Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bibcat said:
Point is, a vigorous, outspoken, militant, and politically active (within tax law constraints) Roman Catholic church, allied with evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant denominations, might have:

A. Encouraged federal courts to rule the other way on the matter
B. Encouraged enough American people to lobby Congress for a man-woman marriage amendment to the Constitution
C. Made enforcement of the 6/26 decision impossible
D. All of the above

Instead the Church behaved in a milquetoast fashion. Odd, because, if scripture means anything, the Almighty takes far more displeasure in homosexuality than He does abortion!
Click to expand...
, And that is pertinent to the morality same-sex marriage because?
 
KSU said:
The Constitution says that the power to define marriage (or how to eat kumquats or catch stray dogs, etc.) is as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people”. Tenth Amendment , 1791.

In short, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.

Accordingly, because the Constitution neither delegates the power to define marriage to the United States (i.e., the three branches of the federal government) nor prohibits such power to the states, the power to do so is reserved to the states or people. The Supreme Court has no such power.

That’s just one reason why the minority dissents expressed shock and outrage that five Justices would simply ignore the Constitution so brazenly. As I said in #682, the majority opinion was hardly a brilliant legal brief. It was Per, just as was the Court’s earlier transformation of murder into a constitutional right of a mother to kill all her unborn children, including partially born children.

Both of those court findings are dangerous legal absurdities, and all nine Justices know it. Dangerous because it could cause a Constitutional crises resulting in the breakdown of order. Just how far can the people be pushed? I pray that we don’t have to find out.

But, if the next legal absurdity is the Court’s attempted removal of our constitutional and God-given right to the free exercise of religion (especially regarding the innocence of our children in school), the Left will reap the whirlwind. That’s why the Left hates and fears the so-called Religious Right.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you suggest the majority opinion is, “sophomoric; based on ideology, not law?”
 
bibcat said:
Instead the Church behaved in a milquetoast fashion. Odd, because, if scripture means anything, the Almighty takes far more displeasure in homosexuality than He does abortion!
Click to expand...
Actually murder is listed alongside sodomy as a sin that cries out to heaven. So Scripture holds them as both very grave.
 
bibcat said:
Most of here already know it’s immoral. The only point is why the Church didn’t try very hard to stop it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yep. Couldn’t even be bothered with organizing anything for the actual decision being released.
 
Tomdstone said:
Because the state ordered a recount of ballots and the SCOTUS blocked it, thus overturning the following clause: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people”. Tenth Amendment , 1791.
Click to expand...
In non-legalese, four Democrats in Florida’s seven-justice State Supreme Court shamelessly attempted to steal the Federal election from Bush despite a closely related earlier ruling of the US Supreme Court. It already had been certified by Florida’s state election authorities that Bush got the most votes in Florida (later confirmed by an independent recount by the media, hardly a supporter of Bush), but that wasn’t good enough for the aforesaid Democrat justices. What a surprise; Democrats ignoring the law.

Bush v. Gore involved Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 (“Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors”), and an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties, as well as a violation of Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

So, because the US Supreme Court had constitutional jurisdiction, it was perfectly within its right and duty to rule on the matter. Your attempted application of the Tenth Amendment as though it was a bar to the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore is exactly 180 degrees wrong.
 
JimG said:
For myself, I think that the four dissenting justices do a pretty good job of formulating the ideological basis of the majority opinion.

But here is another critique:

The incoherent, dangerous formulations of Justice Kennedy.
Click to expand...
Well, the dissents certainly make for far more interesting reading than the link. No offense to Mr. Shaw, but there is certainly nothing nuanced about his critique. In fact, this seems to be the standard cookie cutter argument, which ultimately is based in a “tradition” argument.

I personally have grown rather weary of the argument myself, which is based in a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment. While tradition is certainly an important consideration in a judicial evaluation of rights not enumerated in the Constitution, these deliberations often fail to acknowledge that the 14th Amendment has never been bounded by tradition. It would be meaningless if not permitted to address traditions that are pernicious in nature. Brown v. Board of Education would not exist. Loving v. Virginia would not exist.

In fact, if you look at Thomas’s dissent, he certainly seems to acknowledge this by addressing the Loving v. Virginia and attempting to draw a distinction with Obergefell…one that ultimately fails in my opinion.
 
KSU said:
In non-legalese, four Democrats in Florida’s seven-justice State Supreme Court shamelessly attempted to steal the Federal election from Bush despite a closely related earlier ruling of the US Supreme Court. It already had been certified by Florida’s state election authorities that Bush got the most votes in Florida (later confirmed by an independent recount by the media, hardly a supporter of Bush), but that wasn’t good enough for the aforesaid Democrat justices. What a surprise; Democrats ignoring the law.

Bush v. Gore involved Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 (“Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors”), and an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties, as well as a violation of Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

So, because the US Supreme Court had constitutional jurisdiction, it was perfectly within its right and duty to rule on the matter. Your attempted application of the Tenth Amendment as though it was a bar to the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore is exactly 180 degrees wrong.
Click to expand...
Yep. The Democrats in Florida were trying to selectively recount in Democrat-heavy counties (and ONLY in Democrat-heavy counties) to steal the election. They were changing the method of counting on the fly however it would benefit them most. The Florida Supreme Court brought permanent shame and dishonor to themselves and the court when they allowed this travesty which was in COMPLETE defiance of state law.

The US Supreme Court stepped in, because this was a federal election, and put a stop to it and said they must abide by Florida law on the matter.

And that’s the point. The US Supreme Court didn’t actually decide the winner. They said the State of Florida had to abide by state law regarding the election. And Democrats got upset because they lost the election, fair and square.
 
bibcat said:
Most of here already know it’s immoral. The only point is why the Church didn’t try very hard to stop it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I know it is apparently immoral but that does not mean I think it is. I Know I’m not the only one in the world that thinks that way either.
 
SavannahGal said:
Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you suggest the majority opinion is, “sophomoric; based on ideology, not law?”
Click to expand...
The following is a factual summary of the dissents which you choose to ignore:

Fact: The Constitution, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, leaves the question of whether States should recognize same-sex marriage up to the people of each State.

Fact: To prevent the Court from interpreting “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a sophomoric manner–a manner that would override the rest of the Constitution and allow the Court to impose its personal vision of liberty upon the American people-- the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition."

Fact: The right to same-sex marriage in not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." That is because, for millennia, society has held that marriage is inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.

Fact: Five Justices ignored decades of Court restraint on the abuse of its authority, and interpreted the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to encompasses a right to same-sex marriage, thereby usurping the right of the States under the Tenth Amendment-- a deep corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.The Court now deems itself a national judicial legislature in defiance of constitutional law.

Sophomoric: intellectually pretentious, overconfident, exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment. From now on, SavannahGal, dictionaries should add: See majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
 
KSU said:
The following is a factual summary of the dissents which you choose to ignore:

Fact: The Constitution, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, leaves the question of whether States should recognize same-sex marriage up to the people of each State.

Fact: To prevent the Court from interpreting “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a sophomoric manner–a manner that would override the rest of the Constitution and allow the Court to impose its personal vision of liberty upon the American people-- the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition."

Fact: The right to same-sex marriage in not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." That is because, for millennia, society has held that marriage is inextricably linked to the one thing that only an opposite-sex couple can do: procreate. States formalize and promote marriage, unlike other fulfilling human relationships, in order to encourage potentially procreative conduct to take place within a lasting unit that has long been thought to provide the best atmosphere for raising children.

Fact: Five Justices ignored decades of Court restraint on the abuse of its authority, and interpreted the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to encompasses a right to same-sex marriage, thereby usurping the right of the States under the Tenth Amendment-- a deep corruption of our legal culture’s conception of constitutional interpretation.The Court now deems itself a national judicial legislature in defiance of constitutional law.

Sophomoric: intellectually pretentious, overconfident, exhibiting great immaturity and lack of judgment. From now on, SavannahGal, dictionaries should add: See majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Click to expand...
:clapping: May I quote you KSU?
 
KSU said:
In non-legalese, four Democrats in Florida’s seven-justice State Supreme Court shamelessly attempted to steal the Federal election from Bush despite a closely related earlier ruling of the US Supreme Court. It already had been certified by Florida’s state election authorities that Bush got the most votes in Florida (later confirmed by an independent recount by the media, hardly a supporter of Bush), but that wasn’t good enough for the aforesaid Democrat justices. What a surprise; Democrats ignoring the law.

Bush v. Gore involved Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 (“Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors”), and an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties, as well as a violation of Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution by the Florida Supreme Court by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

So, because the US Supreme Court had constitutional jurisdiction, it was perfectly within its right and duty to rule on the matter. Your attempted application of the Tenth Amendment as though it was a bar to the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore is exactly 180 degrees wrong.
Click to expand...
I understand that Sen. Ted Cruz was asked about this election when he was on the Chris Matthews show, Cruz asked Matthews; “how many recounts were there?” Matthews answered 4, that’s how many I understand it to be. So, in other words, it sounded like they wanted to have as many recounts as were necessary to change the result.
 
Here is the first paragraph of Justice Alito’s dissent:

“Until the federal courts intervened, the American people were engaged in a debate about whether their States should recognize same-sex marriage. The question in these cases, however, is not what States should do about same-sex marriage but whether the Constitution answers that question for them. It does not. The Constitution leaves that question to be decided by the people of each State.”

Of course, the fact that the Constitution does not answer the question does not deter the majority five justices from making up their own answer and inserting it into the Constitution by judicial fiat.
 
SilverLight said:
I was raised Catholic and still am. So is my mother and a few of my relatives.
Click to expand...
Wow! Could have fooled me…

As a Catholic YOU KNOW that the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and homosexual unions are immoral. Yet you state: “I know it is apparently immoral…”

Where do you get this “apparently” stuff???
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Wow! Could have fooled me…

As a Catholic YOU KNOW that the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and homosexual unions are immoral. Yet you state: “I know it is apparently immoral…”

Where do you get this “apparently” stuff???
Click to expand...
First of all please calm down really. Why would you care what I believe anyway? It has nothing to do with you and it is doing nothing to you or anyone else. Have a nice day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top