MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Anima]

  You need to read my last post again. I never stated that I have to run to the internet to shore up any particular argument. That was directed towards you. That being said, I freely admit that I am not a Constitutional law scholar nor have I ever pretended to be. I just don't accept that the ability to post various portions of the Constitution on a forum can be considered expertise. It simply isn't.
  You can argue all day as to whether all people are equal or not, but that really isn't the issue.  This case, to my understanding was about whether lesbians and gays are entitled to equal protection under the law. States rights and laws become a non-issue if  Constitutional rights are being violated.  I'm certain you'll disagree and post yet another lengthy argument, so have at. It doesn't change the fact that this matter has already been decides by justices who actually have true knowledge and insight into the Constitution. That's why they're sitting on the Supreme Court and you're posting shit online, pretending that you're a damn lawyer.

Umm... That is in fact the issue. Furthermore States rights may only be overridden by the Commerce or Supremacy clause. All the ruling has done is made it so any prohibition on gays or lesbians in marriage must pass strict scrutiny rather than rational basis scrutiny (feel free to look it up on the internet). So this matter has not already been decided today anymore than it was when the bans were democratically put in place barring gays and lesbians.

I did post much of Chief Justice John Roberts comments in the dissenting opinion (you know one of the people sitting on the Supreme court). Must of my legal statements are just explanation of his. But I do like your posting shit online argument and pretending. Since it appears many are posting shit and pretending they know what they are talking about (such as yourself) when they have NO FUCKING CLUE HOW THE LAW WORKS!!! That does not keep you from posting. So I with my wee bit more knowledge than you of how the law works shall continue.

[Ace]

So your argument is that the Supreme Court overstepped its limits?  That it misinterpreted the Constitution?  Read the 14th Amendment.

I was not trying to say anything about the ruling. I was only replying to Cato statement about the 9th amendment and how it comes into play with the 10th amendment in regards to marriage. Which he/she was talking about.  

Now your question:

Did the court over set its bounds? hell yes

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?  It is not so much marriage itself that I oppose. It is the fact that to democracy was taken way from the people. The people of the state's (better or for worse) had voted on the issue as they have a legal right to do so.

What is the down side to this? Is because if you take the peoples right to vote away from them on one issue what other issue will be denied for them to deiced on? Who is to say what the people can and cannot vote on? When do we start silencing the vote and when do we let it speak?

Because if any thing history has show is that if it was allowed to be done one time, it will been done again, and again, and ageing. Till when? when the people have no say? When we are no longer a democracy?

"The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." - Woodrow Wilson , 1912


'Empathy' is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash. -Karl Rove

[IanHulett]

Let's cut to the chase.



Thanks ignor

It's like a flying penis.

[Chas]

Fuck me, is this thread still going? Bigotry lost, equality won. Get the fuck over it and focus on the important issues of today.

Actually bigotry won.  As of yet all arguments in favor of same sex marriage are based on the fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, and appeal to pity.  None of which are logically sound.

So in short passion won and reason lost.  I think this is commonly referred to as bigotry winning.

Reason won - read the 14th Amendment.

[Chas]

Let's cut to the chase.



Thanks ignor

While I disagree with Lawrence V Texas personally (as I think the government should legislate certain conduct) I do not  disagree with the logic of the ruling by which icky bum sex is legally permissible.

If you don't like icky bum sex, don't have it.  If other people do, it's none of your fucking business.

[Chas]

So your argument is that the Supreme Court overstepped its limits?  That it misinterpreted the Constitution?  Read the 14th Amendment.

I was not trying to say anything about the ruling. I was only replying to Cato statement about the 9th amendment and how it comes into play with the 10th amendment in regards to marriage. Which he/she was talking about.  

Now your question:

Did the court over set its bounds? hell yes

Why are you opposed to gay marriage?  It is not so much marriage itself that I oppose. It is the fact that to democracy was taken way from the people. The people of the state's (better or for worse) had voted on the issue as they have a legal right to do so.

What is the down side to this? Is because if you take the peoples right to vote away from them on one  issue what other issue will be denied for them to deiced on? Who is to say what the people can and cannot vote on? When do we start silencing the vote and when do we let it speak?

Because if any thing history has show is that if it was allowed to be done one time, it will been done again, and again, and ageing. Till when? when the people have no say? When we are no longer a democracy?

"The history of liberty is a history of resistance. The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." - Woodrow Wilson , 1912


'Empathy' is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash. -Karl Rove

Go read the 14th Amendment because you don't seem to understand it.

And you must have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act since that was the federal government overstepping its bounds.

[Anima]

Actually bigotry won.  As of yet all arguments in favor of same sex marriage are based on the fallacies of false equivalency, appeal to novelty, and appeal to pity.  None of which are logically sound.

So in short passion won and reason lost.  I think this is commonly referred to as bigotry winning.

Reason won - read the 14th Amendment.

Ha ha. I have read the 14th Amendment. I have also read all of the cases associated with the case and studied constitutional interpretation. I assure you reason did not win.

When reading the majority opinion you may readily see the ruling is based upon pathos arguments of loneliness and dignity. The law is to be free of passion (pathos). Are we to say any law that leaves someone feeling lonely or undignified is in violation of the 14th Amendment (ready to open the prisons and let everyone out)? Of course not. That would be stupid!! Than what is with the special pleading? That is what they did here so why isn't it stupid?

[Anima]

Go read the 14th Amendment because you don't seem to understand it.

And you must have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act since that was the federal government overstepping its bounds.

Ace is pretty much spot on in regards to liberty under they 14th Amendment.

"The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. (for you Cato )

By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners argue that by enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in their State Constitutions through voter-approved amendments, the States have put the issue “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process.” Brief for Petitioners in No. 14–562, p. 54. But the result petitioners seek is far less democratic. They ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation. That a “bare majority” of this Court, ante, at 25, is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process.

this Court has previously commented, “The conclusion is . . . irresistible, that when the same phrase was employed in the Fourteenth Amendment [as was used in the Fifth Amendment], it was used in the same sense and with no greater extent.” And this Court’s earliest Fourteenth Amendment decisions appear to interpret the Clause as using “liberty” to mean freedom from physical restraint. In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 (1877), for example, the Court recognized the relationship between the two Due Process Clauses and Magna Carta, see id., at 123–124, and implicitly rejected the dissent’s argument that “‘liberty’” encompassed “something more . . . than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a prison,”" - Justice Thomas

[Ace]

Chas Wrote:

Go read the 14th Amendment because you don't seem to understand it.

And you must have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act since that was the federal government overstepping its bounds.


First off you asked me what was my reason/ view. wither it is legal or not is irrelevant. Its my damn opinion!!!  

Second.  Yes you are looking at the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment. However if you read it it actually grants the states right to discriminate its citizen i[i]f they can show that the have  a completing interest.

Third.  . . . Those who are under a protected class must be put up to the highest scrutiny when the state argues its position to discriminate. Protected class being Race, Sex, Religion, Disability and Age. I may be missing one.

4. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS!!!!! .   Even Justices Kennedy could not and did not give homosexuals a protected class statues because it is way to open as to who fall under the class[/i]  

[IanHulett]

Chas Wrote:

Go read the 14th Amendment because you don't seem to understand it.

And you must have opposed the Defense of Marriage Act since that was the federal government overstepping its bounds.


First off you asked me what was my reason/ view. wither it is legal or not is irrelevant. Its my damn opinion!!!  

Second.  Yes you are looking at the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment. However if you read it it actually grants the states right to discriminate its citizen i[i]f they can show that the have  a completing interest.

Third.  . . . Those who are under a protected class must be put up to the highest scrutiny when the state argues its position to discriminate. Protected class being Race, Sex, Religion, Disability and Age. I may be missing one.

4. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A PROTECTED CLASS!!!!! .   Even Justices Kennedy could not and did not give homosexuals a protected class statues because it is way to open as to who fall under the class[/i]  

I'm going to assume you're not a big fan of homosexuality. It sucks for you that you're stuck on this forum with a biromantic, gray ace(me) who enjoys the fact that I cannot be discriminated against based on my sexuality/romantic orientat... *cough* *cough* *cough* DAMMIT!!! I promised myself I wouldn't do that anymore!!! Agh!!! I'm sorry for gloating. It's kind of a reflex that I've been trying to break since marriage equality came into effect.