Printable View
Loving is cited as precedent on page 2 of the ruling. In combination with the 14th Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
EDIT: Been reading the first few dozen pages of the judgement, it's interesting. Loving is cited repeatedly as precedent.
Eh? It isn't the Supreme Courts job to write moving pieces or influence people's thoughts on their decision. Their job is to interpret law.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Where does the US Constitution say equality under the law only applies to heterosexuals? :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There are 17 pages of this conversation no need to rehash.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Okay, then explain WHY you disagree with their ruling....without implying they didn't "do their job" of interpreting the law (under the Constitution).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It is. I have to concede some justice to Roberts' dissenting opinion claim that Kennedy's majority opinion does a terrible job explaining just how the Court is applying the equal protection rules though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I haven't even looked at the actual ruling other than the headline. (Heroes of the Storm has me hooked!) However in general I don't believe rights can be invented. Do you think the Supreme Court in 1900 would have ruled the same way? 1950? Nope. That is the significant issue - courts from any period of time should be interpreting the constitution and law in the same fashion. Completely independent of what the public's opinion is. Hell it should be completely independent of what is good for the country for that matter! They aren't here to try to make the country a better place, they are there to strictly interpret the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Where do you draw the line on the 14th amendment? Should kids be able to purchase liquor/smokes because of the equal protection clause? Oh hey lets do a further stretch, maybe all felons should have the right to vote! But why stop there - maybe we should completely ban the electoral college because not everyone's vote is being equally protected and considered. Where does it stop?
Incidentally this is more of a principal issue regarding the constitution and how the Supreme Court plays politics as opposed to a real issue with folks getting married. I frankly don't think the government should recognize ANY marriage or provide any legal benefits (or penalties) to it. I know for some people on this board the are happy with the victory due to their sexual orientation, congrats. But they would have supported it *regardless* of the constitutionality of it. It is rare to find anyone saying, "I believe in X but it isn't in the constitutionally wrong so for the sanctity of our constitutional protections I hope the Supreme Court rules in a way that doesn't favor my politics. I'll work through the legislative process and let Democracy do its work." Pretty much NEVER happens.
How does your rationale apply to interracial marriage?
Why, Fuzzy? I haven't read all the text, but it seems to be in line with the principle that ALL people are equal under the law. That may sound simplistic, but it's not. Equality is a concept with context. Our history is rich that way -- with legal foundations that support change and progression, from 'founders' that lived in a time when only white men could vote or own property, and slavery was legal -- that makes our democracy pretty awesome. Slow and awkward at times, but moving forward nonetheless. :up:
The better question is where would YOU draw the line? Or how far back in history would YOU go to make a 'more perfect union with liberty and justice for all'? Would blacks still be 2/3 a human? Would women be able to vote? Would marriage mean women are the property of their husbands? And would children be property, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Ya know, for a guy who wants to be all about "property rights".....you don't seem to know much about the dark side of our history that way. :donkey:
Bizarre attitude. Their job is to interpret law but what Lewk really means is that their job is to act exactly like they live in the distant past ie. like Lewk. Interpretation is something that can change. What Lewk is calling for isn't interpretation, it's a specific interpretation. Because he has decided that is the only correct interpretation :o
Which they did, the 14th Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
No they should not as one change has knock-on effects. In 1900 homosexuality was viewed as at best an illness if not criminal deviancy. Equal protection would not apply then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Since then the law has changed and gay people are not "sick" or "criminal deviants" but just regular citizens. This has knock-on effects meaning that they get the same rights and privileges that the 14th Amendment give to all other adult citizens.
At the state illegally treating people differently against that. As any self-respecting libertarian should oppose the state doing.Quote:
Where do you draw the line on the 14th amendment?
Children are recognised as different through all laws. If that ceased to be, if the age of maturity changed to 16 for example then the 14th amendment would have knock-on effects for that. But they're not.Quote:
Should kids be able to purchase liquor/smokes because of the equal protection clause? Oh hey lets do a further stretch, maybe all felons should have the right to vote! But why stop there - maybe we should completely ban the electoral college because not everyone's vote is being equally protected and considered. Where does it stop?
Then you can change the law, but until then it does. For as long as the state recognises marriage, which it does, then the 14th amendment applies to that recognition.Quote:
I frankly don't think the government should recognize ANY marriage or provide any legal benefits (or penalties) to it.
Come on, stop acting so butthurt. Those judges have long been known to be on a whole other level when articulating themselves. Its a rather important part of the jobQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Indeed it's not simplistic, certainly wrt a judicial review context. Roberts complaint was that while the majority did invoke equal protection several times, it was always as an abstract principle and they did not once discuss the judicial mechanics. You will not find one word about rational basis or strict scrutiny in there. You won't find any text suggesting the majority is adopting the suggested new standard from several appellate courts, "intermediate scrutiny." You will not find anything laying out or implying a new test standard to apply in equal protection cases. They made a ruling based in part on equal protection but they did not explain how they were doing so, from a jurisprudential perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Agreed, from what I've read so far of Robert's dissent, he seems to be very clear-eyed about what's going on. The part about this being a great day for gays but not because of the constitution is somewhat accurate.
Not sure Scalia has been reading many fortune cookies, but I see what he was going for.
Agreed, from what I've read so far of Robert's dissent, he seems to be very clear-eyed about what's going on. The part about this being a great day for gays but not because of the constitution resonates with me.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Not sure Scalia has been reading many fortune cookies, but I see what he was going for.
On a related note, I find it maddeningly difficult to talk with people in my personal life about my views on this. They are complicit in our national inability to have political discussions about our political process. If people have a view of how the world should be, they want it now and conveniently forget about when the Supreme Court may have issued a ruling on something they didn't like.
Don't sit there and ascribe agreement with Roberts opinion in general to me. I think his constantly repeated cry that the majority is resurrecting Lochner has more to do with providing a platform for Opposition legislative ranting than it does with any proper evaluation of the majority's jursiprudence. My sympathy for his opinion is limited to the complaint about the lack of proper detail in the "equal protection" portion of the majority's opinion. And I quickly stopped reading Scalia, he made it plain from the beginning that his dissent was going to be mostly choler and spleen rather than judicial analysis. I feel a smidge of sympathy for him too because he predicted exactly this progression from Kennedy, despite the latter's repeated denials, but that doesn't excuse the dissent he wrote. The dissenters would have been better off if they'd actually been willing to write up an alternative approach rather than just complaining about the majority and waving the "judicial restraint" flag so hard you'd think they were claiming there wasn't even a justiciable controversy.Quote:
Agreed, from what I've read so far of Robert's dissent, he seems to be very clear-eyed about what's going on. The part about this being a great day for gays but not because of the constitution is somewhat accurate.
Not sure Scalia has been reading many fortune cookies, but I see what he was going for.
One has to wonder what level of detail would have satisfied the opponents.
Don't know, don't care, but the fact that they didn't mention what standard they were using at all means there are just going to be more lawsuits, about every niggling detail under the sun, which the appellate courts won't have any guidance for ruling on.
True, and the Supreme Court will not find itself with hands bound because they were too specific on such a changeable issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Scalia by the way is a disgrace for his office.
What the fuck is up with Texas?
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov...se.php?id=5144
Attorney General Paxton: Religious Liberties of Texas Public Officials Remain Constitutionally Protected After Obergefell v. Hodges
Attorney General Ken Paxton today made the following statement and issued an opinion in response to questions about the impact of Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that redefined marriage:
“Friday, the United States Supreme Court again ignored the text and spirit of the Constitution to manufacture a right that simply does not exist. In so doing, the Court weakened itself and weakened the rule of law, but did nothing to weaken our resolve to protect religious liberty and return to democratic self-government in the face of judicial activists attempting to tell us how to live.
“Indeed, for those who respect the rule of law, this lawless ruling presents a fundamental dilemma: A ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is considered the law of the land, but a judge-made edict that is not based in the law or the Constitution diminishes faith in our system of government and the rule of law.
“Now hundreds of Texas public officials are seeking guidance on how to implement what amounts to a lawless decision by an activist Court while adhering both to their respective faiths and their responsibility to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Here is where things currently stand:
“Pursuant to the Court’s flawed ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued an injunction against the enforcement of Texas marriage laws that define marriage as one man and one woman and therefore those laws currently are enjoined from being enforced by county clerks and justices of the peace. There is not, however, a court order in place in Texas to issue any particular license whatsoever – only the flawed direction by the U.S. Supreme Court on Constitutionality and applicable state laws.
“Importantly, the reach of the Court’s opinion stops at the door of the First Amendment and our laws protecting religious liberty. Even the flawed majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges acknowledged there are religious liberty protections of which individuals may be able to avail themselves. Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes. While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”
“In the Attorney General’s opinion my office issued in response to Lt. Governor Patrick’s request for guidance, we find that although it fabricated a new constitutional right in 2015, the Supreme Court did not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791. This newly invented federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage should peaceably coexist alongside longstanding constitutional and statutory rights, including the rights to free exercise of religion and speech. This opinion concludes that:
“County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.
“Justices of the peace and judges similarly retain religious freedoms, and may claim that the government cannot force them to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies over their religious objections, when other authorized individuals have no objection, because it is not the least restrictive means of the government ensuring the ceremonies occur. The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”
“It is important to note that any clerk who wishes to defend their religious objections and who chooses not to issue licenses may well face litigation and/or a fine. But, numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs, in many cases on a pro-bono basis, and I will do everything I can from this office to be a public voice for those standing in defense of their rights.
“Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our County Clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the Court’s ruling.”
Bizarre.
Also wondering whether or not there's anything to the talk about being able to challenge this ruling by using amendments to coming appropriation bills.
Well, this just means that Texans should create a religion which forbids them to pay taxes.
Using the same logic, the government can't force you to pay taxes if your religion forbids you from doing so.
The easy solution is for Texas to stop recognizing all marriages.
How was citing Loving v Virginia several times not 'judicial perspective', and how is the 14th Amendment an 'abstract principle'? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I thought the judicial mechanics were that old laws criminalizing sodomy were overturned, and the medical community took homosexual behavior off the list of diseases and mental defects. Plus, advances in IVF and surrogacy that made changes to Family, adoption, and Divorce courts (that benefitted heterosexuals) were the legal precedents.
Alabama won't give ANY marriage license for the next 28 days. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The key word, GGT, was "explain."Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Lawrence was a tangental precedent. While respect for precedent can be part of the mechanics the Court follows, if it is not exactly the same thing, it's not what you are trying to allege it is here. As for the rest of it, DSM4, IVF advances, etc, in what conceivable fashion do you imagine any of that constitutes "legal precedent"? You don't, even you know better than that.Quote:
I thought the judicial mechanics were that old laws criminalizing sodomy were overturned, and the medical community took homosexual behavior off the list of diseases and mental defects. Plus, advances in IVF and surrogacy that made changes to Family, adoption, and Divorce courts (that benefitted heterosexuals) were the legal precedents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Days_Later They're probably concerned about a zombie outbreak. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Hey, Warm Bodies showed us that human/zombie cohabitation and eventual marriage is just around the corner. It's a sensible precaution. Particularly if they're afraid of a gay human/zombie marriage.
I put those precedents in the category of "Equality". History proves that definitions of "Equality" changes over time....and that sometimes it's not enough to rely on state legislatures (or state constitutions) to make those decisions. California's Prop 8 showed the dangers in state referendums and "voting" for laws that's not in line with the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Fuzzy, you and I have been going back and forth about this for several years. My position is that Equality shouldn't have to go state-by-state, until all 50 states (and their political legislatures) have total agreement. Sometimes it takes SCOTUS to break the political grid-lock that states get mired in.
The US Constitution doesn't say one damn thing about the "right" to marry. Yet, marriage is a social construct that's driven society, and politics, for generations....mostly based on religious ideology that doesn't apply to modern society.
Fuzzy, your analyses are confusing to me. I'd think you'd be happy that (as a gay man) you don't have to fight for the 'right' to marry the one you love, or that your marriage would be recognized in all 50 states.