage is a violation of the United States Constitution -- namely a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States.  Your lack of understanding does NOT mean that you get to go around calling people who disagree with you on court cases 'Judicial Activists".  The judicial activists on that court were the ones who sided with YOUR Side and against the constitution.  Wanting to allow laws that go against the constitution because it's in alignment with their personal beliefs.  We don't base laws in this country over a bunch of fairy tales written by neanderthals.  We base them on the US constitution.  Again, I highly recommend a remedial course in US Civics so that you can educate yourself.

Chief Justice Roberts disagrees with you:

In his dissent, Roberts argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided not by the courts but by the public process.
"Just who do you think we are?" Roberts asked, calling the majority's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment."
He implored his audience to "understand well" what his dissent is about.
"It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples," he said. "It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes under the law."
Note he refers to his brethren as "lawyers."
Roberts said that the Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
"The people of a state are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition," he said.
Roberts eviscerated his colleagues for "stealing this issue from the people" and in doing so "casting a cloud" over same-sex marriage.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/...index.html

One of the jobs of the courts is to determine how conflicting laws (state vs. federal; state vs. state) are to be understood and implemented, assuming they pass constitutional muster. States that had explicitly adopted statutes strictly defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only were host to legitimately, legally married same-sex couples who, for whatever reasons, had taken up residence there. One of the issues the court had to deal with was whether these marriages were to be honored in those states that had forbidden same-sex marriage by statute, or whether those couples were to be denied the rights and privileges they were entitled to under law. Such a question falls squarely under 14th Amendment considerations.

The issue wasn't stolen from the people. The issue was the result of democratic processes coming into conflict. It went to the highest court, and nine people were responsible for resolving the legal dispute. That's what courts do. Roberts understands that very well, his disingenuous dissent notwithstanding.

(July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am)Cecelia Wrote: Chief Justice Roberts is an activist judge, much like the other conservative justices on the court.  Justice Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer provided adequate arguments without invoking their own personal religious beliefs unlike the justices that formed the dissenting opinion.  And you'll notice that it was a DISSENTING opinion.  Meaning that it was NOT the opinion of the majority of the court.

You, and Roberts both try to warp the constitution so as to fit your own personal world view.  The constitution does not work like that.  

But you don't get to do that.  Not to deny people their human rights.  You're no better than the arabs in the middle east you hate so much.

Seriously, take that remedial course.  It'll do you a lot of good.

Funny that Steve appeals to an actual activist judge to criticize activist judges

(July 17, 2018 at 9:57 am)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 9:28 am)Cecelia Wrote: Chief Justice Roberts is an activist judge, much like the other conservative justices on the court.  Justice Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer provided adequate arguments without invoking their own personal religious beliefs unlike the justices that formed the dissenting opinion.  And you'll notice that it was a DISSENTING opinion.  Meaning that it was NOT the opinion of the majority of the court.

You, and Roberts both try to warp the constitution so as to fit your own personal world view.  The constitution does not work like that.  

But you don't get to do that.  Not to deny people their human rights.  You're no better than the arabs in the middle east you hate so much.

Seriously, take that remedial course.  It'll do you a lot of good.

Funny that Steve appeals to an actual activist judge to criticize activist judges

But *this* judge is activist the right way and the others are activists the wrong way! *snerk*

Quote:My argument is that instead of a democratic process, 5 people redefined a concept so old. Why do I care? Just the principle of the thing. Justice Roberts sums it up:

1. it's age means dick all stop using it as argument 

2.So no real argument just being pissy because things aren't the way you want it 

3.Roberts is an activist judge and democracy has nothing to do with anything .

(July 17, 2018 at 9:58 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 9:57 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Funny that Steve appeals to an actual activist judge to criticize activist judges

But *this* judge is activist the right way and the others are activists the wrong way! *snerk*

Jor nailed it in post #331.

(July 17, 2018 at 9:58 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 9:57 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Funny that Steve appeals to an actual activist judge to criticize activist judges

But *this* judge is activist the right way and the others are activists the wrong way! *snerk*

When they agree the objective and motivated when they don't there biased and we need mob rule to decided the fate of the minority .

I note in the Mormon world, in less than 200 years, the concept of marriage has been updated, redefined and changed numerous times.

Quote:Believing that marriage is a legal contract is foolish simplistic nonsense

Opinion 

Quote:It is an institution that is and has been foundational to human flourishing longer than history. 

And in the modern world it's a legal contract .How it was done before is of no consequence.And again you just say" it's really old so there ! "

Quote:The institution contains the concept of commitments, bonds, emotions, sex, family, children, extended family bonds, economics, and a host of other small nuances.

Yup which have changed and are not bond to one context sorry you don't like that .But it's still a legal contract .

(July 17, 2018 at 9:25 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 8:37 am)SteveII Wrote: No, your point was to weaken the concept of marriage defined as between a man and a women by bringing in historical references to homosexual relationships. My answer was to address that point. 

My argument is that instead of a democratic process, 5 people redefined a concept so old. Why do I care? Just the principle of the thing. Justice Roberts sums it up:

The USA is a constitutional republic, not a mob democracy. As the saying goes, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, the sheep loses. In the USA, minorities have rights that can't be easily voted away by the majority. To deprive someone of the opportunity to take part in an action freely allowed to others, it must be shown that barring them from doing so is allowed under the constitution or show a compelling interest in enforcing the restriction for such reasons as national security or because it would cause greater harm to the rights of other citizens. The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility to determine cases concerning these matters. I don't always agree with their decisions, and expect to disagree more in the near future, but if they make a wrong decision, it's not because it wasn't enough people deciding it. If Americans don't like the way the laws are interpreted, they have avenues to address that. New laws can be made that are more in line with the constitution. The constitution itself can be amended, if enough people agree with you that it should be. If you're so into the majority determining what's right and wrong, try that.

There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions. So, really nothing for the Supreme Court to comment on. I'm not going to go round and round with this. My position is the same as Justice Roberts. At the end of the article above:

Roberts ends the opinion on a high note, urging those in favor of same-sex marriage to celebrate the decision. He warns, however, "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."