(Un)Justify Same Sex Marriage

Message boards : Politics : (Un)Justify Same Sex Marriage
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1696050 - Posted: 26 Jun 2015, 21:46:34 UTC

A couple of years have passed since the threads Justify Gay Marriage and Justify Gay Marriage II were hidden. In a post to the first I wrote:

While some may argue that as the above is explicitly about breaches of the 14th Amendment based on racial discrimination, it likely does not apply to same sex couples. To those that do, please read again the "due process" clause:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

source

and show, by reference to supporting documentation, how the same clause does not apply to same sex couples.


SCOTUS appears to agree:

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex ... The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. ... Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

source

Hopefully this thread won't become a flame fest like the previous ones and that posters here will do as Chief Justice Roberts suggests in his dissenting opinion:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1696050 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1696053 - Posted: 26 Jun 2015, 22:05:39 UTC - in response to Message 1696050.  

Hopefully this thread won't become a flame fest like the previous ones

We have been celebrating Thorsday for some time without flames, I doubt this topic will be much different unless agitators find it and descend.

And for once, someone has applied the meaning of the words as written, not some interpretation through the lens of the politics of the moment.
ID: 1696053 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1696144 - Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 6:04:34 UTC - in response to Message 1696128.  

Agree with SCOTUS Decision 100%.

Shocked that is was only a 5-4 Decision, and not 6-3, or more.

The interpretation of 'The Words', in the American Constitution: Have always changed with the evolution of our Society, Culture, and Norms.

Always has been. Always will be.

I was suprised about the vote also. 5-4 is not a mandate. I have not read the dissenting opinions yet, So I cant comment on why I think the vote was so close.

How ever I also agree with the decision. I know same sex couples of both genders. If they want to legally commmit to each other, Then they should be able to do so.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1696144 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1696198 - Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 10:16:20 UTC - in response to Message 1696050.  
Last modified: 27 Jun 2015, 10:17:51 UTC


source

Hopefully this thread won't become a flame fest like the previous ones and that posters here will do as Chief Justice Roberts suggests in his dissenting opinion:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.


bobby,

I think you left part of the above quote out... A rather important part.

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.


Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, lists several reasons why he, and his fellow dissenters, opposed the majority opinion. To me, chief among them is that the Court is assuming a legislative role in this case. Read his dissenting opinion for details.

Furthermore, my personal opinion is that in relying on the equal protecting clause of the 14th amendment the majority opinion is setting a dangerous precedent that could be applied to a host of other issues where different States have different laws.

The possibility exists that, using this ruling as a precedent, the same line of reasoning could be applied to overturn various State laws on a National basis that prohibit things like marijuana use or allow things like concealed handgun carry in States that do not already allow it. Hey, these few States have allowed this or that... So 'equal protection' mandates the Court to strike down all other States' laws that disallow it. I am not sure that those that are happy with THIS ruling would be equally happy with all the other rulings that could come about due to this ruling's precedent.

From what I know on this ruling's issue (same-sex marriage), it seems to me that the primary opposition to it is religious in nature.

In Europe, in the first century CE, in many places 'marriage' was seen as a private matter, requiring neither civil nor church 'blessings'.

Then, over the course of time, the Roman Catholic Church turned 'marriage' into a religious sacrament. Then, post-renaissance (with the rise of strong civil governments) and during the reformation (with its opposition to things Catholic), the civil governments got into the act wanting their hand in it too, in some places replacing totally church involvement. It swung back and forth, and finally ended up (in 1700s England) requiring both church and state involvement, and that is pretty much the state of affairs that the USA inherited.

Many people in the USA still see 'marriage' as primarily a religious item that has some State involvement, and THIS is the heart of their opposition.

One possible solution that would sidestep ALL of this religious objection would be, in my opinion, to take a page from some European nations, and extend it.

Instead of calling it 'marriage', call it something like 'civil union'. Only attach ALL 'benefits' of 'marriage' to these civil unions and the State (in its licenses) would issue civil union licenses to EVERYONE. Then, those that wish could undergo a religious rite of Marriage, as their particular churches would be willing. Some churches would be willing to marry homosexual couples, some wouldn't, but that wouldn't matter dicky-bird to the State, since under the law everyone would be treated the SAME as far as the State (laws) were concerned.

Get the word 'marriage' off of it (for EVERYONE), and I believe that much of the religious opposition to homosexual 'unions' would evaporate, since the crux of much of said opposition revolves around the State trying to shove something down the throats of these Religious people that, frankly DOES violate their religious doctrine (all these problems caused by adherents of various 'sky wizards' is getting a bit tiresome -- just don't call the state registration of couples the same thing that the religions call their religious rite and there shouldn't be any problems, hopefully... but then, since when are the religious very rational... its a depressing situation).

This is one situation where there NEEDS to be a much greater degree of Separation of Church and State than currently exists, in my opinion.
ID: 1696198 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1696206 - Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 11:47:52 UTC - in response to Message 1696198.  

The possibility exists that, using this ruling as a precedent, the same line of reasoning could be applied to overturn various State laws on a National basis that prohibit things like marijuana use or allow things like concealed handgun carry in States that do not already allow it. Hey, these few States have allowed this or that... So 'equal protection' mandates the Court to strike down all other States' laws that disallow it. I am not sure that those that are happy with THIS ruling would be equally happy with all the other rulings that could come about due to this ruling's precedent.

But isn't the equal protection thing based on the comparison to heterosexual marriage, rather than a comparison between state laws on homosexual marriage? So the argument wasn't that gay marriage should be allowed everywhere because some states have it already, but rather that gay marriage should be allowed because heterosexual marriage grants you federal benefits and by denying gay marriage these states essentially rob homosexual citizens of the benefits they would have if they had a straight marriage? Hence they aren't equally protected?
ID: 1696206 · Report as offensive
Profile Cliff Harding
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 99
Posts: 1432
Credit: 110,967,840
RAC: 67
United States
Message 1696212 - Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 12:36:08 UTC - in response to Message 1696198.  


source

Hopefully this thread won't become a flame fest like the previous ones and that posters here will do as Chief Justice Roberts suggests in his dissenting opinion:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.


bobby,

I think you left part of the above quote out... A rather important part.

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.


Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, lists several reasons why he, and his fellow dissenters, opposed the majority opinion. To me, chief among them is that the Court is assuming a legislative role in this case. Read his dissenting opinion for details.

Furthermore, my personal opinion is that in relying on the equal protecting clause of the 14th amendment the majority opinion is setting a dangerous precedent that could be applied to a host of other issues where different States have different laws.

The possibility exists that, using this ruling as a precedent, the same line of reasoning could be applied to overturn various State laws on a National basis that prohibit things like marijuana use or allow things like concealed handgun carry in States that do not already allow it. Hey, these few States have allowed this or that... So 'equal protection' mandates the Court to strike down all other States' laws that disallow it. I am not sure that those that are happy with THIS ruling would be equally happy with all the other rulings that could come about due to this ruling's precedent.

From what I know on this ruling's issue (same-sex marriage), it seems to me that the primary opposition to it is religious in nature.

In Europe, in the first century CE, in many places 'marriage' was seen as a private matter, requiring neither civil nor church 'blessings'.

Then, over the course of time, the Roman Catholic Church turned 'marriage' into a religious sacrament. Then, post-renaissance (with the rise of strong civil governments) and during the reformation (with its opposition to things Catholic), the civil governments got into the act wanting their hand in it too, in some places replacing totally church involvement. It swung back and forth, and finally ended up (in 1700s England) requiring both church and state involvement, and that is pretty much the state of affairs that the USA inherited.

Many people in the USA still see 'marriage' as primarily a religious item that has some State involvement, and THIS is the heart of their opposition.

One possible solution that would sidestep ALL of this religious objection would be, in my opinion, to take a page from some European nations, and extend it.

Instead of calling it 'marriage', call it something like 'civil union'. Only attach ALL 'benefits' of 'marriage' to these civil unions and the State (in its licenses) would issue civil union licenses to EVERYONE. Then, those that wish could undergo a religious rite of Marriage, as their particular churches would be willing. Some churches would be willing to marry homosexual couples, some wouldn't, but that wouldn't matter dicky-bird to the State, since under the law everyone would be treated the SAME as far as the State (laws) were concerned.

Get the word 'marriage' off of it (for EVERYONE), and I believe that much of the religious opposition to homosexual 'unions' would evaporate, since the crux of much of said opposition revolves around the State trying to shove something down the throats of these Religious people that, frankly DOES violate their religious doctrine (all these problems caused by adherents of various 'sky wizards' is getting a bit tiresome -- just don't call the state registration of couples the same thing that the religions call their religious rite and there shouldn't be any problems, hopefully... but then, since when are the religious very rational... its a depressing situation).

This is one situation where there NEEDS to be a much greater degree of Separation of Church and State than currently exists, in my opinion.


This sure sounds like the old separate but equal days to me.


I don't buy computers, I build them!!
ID: 1696212 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1696241 - Posted: 27 Jun 2015, 20:27:58 UTC - in response to Message 1696198.  
Last modified: 27 Jun 2015, 20:28:27 UTC

The possibility exists that, using this ruling as a precedent, the same line of reasoning could be applied to overturn various State laws on a National basis that prohibit things like marijuana use or allow things like concealed handgun carry in States that do not already allow it. Hey, these few States have allowed this or that... So 'equal protection' mandates the Court to strike down all other States' laws that disallow it. I am not sure that those that are happy with THIS ruling would be equally happy with all the other rulings that could come about due to this ruling's precedent.

The ruling had nothing to do with some states allow it and others don't. It had to do with all states allow some form, but not to everyone and 14 says you must allow to everyone. So if it was a concealed carry case, it would come down as mandatory issue. Marijuana would not be a 14th amendment case, but a commerce clause case.

As to the rest of your separate but equal thinking, wrong. If you want it that way, marriage by church cannot be recognized by the state, only civil union at the county court house will be recognized. Now you have your result, and have removed the separate but equal junk and preserved the First Amendment. Frankly, government should not recognize an action taken in a church by a preacher as that is in violation of the First! [Bigamy may need a rewrite too.]
ID: 1696241 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1696364 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 6:42:42 UTC - in response to Message 1696354.  

or even make make Wedding Cakes for a Gay Marriage.

Has been for some time .... The law was enacted in 1959!
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51. wrote:
51.

(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

ID: 1696364 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1696381 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 8:21:18 UTC - in response to Message 1696364.  

or even make make Wedding Cakes for a Gay Marriage.

Has been for some time .... The law was enacted in 1959!
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=51. wrote:
51.

(a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Thats not a Federal law, its a Californian state law. Sure, it works in California, but lets see how it works in some of the shall we say, less forward thinking states.
ID: 1696381 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1696483 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 16:10:44 UTC - in response to Message 1696241.  

The possibility exists that, using this ruling as a precedent, the same line of reasoning could be applied to overturn various State laws on a National basis that prohibit things like marijuana use or allow things like concealed handgun carry in States that do not already allow it. Hey, these few States have allowed this or that... So 'equal protection' mandates the Court to strike down all other States' laws that disallow it. I am not sure that those that are happy with THIS ruling would be equally happy with all the other rulings that could come about due to this ruling's precedent.

The ruling had nothing to do with some states allow it and others don't. It had to do with all states allow some form, but not to everyone and 14 says you must allow to everyone. So if it was a concealed carry case, it would come down as mandatory issue. Marijuana would not be a 14th amendment case, but a commerce clause case.



It had EVERYTHING to do with some States recognizing it and others not. If NO State recognized it, it would not be an issue. If ALL States recognized it, it would not be an issue.


As to the rest of your separate but equal thinking, wrong. If you want it that way, marriage by church cannot be recognized by the state, only civil union at the county court house will be recognized. Now you have your result, and have removed the separate but equal junk and preserved the First Amendment. Frankly, government should not recognize an action taken in a church by a preacher as that is in violation of the First! [Bigamy may need a rewrite too.]


Exactly! That was my entire point. The 'Civil Union' would give ALL of the Civil Benefits (taxes, property, inheritance, etc.). The Religious Rite of 'Marriage' would ONLY have meaning in the 'Faith Life' of those that underwent it. In Civil Society, the religious ceremony of 'Marriage' would not mean anything.

As you mentioned, the First Amendment needs to be respected... but maybe in a few more ways than you mean.

Your obvious meaning, the 'establishment of religion' clause... I totally agree. The government has no business giving any legal basis to religious ceremonies.

Perhaps a not-so-obvious meaning: The free exercise clause. The government has no business trying to force a particular religion to change its beliefs.

Another not-so-obvious 1st Amendment tie-in... Freedom of assembly, and its derived right: freedom of association.

To recap:

What I proposed has NO 'separate but equal', but instead is 'all are equal in the eyes of the law'. It also allows the various churches to decide for themselves who can (and can not) participate in their religious ceremonies, and preserves (even establishes) a separation between church and state on the matter at hand.
ID: 1696483 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1696500 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 17:24:41 UTC - in response to Message 1696483.  

It had EVERYTHING to do with some States recognizing it and others not. If NO State recognized it, it would not be an issue. If ALL States recognized it, it would not be an issue.

That is what some believe caused it to come before the court, but that was not the issue before the court. If it was the court could have simply ruled that you must recognize it when another state does it, but not forced you to also perform it. As the ruling was you must perform it, the issue before the court was one of individual rights, which the government must treat every individual equal.

What I proposed has NO 'separate but equal', but instead is 'all are equal in the eyes of the law'.

Perhaps you did not communicate what your thought as well as in this post, after I pointed it out. I took your original post to indicate that priests would still be able to perform a civil union. That would create a separate but equal situation where some officiants could refuse some ceremonies.

It also allows the various churches to decide for themselves who can (and can not) participate in their religious ceremonies, and preserves (even establishes) a separation between church and state on the matter at hand.

I really doubt that the churches would stand for having everyone run to the county clerk to elope. It would remove one of the few functions that forces people to flock to the church and they would see numbers of believers and attendance and $ drop. Well, maybe the FLDS might like it, then they could have their plural marriage back.
ID: 1696500 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1696554 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 20:12:38 UTC - in response to Message 1696544.  
Last modified: 28 Jun 2015, 20:18:16 UTC

This latest dictate from the SCOTUS is an exercise in unconstitutional power and about something that doesn't matter. They *didn't* legalize same-sex marriage in all states, they *forced* same-sex marriage on the states that don't want it.

No its not. The Supreme Courts sole job is to interpret laws and hold them against the constitution. If they feel that the law goes against the constitution, they have the power to declare the law unconstitutional and therefor scrap it. But they are the ONLY institution in the United States who have the power and authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not. So all this complaining that what the Supreme Court did is unconstitutional is complete bogus. Whatever the Supreme Court decides is automatically constitutional until if at some point the Supreme Court decides they got it wrong and reverse their decision.

It is true, they didn't legalize same sex marriage, they declared that same sex marriage is something that the constitution suggests and that any laws that prohibit it are therefor unconstitutional. And is that forced on the states that don't want it? Technically you can call it that, but do keep in mind that the constitution also contains a supremacy clause that clearly states that the Constitution and Federal Law are the law of the land and supersede State laws. Now in cases of Federal laws a state could try to go to the SCOTUS and claim the Federal law is unconstitutional, but as long as the court rules that the federal law is constitutional, that law supersedes.

Look at the front page of Drudge today. Looks like Greece is going to crash financially? Is anybody asking why Greece is about to crash financially? NO, we're too busy celebrating things that don't matter, like same-sex marriage being forced into the states that don't want it.

Even if you were deeply involved into European politics, the question is purely academic for Americans. There is nothing they can do about the situation in Greece. And in a period where the news is mostly gloom and doom, why not take the moment to celebrate that now thousands of people who wanted to get married but couldn't for decades are now finally allowed to get married? It is kind of a happy occasion.
ID: 1696554 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1696568 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 21:12:23 UTC - in response to Message 1696544.  

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_user.php?userid=7787259 wrote:
(you see? this is why I think the politics forum should be removed--bobby doesn't post for almost a year and then starts a new thread designed to inflame everybody here and then leaves.)

As a former Mod, you are entitled to that opinion.

As to the rest of your Rupert Murdoch's phantasmagorical opinion [faux] induced rant; it doesn't deserve an electron being disturbed in reply, but I will correct a date.

Oh, as to the date the US became a centralized power, in this case it was in the 1860's. Some republican idiot proposed an amendment that outlawed any person being treated different than any other person. That hated amendment stole millions of dollars in property from plantation owners and everything has been going to hell since then. I'm so glad to see you advocate a return to such a simpler time of WASP privilege. ;-)
ID: 1696568 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1696571 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 21:15:11 UTC

THANK GOD, Da GREAT GUY is BACK!!!

...
and accordingly all experience hath shOwn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


'bout Time.

Yep

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!
ID: 1696571 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11358
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1696573 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 21:26:50 UTC - in response to Message 1696571.  

THANK GOD, Da GREAT GUY is BACK!!!

Now he should resume crunching with that farm he assembled.
ID: 1696573 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1696586 - Posted: 28 Jun 2015, 22:29:30 UTC - in response to Message 1696544.  
Last modified: 28 Jun 2015, 22:36:13 UTC

(you see? this is why I think the politics forum should be removed--bobby doesn't post for almost a year and then starts a new thread designed to inflame everybody here and then leaves.)

Bah, yes, requesting people join in with the suggestion of the Chief Justice was designed to inflame everybody here, obviously that was my intent.

As for my posting history, there's 12 in the period Jun 26th 2014 to Jun 25th 2015 (the day before I started this thread). The count for you over the same period is 0.

Welcome back the guy with no name and a deleted posting history.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1696586 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1696606 - Posted: 29 Jun 2015, 1:00:59 UTC - in response to Message 1696554.  
Last modified: 29 Jun 2015, 1:02:02 UTC

This latest dictate from the SCOTUS is an exercise in unconstitutional power and about something that doesn't matter. They *didn't* legalize same-sex marriage in all states, they *forced* same-sex marriage on the states that don't want it.

No its not. The Supreme Courts sole job is to interpret laws and hold them against the constitution. If they feel that the law goes against the constitution, they have the power to declare the law unconstitutional and therefor scrap it. But they are the ONLY institution in the United States who have the power and authority to decide what is constitutional and what is not.
So all this complaining that what the Supreme Court did is unconstitutional is complete bogus. Whatever the Supreme Court decides is automatically constitutional until if at some point the Supreme Court decides they got it wrong and reverse their decision.


Uhh... No.

The Supreme Court of the United States was NOT granted that power by the Constitution. They declared on their own that that they have that power.

The case Hylton v. United States (1796) was the first case before them challanging the constitutionality of a specific Federal law.

The Case Marbury v. Madison (1803) was the first case where the Supreme Court actually declared a Federal law unconstitutional. In his opinion, Chief Justice Marshall declared that the Supreme Court had the authority to declare a law unconstitutional as a consequence of their oath of office mandated by the US Constitution in Article 6, namely:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.


Sorry, but that is a rather wimpy justification. If the oath of office to support the Constitution is the ONLY justification, then a GREAT MANY people have the authority to so declare a law unconstitutional. Even I have had to take that oath as a consequence of being appointed to a position in the Executive branch of the Texas State Government many years ago.

Well then, if not judicial review, what then *IS* the job of the US Supreme Court under the Constitution?

Article 3 deals with the Supreme Court:

(quote in full, with emphasis added)

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


So, the US Supreme Court was NOT given the explicit authority by the Constitution to decide if a law was Constitutional.

This is a murky gray area in the structure of the US Federal Government. No person or institution of the US Federal Government was given the explicit authority by the Constitution to decide these questions.

The US Supreme Court HAS other duties defined by the Constitution.

The US Supreme Court has this power because they, themselves say they have this power. While support for the Supreme Court having this power has been quite widespread, it has NOT been universal.

One opponent of note (Thomas Jefferson) wrote in 1820 the following:



You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.


As far as who might legitimately have this power, one must look at the Constitution. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution reserves all powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government to the States and the People.

Since the Constitution gives the State Governments SOLE authority to change the text of the Constitution, perhaps it makes sense that deciding the meaning of the text of the Constitution should also reside with the State Governments.

Perhaps there might be no better option than the US Supreme Court having the power to decide Constitutionality of laws, BUT in one respect Jefferson was indisputably right...

It leads to the despotism of an oligarchy.

And I find it very... interesting... that the SAME People that decry the Supreme Court having the power to decide these issues when they do NOT agree with the decision seem to have a joygasm of glee when they DO approve of the decision.

Hypocrites.
ID: 1696606 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1696618 - Posted: 29 Jun 2015, 2:03:50 UTC - in response to Message 1696606.  

And I find it very... interesting... that the SAME People that decry the Supreme Court having the power to decide these issues when they do NOT agree with the decision seem to have a joygasm of glee when they DO approve of the decision.

Hypocrites.

+1

It leads to the despotism of an oligarchy.
Like cabinet officers deciding what the law says and funding or not based on their interpretation. Or say 535 people out of 318+million.

Some oligarchy is a necessity. Some individual or group must make decisions. We can't have direct democracy for every decision. Can you imagine it for something simple like a building permit? All we ever would do is vote. That is why we have a representative form of government. You just don't like the way the 9 representatives are picked or their length of service.
ID: 1696618 · Report as offensive
Profile James Sotherden
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 10436
Credit: 110,373,059
RAC: 54
United States
Message 1696638 - Posted: 29 Jun 2015, 3:08:48 UTC - in response to Message 1696354.  

It has always been said that SCOTUS, will note (in their thinking - not written opinions) election and cultural changes.

It appears this Nation was ready, according to the polls.

Perhaps not a Great Majority, but a Majority, none the less.

Now the next fight:

Left Wingers attempting to have Muslims, or any other Believers accept/sanction Gay Marriage, or even make make Wedding Cakes for a Gay Marriage.

Christians may be easy. But try this with...

I read in my Sunday paper that all 16 republuican candidtates think the ruling was wrong. How stupid are they when 63% of Americans think its about time?
They really need to stop sucking at the dried out teat of the moral minority.
The same paper I read had an article about the GOP going after millenials. Yeah right. Im an old bastard and I find it hard to vote for the GOP. I am registerd as a republican. I find it my duty to vote in the primarys to keep the religious fanatics out.

From what Ive seen so far the rebups have handed the election to the dems. And I dont like them either.
[/quote]

Old James
ID: 1696638 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : (Un)Justify Same Sex Marriage


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.