Ammo Against Gay Marriage...A Brief Essay

  • Thread starter Thread starter teeboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teeboy

Guest
The Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to all cases in law and equity. Equity can be defined as: “an appeal to the conscience”. In my very strong opinion, the only time an appeal to the conscience can be made by a Supreme Court Judge is when there exists no law on the books to apply to a set of facts. The 14th amendment further prevents the state government from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law; now, many rights and privileges are restricted by law. If a law restricts a right and privilege, such as gay marriage, how can a Supreme Court Judge appeal to his conscience? My answer is that he can’t.

A Supreme Court Judge cannot determine what is a just law and what is not a just law by way of his conscience. He can only overturn a law based on other laws.
 
The courts in America have been a problem now for centuries. Thomas Jefferson railed against the high court as early as 1803.

In the past 15 years, that court has decided a presidential election and evidently what marriage is and isn’t, among other things.

The court has also essentially used to break government gridlock, and that is not it’s purpose. :nope:

The gay “marriage” movement is making the same argument of “it’s the law” that slave owners used to use back in the day.

As far as the conscience goes, we pretty much know in many cases how 8/9 of the judges will lean.
 
My lack of patience is showing again. I made a mistake in the op. Here it is corrected.

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to all cases in law and equity. Equity can be defined as: “an appeal to the conscience”. In my very strong opinion, the only time an appeal to the conscience can be made by a Supreme Court Judge is when there exists no law on the books to apply to a set of facts or to law. The 14th amendment further prevents the state government from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law; now, many rights and privileges are restricted by law. If a law restricts a right and privilege, such as gay marriage, how can a Supreme Court Judge appeal to his conscience? My answer is that he can’t.

A Supreme Court Judge cannot determine what is a just law and what is not a just law by way of his conscience. He can only overturn a law based on other laws.
 
Justice Kennedy did not just grant gay marriage based on his conscience. He did so based on the 14 amendment that protects equal liberty. Yes, the concept of who participates in said liberty has evolved over time and it is the job the Supreme Court to recognize said concept. If it did evolve, the only ones who would be free would be white christian property owning males . Clearly, most of us would not fit under the equal protection clause or due process clause if that were the case. It is clear that homosexual unions that harm no one much be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
 
lileli said:
…It is clear that homosexual unions that harm no one much be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside the validity or otherwise of your premise, approximately half of your Supreme Court judges concluded the U.S. constitution did not make SSM a right.
 
Rau said:
Leaving aside the validity or otherwise of your premise, approximately half of your Supreme Court judges concluded the U.S. constitution did not make SSM a right.
Click to expand...
Less than half. 45%.
 
lileli said:
Considering it is a republican court, I would say it is rather amazing.
Click to expand...
I can’t comment on the political leanings of the judges, but the majority conclusion is certainly amazing! It also occurs to me that with 9 judges, it is not possible to get closer to “half” than 4 out of 9. 😉
 
teeboy said:
If a law restricts a right and privilege, such as gay marriage, how can a Supreme Court Judge appeal to his conscience? My answer is that he can’t.
Click to expand...
Except enacting the right for a homosexual person to contract a civil marriage to another homosexual person of the same gender is not restricting a right or a privilege, it is equalising it. Nobody loses any rights or privileges that they do not currently enjoy.
 
DexUK said:
Except enacting the right for a homosexual person to contract a civil marriage to another homosexual person of the same gender is not restricting a right or a privilege, it is equalising it. Nobody loses any rights or privileges that they do not currently enjoy.
Click to expand...
It grants a right. The question is: who should grant that right, and on what basis?
 
DexUK said:
Except enacting the right for a homosexual person to contract a civil marriage to another homosexual person of the same gender is not restricting a right or a privilege, it is equalising it. Nobody loses any rights or privileges that they do not currently enjoy.
Click to expand...
Your argument presumes that the Judicial Branch has the power to enact. Yet, it does not have any right to enact anything. Enactment is the power of the Legislative. And here we are discussing State Laws which were enacted by state legislatures which are now defunct because of a Judicial that decided to call them unconstitutional when in fact nothing in the constitution prevents the legislature from prohibiting ssm.

This is so simple and fundamental that it is hilarious that anyone would disagree with the four dissenting judges.
 
Here in Louisiana we have a constitutional ammendment supporting prohibition of ssm passed by how many legislators and our governor? And now five people can overturn that?
 
Teeboy- look up Brown vs Board of Ed and you will see that the SCOTUS has made decisions that block state laws many times. At the time of Brown, there were still many Jim Crow laws on the books that vast numbers of people agreed with, but that did not make them right. The Equal Protection Clause is there for a very just reason. :rolleyes:
 
teeboy said:
Here in Louisiana we have a constitutional ammendment supporting prohibition of ssm passed by how many legislators and our governor? And now five people can overturn that?
Click to expand...
Yes. If the State constitution is found to violate the Federal one.

Remember, the USA is not a theocracy. Regardless of how many adherents any religion may have, one religion’s adherents may not restrict the rights of another’s (or none’s). Whether or not you like equal civil marriage is irrelevant.
 
DexUK said:
…Regardless of how many adherents any religion may have, one religion’s adherents may not restrict the rights of another’s (or none’s). Whether or not you like equal civil marriage is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
For me, “equal” is not the right word. And “same sex” and “marriage” are essentially a contradiction in terms.

But never mind. I guess you establish in your post the reason why the US is going to have to allow polygamy.
 
Rau said:
For me, “equal” is not the right word. And “same sex” and “marriage” are essentially a contradiction in terms.

But never mind. I guess you establish in your post the reason why the US is going to have to allow polygamy.
Click to expand...
How, pray, have I done that?

Marriage relates to two people. Legislatively it would be almost impossible to allow the benefits, rights and responsibilities of married partners to apply to more than two people. Allowing marriage between two people of the same gender does not require anything existing to be ripped up - it simply takes gender out of the equation. Adding an extra person into it then breaks all the laws that provide entitlements - welfare, inheritance, tenancy, etc. It’s simply not something that the Court can rule on. Politicians could, if they so chose, but the sheer volume of work would be an insurmountable obstacle. So you need not worry your mind about that possibility. It simply won’t happen.
 
DexUK said:
How, pray, have I done that?

Marriage relates to two people. Legislatively it would be almost impossible to allow the benefits, rights and responsibilities of married partners to apply to more than two people. Allowing marriage between two people of the same gender does not require anything existing to be ripped up - it simply takes gender out of the equation. Adding an extra person into it then breaks all the laws that provide entitlements - welfare, inheritance, tenancy, etc. It’s simply not something that the Court can rule on. Politicians could, if they so chose, but the sheer volume of work would be an insurmountable obstacle. So you need not worry your mind about that possibility. It simply won’t happen.
Click to expand...
And in this post, you attempt a defence of the “discriminatory approach” to marriage adopted in the U.S. and not meeting the needs of many people with a different religious practice.

Since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is dubious the court should have ruled, as 4 judges concluded.

That something is easily achieved does not speak to merit or sense.
 
Rau said:
And in this post, you attempt a defence of the “discriminatory approach” to marriage adopted in the U.S. and not meeting the needs of many people with a different religious practice.

Since marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, it is dubious the court should have ruled, as 4 judges concluded.

That something is easily achieved does not speak to merit or sense.
Click to expand...
Rather than telling me what I may or may not have written (I should know, I wrote it) how about answering the question? Why do you think that the ruling that two people of the same gender may contract a civil marriage should somehow automatically lead to legalising polygamy?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top