RE: "Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham
July 17, 2018 at 9:33 am
(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.
