SCOTUS- Gay Marriage

[BLADEMDA]

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://ww.theblaze.com/stories/2015...scalias-blistering-same-sex-marriage-dissent/

Scalia's dissent is based on the notion that SCOTUS should not be deciding this issue; he believes the voters or Legislators should be making the decision and not 9 unelected Justices.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.

"By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds," he writes.

Like his conservative colleagues, Alito worries that the Court is overstepping its power, making sweeping legal changes for every state in the country. He concludes on a warning.

"Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims," Alito writes. "Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed. "

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[aneftp]

Lawyers win again (divorce attorneys are high five ing each cause they get more business).

Honestly love how this will play out in divorce courts where some states like Colorado heavily favor women in divorces even when the woman is the higher bread winner.

Let's see how divorce courts handle it.

 

[deleted126335]

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

― Martin Luther King Jr.

 

[Precedex]

Let's see how divorce courts handle it.

How would you even gauge that? How do you even gauge that objectively with M/F divorce?

 

[aneftp]

How would you even gauge that? How do you even gauge that objectively with M/F divorce?

How would you even gauge that? How do you even gauge that objectively with M/F divorce?

courts go by precedent.

Family court laws in Colorado traditionally has favored the woman especially in child custody battles and child support regardless of who is the bread winner or not. Aka husband can be stay at home parent while woman works and work still ends up with the child. Husband told by judge to get job and no alimony. But tables turned around if woman stay at home with child. Woman gets alimony plus child and child support.

Let's see how the state courts handle divorce especially with kids in Colorado between two women and two men. Each with non biological adopted kids (or even biologically one spouse's child).

It will get messy.

 

[bashwell]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/06/26/12-must-read-quotes-from-scalias-blistering-same-sex-marriage-dissent/

Scalia's dissent is based on the notion that SCOTUS should not be deciding this issue; he believes the voters or Legislators should be making the decision and not 9 unelected Justices.

Here's another quote:

Whatever you believe about the policy for abortion or for gay rights, the idea that the Court should decree that it's a Constitutional right, something that had been hidden in the Constitution for over 100 years and that nobody had ever discerned, is simply a way of saying that it has been removed from the democratic arena. It can no longer be debated. All the laws are canceled and we are now in a new place. Ironically, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's on the Court today, once said before she ascended to the Court that the abortion decision [Roe v. Wade] had prevented a stable social settlement of the abortion issue that was headed in the reform direction because it took it out of the political arena. That's exactly what happened today on gay marriage. Whatever you think about the policy, it is a huge loss for a democracy. [source]

The most significant issue here isn't same-sex marriage, per se. The most significant issue is circumventing the Constitution and the democratic process. The most significant issue is the top-down judicial mandate. That's what should be most disconcerting. The Supreme Court's decision threatens to erode our Constitutional form of government.

Unfortunately, this has turned into a conservative vs. liberal debate, or a red state vs. blue state debate. But what it should be about is a fight for our form of government. And this fight is occurring across various venues, on various levels, and not just with SSM. But also with healthcare (the ACA/Obamacare) with a war against physicians, tensions between law enforcement and civilians, etc.

 

[deleted126335]

Here's another quote:

The most significant issue here isn't same-sex marriage, per se. The most significant issue is circumventing the Constitution and the democratic process. The most significant issue is the top-down judicial mandate. That's what should be most disconcerting. The Supreme Court's decision threatens to erode our Constitutional form of government.

Unfortunately, this has turned into a conservative vs. liberal debate, or a red state vs. blue state debate. But what it should be about is a fight for our form of government. And this fight is occurring across various venues, on various levels, and not just with SSM. But also with healthcare (the ACA/Obamacare) with a war against physicians, tensions between law enforcement and civilians, etc.

Ninth Amendment - The Text
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment - The Meaning
The Ninth Amendment is a constitutional safety net intended to make clear that individuals have other fundamental rights, in addition to those listed in the First through Eighth Amendments. Some of the framers had raised concerns that because it was impossible to list every fundamental right, it would be dangerous to list just some of them (for example, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and so forth), for fear of suggesting that the list was complete.

This group of framers opposed a bill of rights entirely and favored a more general declaration of fundamental rights. But others, including many state representatives, had refused to ratify the Constitution without a more specific list of protections, so the First Congress added the Ninth Amendment as a compromise.

Because the rights protected by the Ninth Amendment are not specified, they are referred to as “unenumerated.” The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You're not sure when it happened, but all of a sudden, Bruce Jenner is a woman, marriage is for two men, and Rachel Dolezal is black.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...lag-is-a-symbol-of-Americas-culture-wars.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“

Yes folks, there is a standing right called the Second Amendment, which grants the right to keep and bear arms, and that specifically granted right shall not be infringed. So, the SCOTUS does not need to have a court case and prolonged legal, judicial activism — that right exists.

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeeha...y-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/

 

[pgg]

Let's see how the state courts handle divorce especially with kids in Colorado between two women and two men. Each with non biological adopted kids (or even biologically one spouse's child).

It will get messy.

Isn't divorce always messy?

But I don't understand why you're wringing your hands about this particular issue. If anything, gay divorce would be simpler. There's no man to discriminate against if two women divorce, and if two men divorce, then golly, I guess the courts will have to fall back on reason and consideration of the circumstances to decide who gets what.

And if it's messy ... so what? Not my problem. Not yours, either. So why the concern?

 

[urge]

How would you even gauge that? How do you even gauge that objectively with M/F divorce?

Honestly love how this will play out in divorce courts where some states like Colorado heavily favor women in divorces even when the woman is the higher bread winner.

All they ask is "who is the little spoon?"

It's not that hard.

 

[urge]

Now that the majority has ruled in favor of gay marriage, Alito offers a stark warning about future conflict between religious liberty and progressive ideas.

"By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas. Recalling the harsh treatment of gays and lesbians in the past, some may think that turnabout is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds," he writes.

Like his conservative colleagues, Alito worries that the Court is overstepping its power, making sweeping legal changes for every state in the country. He concludes on a warning.

"Even enthusiastic supporters of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope of the power that today's majority claims," Alito writes. "Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed. "

Same sex marriage marginalizes the bible thumper next door?

Do you agree? Tell me how.

 

[Planktonmd]

WTF!!!!
Grow up and stop worrying about who sleeps with whom, and quit acting like God's representative on earth!
If you can't handle the idea that people are not always what your mommy told you then it's time for you to learn!

 

[BLADEMDA]

WTF!!!!
Grow up and stop worrying about who sleeps with whom, and quit acting like God's representative on earth!
If you can't handle the idea that people are not always what your mommy told you then it's time for you to learn!

This thread is about judicial over-reach into our society and not just the issue of gay marriage. The Irish decided the issue via a VOTE but we are forced to accept the decree by an unelected group of lawyers in a close 5-4 decision.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/i...endum-count-begins-after-high-turnout-n363666

 

[FollowTheMoney]

I'm happy for the LGBT community, however, I don't believe they should impose themselves on the rest of society or force particular churches to marry them if the religious institutions don't feel comfortable doing so. I think everyone's freedoms should be respected equally.

 

[urge]

This thread is about judicial over-reach into our society and not just the issue of gay marriage. The Irish decided the issue via a VOTE but we are forced to accept the decree by an unelected group of lawyers in a close 5-4 decision.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/i...endum-count-begins-after-high-turnout-n363666

Your ultimate question is should there be 9 judges in the Supreme Court or should the all citizens BE the Supreme Court?

The latter would be more elegant. Perhaps we will get there in our life time.

 

[deleted171991]

Your ultimate question is should there be 9 judges in the Supreme Court or should the all citizens BE the Supreme Court?

The latter would be more elegant. Perhaps we will get there in our life time.

It's called a referendum.

 

[urge]

It's called a referendum.

That implies that the Supreme Court stays as is and you get to vote whenever they feel like.

My view is that anything that goes to the Supreme Court is automatically handled by all citizens since there would be no supreme court judges.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Your ultimate question is should there be 9 judges in the Supreme Court or should the all citizens BE the Supreme Court?

The latter would be more elegant. Perhaps we will get there in our life time.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of the supreme court, or what it's creation was intended for.

 

[urge]

I'm happy for the LGBT community, however, I don't believe they should impose themselves on the rest of society or force particular churches to marry them if the religious institutions don't feel comfortable doing so. I think everyone's freedoms should be respected equally.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of the supreme court, or what it's creation was intended for.

I'm not sure you are the best person illustrate me on this subject since your earlier post showed crude misunderstanding of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

 

[bashwell]

WTF!!!!
Grow up and stop worrying about who sleeps with whom, and quit acting like God's representative on earth!
If you can't handle the idea that people are not always what your mommy told you then it's time for you to learn!

This is the sort of attitude I find disturbing because it's ultimately an attempt to silence reasoned debate.

Contrary to appearances, perhaps, the position is not a neutral position. Instead, what lies behind the position is the presupposition that opinions about "who sleeps with whom" and so forth should be private opinions, not public opinions. It's an attitude which attempts to confine debate over sexual ethics and morality to the private sphere. Yet why shouldn't a free society publicly debate the ethical and moral dimensions of sexual behavior?

In short, "stop worrying about who sleeps with whom" is in fact just as much an assertion for a particular position as "worrying about who sleeps with whom" is. But if the "worrying about who sleeps with whom" position is dismissed out of hand in this manner by the "stop worrying about who sleeps with whom" position, then one side is attempting to silence the other side before reasoned debate can occur. Ironically, this attitude is "acting like God's representative on earth."

In addition, I realize you're being sarcastic, but the problem is you're not only sarcastically dismissing the "worrying about who sleeps with whom" side, but you're likewise sarcastically dismissing mothers who haven't taught their children what you allege they have.

 

[chessknt]

I am glad some people here share my concern. Even before reading Scalia's dissent my immediate thought was to how the SCOTUS has the ability to make such a broad declaration. The political climate is so polarized and shallow that anyone raising alarm over thius is immediately labeled a religious zealot or a bigot. I don't even understand how the justices, who are supposed to be impartial, even have political parties to begin with and vote along them. If they can interpret the 9th amendment to apply to something that wasn't even remotely considered at the time it was written, then what was the point of abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote? Just because Congress is ineffective and polarized doesn't mean the SCOTUS can bypass it to make the laws they think the nation wants.

The stark difference in ideologies in this nation coupled with the ever-increasing reach of the federal government would have sparked a civil war in any country less affluent than ours by now. Just food for thought.

 

[vector2]

Yet why shouldn't a free society publicly debate the ethical and moral dimensions of sexual behavior?

The answer to this should be obvious to you in the context of a free society. I'm all for debating the ethical and moral dimensions of sexual behavior in the context of philosophers, scientists, and sociologists doing research in academic institutions and sharing their findings so we can all have lively discussions. What I'm not for is the private behavior of two consenting adults being up for debate among politicians/legislators who have no business offering their opinions on the matter in the first place. Your argument would be a little less disingenuous if there were actually one single case in the history of mankind where "let's publicly (legislatively) decide what's 'normal' sexual behavior" resulted in a society that was more free after pen was put to paper.

If they can interpret the 9th amendment to apply to something that wasn't even remotely considered at the time it was written, then what was the point of abolishing slavery or giving women the right to vote?

By this logic, does the 2nd amendment become null and void because the men who wrote about well regulated militias bearing arms couldn't conceivably have envisioned something as badass as this ever existing? The constitution is a living document. Get used to it.

 

[chessknt]

By this logic, does the 2nd amendment become null and void because the men who wrote about well regulated militias bearing arms couldn't conceivably have envisioned something as badass as this ever existing? The constitution is a living document. Get used to it."

To an extent yes. There is also a process to amend it that uses democracy and doesnt raise the specter of federal govt crushing state rights or circumventing legislation. Just because it doesnt work well right now doesnt mean we should bypass it by ceding authority to the non-legislative bodies.

 

[vector2]

To an extent yes. There is also a process to amend it that uses democracy and doesnt raise the specter of federal govt crushing state rights or circumventing legislation. Just because it doesnt work well right now doesnt mean we should bypass it by ceding authority to the non-legislative bodies.

Oh my, those poor states' rights being crushed by the big, bad feds...I weep for them. Lemme ask ya, do you hold this same opinion of judicial oversight in regard to the 1967 overturning of a Virginia anti-miscegenation law which had been on the state's books for over 40 years? Maybe we should have just respected states' rights, denied millions of people the right to marry the person they loved, and waited another 20 years for the voters of Virginia and other states to come to their senses once all the bigots of a prior generation finally died off.

 

[deleted126335]

This country was founded on freedom. What is more basic than the freedom to spend your life with and marry who you choose? Where are freedom loving, small government, libertarian type republicans? Or do you only want government just small enough to fit in the bedroom?

 

[BLADEMDA]

This country was founded on freedom. What is more basic than the freedom to spend your life with and marry who you choose? Where are freedom loving, small government, libertarian type republicans? Or do you only want government just small enough to fit in the bedroom?

Public Sentiment was beginning to shift towards Marriage Equality for Gays. I posted "polls" to show that opinion on this issue was not static and over the past 5 years the public supported passing laws permitting gay marriage. Many support "legal unions" between same sex couples but wanted "marriage" upheld as between a Man and a Woman. This distinction could have satisfied both sides of the debate by giving the benefits of marriage to same sex couples without calling the union a marriage. Personal behavior should be left up to the individual but public policy (like marriage with all its benefits and legal issues) should be decided by the people or their representatives.

Justice Scalia:

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

 

[BLADEMDA]

This country was founded on freedom. What is more basic than the freedom to spend your life with and marry who you choose? Where are freedom loving, small government, libertarian type republicans? Or do you only want government just small enough to fit in the bedroom?

“The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment.’ These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.”

Justice Scalia

 

[vector2]

Don't worry blade, there are still a ton of states (including FL) which still have no laws barring LGBT discrimination in regard to employment and housing, so even if they can get married, at least you'll still be able to find some place where you won't be forced to interact with those godless perverts on a daily basis.

But seriously though, is there a single person who believes in the separate but equal argument vis a vis civil unions vs marriage who isn't a religious zealot or a bigot? For all intents and purposes, marriage is a secular concept in public policy since DOMA was overturned- hence the reason the state doesn't have any sort of religious ceremony requirement in order for a man and a woman to obtain a marriage license.

 

[deleted50478]

It's funny that there is SO much beating around the bush and talking about everything other than the real issue. This is a 1st Amendment issue. The majority in some states want to impose their religious definition of marriage on everyone else and it was, rightly, shot down.
The majority should NOT rule when they fail to respect the rights of the minority.

Sure the 9th and 14th are relevant but people's opinions on the issue, on the 'traditional marriage' side at least are decided by religion. (Period)

 

[BLADEMDA]

It's funny that there is SO much beating around the bush and talking about everything other than the real issue. This is a 1st Amendment issue. The majority in some states want to impose their religious definition of marriage on everyone else and it was, rightly, shot down.
The majority should NOT rule when they fail to respect the rights of the minority.

Sure the 9th and 14th are relevant but people's opinions on the issue, on the 'traditional marriage' side at least are decided by religion. (Period)

We may disagree here (I'm not sure exactly) but the Gay Marriage issue was NOT a First Amendment issue.


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Don't worry blade, there are still a ton of states (including FL) which still have no laws barring LGBT discrimination in regard to employment and housing, so even if they can get married, at least you'll still be able to find some place where you won't be forced to interact with those godless perverts on a daily basis.

But seriously though, is there a single person who believes in the separate but equal argument vis a vis civil unions vs marriage who isn't a religious zealot or a bigot? For all intents and purposes, marriage is a secular concept in public policy since DOMA was overturned- hence the reason the state doesn't have any sort of religious ceremony requirement in order for a man and a woman to obtain a marriage license.

Really? Everyone who thinks Civil Unions as opposed to "Marriage" for Gay Couples is a Bigot? Terminology is very important to "Traditionalists" when it comes to marriage. Civil Unions afford all legal rights of a married couple without the word marriage in it. But, as you have posted this issue has been decided by a 5-4 majority of the SCOTUS. It's time to move on.

 

[deleted50478]

We may disagree here (I'm not sure exactly) but the Gay Marriage issue was NOT a First Amendment issue.


The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

It definately wasn't argued as a first amendment issue. I just think that's what it comes down to at the end of the day.

 

[bashwell]

The answer to this should be obvious to you in the context of a free society. I'm all for debating the ethical and moral dimensions of sexual behavior in the context of philosophers, scientists, and sociologists doing research in academic institutions and sharing their findings so we can all have lively discussions.

I'm afraid this a false dichotomy. "[P]hilosophers, scientists, and sociologists," and a number of others likewise happen to be members of a free society. And some politicians, legislators, and the like have a scientific, research, or other relevant background. You can't simply hermetically seal the matter.

Not to mention data and arguments from "philosophers, scientists, and sociologists" are often cited and used by politicians and legislators (among others).

What I'm not for is the private behavior of two consenting adults being up for debate among politicians/legislators who have no business offering their opinions on the matter in the first place.

This painfully misses the point. The point is it cuts both ways. What you say could just as easily be reversed. Indeed, the "private behavior of two consenting adults" is already "up for debate among politicians/legislators" given much of the LGBT community and others have put it up for debate. But I don't fault them for that. In fact, I find it entirely reasonable.

Your argument would be a little less disingenuous if there were actually one single case in the history of mankind where "let's publicly (legislatively) decide what's 'normal' sexual behavior" resulted in a society that was more free after pen was put to paper.

It's unfortunate you resort to ad hominem. I've said nothing which indicates or implies I'm being "disingenuous." If (ad arguendo) I'm mistaken, then it's possible I'm honestly mistaken. That's not being "disingenuous."

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, the context isn't "the history of mankind" but rather the contemporary United States.

But seriously though, is there a single person who believes in the separate but equal argument vis a vis civil unions vs marriage who isn't a religious zealot or a bigot?

Nice poisoning the well.

Given comments like this, it looks like you're an unreasonable person. It's probably futile to try to reason with an unreasonable person.

 

[bashwell]

This country was founded on freedom. What is more basic than the freedom to spend your life with and marry who you choose? Where are freedom loving, small government, libertarian type republicans? Or do you only want government just small enough to fit in the bedroom?

The real debate isn't whether one agrees or disagrees with gay marriage. In fact, let's table gay marriage. Say this isn't a debate over gay marriage. Say instead this is a debate over midlevels and physicians. (Or any number of other contentious issues people want to come up with.) Say the Supreme Court decided to make midlevels equivalent to physicians in all 50 states. Say it's now legal for midlevels like CRNAs to be able to practice independently and autonomously in all 50 states. Say CRNAs = MDAs in all significant respects. Some physicians may welcome this, other physicians may not. Regardless, the question is, is the Supreme Court justified in making such a ruling in the first place? I think that's the real crux of the matter.

As for your argument, let's tweak it a bit. Someone else could just as easily say: This country was founded on freedom. What is more basic than the freedom to pursue happiness in whatever way makes me most happy? What makes me most happy is skinning puppies and kittens. Why is society trying to limit or curtail my freedom to skin puppies and kittens?

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

Justice Scalia:

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.”
“The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

Is this a boiler plate message that Scalia puts at the end of all his dissents? Would he have written this in the majority decision if he had won?

I don't disagree in principle with what he is saying, but the timing of using it here is questionable and makes it seem like sour grapes.

 

[chessknt]

I still have yet to see an explanation as to why the supreme court can now do what used to take constitutional amendments to do. Surely this exact same argument could have been applied to women or 18 y/os voting, yet we have amendments for those. It seems that people don't like Congress anymore and are happy to let the judicial branch (by far the least representative of the three branches) do their job instead which is a serious erosion of the function of government in this country. Just because the outcome was in sync with your beliefs does not make the means irrelevant. I definitely see this as a Pyrrhic victory for the US as a whole and I support equal rights for gays.

 

[deleted50478]

I still have yet to see an explanation as to why the supreme court can now do what used to take constitutional amendments to do. Surely this exact same argument could have been applied to women or 18 y/os voting, yet we have amendments for those. It seems that people don't like Congress anymore and are happy to let the judicial branch (by far the least representative of the three branches) do their job instead which is a serious erosion of the function of government in this country. Just because the outcome was in sync with your beliefs does not make the means irrelevant. I definitely see this as a Pyrrhic victory for the US as a whole and I support equal rights for gays.

An amendment would be nice if it could have passed. What line of the constitution needed to be amended to allow gay marriage?

So if the majority of Americans are religious and want to maintain the religious sacrament definition of marriage, not only for themselves but to impose it on others, what then? Are the majority allowed to abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?

 

[pgg]

That implies that the Supreme Court stays as is and you get to vote whenever they feel like.

My view is that anything that goes to the Supreme Court is automatically handled by all citizens since there would be no supreme court judges.

So, mob rule then? Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner plans? The reason we are a republic, the reason we have a legislature and a Supreme Court in the first place, is to avoid that. The mechanism for "all citizens" to get involved is to elect legislators to pass the laws they want, and to convince them to amend the Constitution if those laws get struck down by the Court. But ain't nobody got time for that, I guess.

Justices are APPOINTED to serve for LIFE for a very specific reason. They're supposed to add some inertia to the system, to slow down the ability of the government to make sweeping long-lasting changes because of transient fads of public opinion, and to guarantee that the Constitutional rights of minorities aren't trampled by the majority. An equipotent 1/3 of the federal government, unconcerned with the need to win re-election, ideally free from political pressure and special interest money.

There would seem to be to be reasonable 9th and 14th Amendment arguments that some legal joining of two gay people ought to be recognized nationwide, and this case would seem to embody exactly what we have SCOTUS for and what we want them to do: guarantee that the rights of a minority group aren't infringed.

Maybe most people (on both sides) would've been satisfied with a legislature-created compromise to make nationally-recognized "civil unions" between any two humans and leave the "marriage" term to churches. Maybe SCOTUS should've given the state legislatures more time to get there.

And maybe SCOTUS should've denied cert to Brown v Board of Education and given the states more time to "get there" on integrating schools.

But at some point when a group's Constitutional rights are being infringed by a state, it's time for SCOTUS to step in. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[deleted50478]

You may have all seen this. It's not a legal argument but is true and peripherally related to the topic at hand.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/06/26/s-e-cupp-tears-up-same-sex-marriage-ruling-sot.cnn

 

[vector2]

I'm afraid this a false dichotomy. "[P]hilosophers, scientists, and sociologists," and a number of others likewise happen to be members of a free society. And some politicians, legislators, and the like have a scientific, research, or other relevant background. You can't simply hermetically seal the matter.

Not to mention data and arguments from "philosophers, scientists, and sociologists" are often cited and used by politicians and legislators (among others).

Uh, actually the dichotomy between debate among academics and debate in a legislature (which could ultimately lead to a law infringing upon constitutional rights) very much exists. It has nothing to do with the qualifications of a legislature, but rather the scope of matters they're discussing. The social context of what legislators debate at both the state and federal levels has changed drastically precisely because of needed judicial activism, and there are now innumerable matters which are still contentious in academic circles but essentially inarguable among lawmakers because of constitutional precedent. State legislatures "had no business" drafting anti-miscegenation laws because they were blatantly in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, but yet they eventually had to be smacked in the face by SCOTUS to make this apparent.

This painfully misses the point. The point is it cuts both ways. What you say could just as easily be reversed. Indeed, the "private behavior of two consenting adults" is already "up for debate among politicians/legislators" given much of the LGBT community and others have put it up for debate. But I don't fault them for that. In fact, I find it entirely reasonable.

Jesus, your extremely literal reading of my words is what's painful. It's obviously being debated. But you're mistaken in saying that the LGBT community and others were the ones who put it up for debate. The only reason gay marriage was ever up for debate is because zealots and bigots at the state and federal levels effectively banned it in the first place. And I'll ask you a similar question to the one I posed to others: Do you think it would be reasonable for a legislator who was opposed to interracial marriage to keep the "debate" alive because Freedom?

It's unfortunate you resort to ad hominem. I've said nothing which indicates or implies I'm being "disingenuous." If (ad arguendo) I'm mistaken, then it's possible I'm honestly mistaken. That's not being "disingenuous."

I don't think it's possible you're honestly mistaken. Not when you use strawmen like "What makes me most happy is skinning puppies and kittens. Why is society trying to limit or curtail my freedom to skin puppies and kittens?"

Also, at the risk of stating the obvious, the context isn't "the history of mankind" but rather the contemporary United States.

Are you always this obtuse? I was being hyperbolic ffs. But it's good to know you'd rather be pedantic than actually deny the factuality of my assertion about legislating sex

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

The States with these "separate but equal" laws were denying the minority "equal" treatment due to race. The Constitution specifically addressed this issue after the Civil War. The Schools and other public facilities were not even close to being equal in the South prior to the SCOTUS decision.

 

[BLADEMDA]

The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution,[1] adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing theReconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire populace, including the former slaves and their descendants.

The Thirteenth Amendment (proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery.[2] The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the privileges and immunities clause, applicable to all citizens, and the due process and equal protection clauses applicable to all persons.[3] The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870) prohibits discrimination in voting rights of citizens on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[4] This amendment did not include a specific prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex; it took another amendment—the Nineteenth, ratified in 1920—to prohibit such discrimination explicitly.[5]Men and women of all races, regardless of prior slavery, could vote in some states of the early United States, such as New Jersey, provided that they could meet other requirements, such as property ownership.

These amendments were intended to guarantee freedom to former slaves and to establish and prevent discrimination in civil rights to former slaves and all citizens of the United States. The promise of these amendments was eroded by state laws and federal court decisions over the course of the 19th century. Women were prohibited by some state constitutions and laws from voting, leading to Susan B. Anthonyattempting to vote in New York in the 1872 Presidential election as an act of civil disobedience. In 1876 and later, some states passed Jim Crow laws that limited the rights of African-Americans. Important Supreme Court decisions that undermined these amendments were the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, which prevented rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment's privileges or immunities clause from being extended to rights under state law; and Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 which originated the phrase "separate but equal" and gave federal approval to Jim Crow laws. The full benefits of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were not realized until the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

[BLADEMDA]

So, mob rule then? Two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner plans? The reason we are a republic, the reason we have a legislature and a Supreme Court in the first place, is to avoid that. The mechanism for "all citizens" to get involved is to elect legislators to pass the laws they want, and to convince them to amend the Constitution if those laws get struck down by the Court. But ain't nobody got time for that, I guess.

Justices are APPOINTED to serve for LIFE for a very specific reason. They're supposed to add some inertia to the system, to slow down the ability of the government to make sweeping long-lasting changes because of transient fads of public opinion, and to guarantee that the Constitutional rights of minorities aren't trampled by the majority. An equipotent 1/3 of the federal government, unconcerned with the need to win re-election, ideally free from political pressure and special interest money.

There would seem to be to be reasonable 9th and 14th Amendment arguments that some legal joining of two gay people ought to be recognized nationwide, and this case would seem to embody exactly what we have SCOTUS for and what we want them to do: guarantee that the rights of a minority group aren't infringed.

Maybe most people (on both sides) would've been satisfied with a legislature-created compromise to make nationally-recognized "civil unions" between any two humans and leave the "marriage" term to churches. Maybe SCOTUS should've given the state legislatures more time to get there.

And maybe SCOTUS should've denied cert to Brown v Board of Education and given the states more time to "get there" on integrating schools.

But at some point when a group's Constitutional rights are being infringed by a state, it's time for SCOTUS to step in. Justice delayed is justice denied.

SCOTUS was the reason the "Jim Crow" laws existed in the first place. Brown vs the Board of Education was righting a wrong created by a previous court in Plessy vs Ferguson. The Amendments passed post Civil War were specifically created to give Black Americans EQUALITY under the law in all areas of American Life. SCOTUS had an obligation to enforce those amendments in the 1896 case (Plessy vs Ferguson) but instead turned its back on racial equality.