This was unconstitutional

[Revoltingest]

I agree there is at least a strong case in the latter two and loose but good enough cases in the first two.

The 1st 2 items are the most important in ruling on constitutionality.
They are the enabling factors to consider the 2nd two.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The 1st 2 items are the most important in ruling on constitutionality.
They are the enabling factors to consider the 2nd two.

Yes. And I feel the first two are weak. Were it not for the 2nd two it wouldn't have passed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. And I feel the first two are weak. Were it not for the 2nd two it wouldn't have passed.

Think of the amendments as the rules which the laws must follow.
Think of the latter items as the reasons for the laws not being in compliance with the rules.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Think of the amendments as the rules which the laws must follow.
Think of the latter items as the reasons for the laws not being in compliance with the rules.

Think of the first two as being open ended "fill in the blank" laws that can be allowed to shift and rationalize certain rights or rulings with the ebb and flow of the second two. Then you get close to the truth. There is nothing within the constitution itself that would require this ruling. It is only within the opinions of the Justices involved and hopefully they act as a reflection of the will of the people and the general opinion of the public on the matter. It is a legitimate ruling but not because there is any sort of explicitness to the constitution for this ruling. We just had five pro marriage equality Justices and 4 anti-marriage equality Justices. That is all. It probably won't but it could just as easily be ruled on again with a different group and have the ruling reversed. I don't think it will, at least not any time soon.

*edit* To add there is nothing within the constitution that would deny them this ruling either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Think of the first two as being open ended "fill in the blank" laws that can be allowed to shift and rationalize certain rights or rulings with the ebb and flow of the second two.

I don't follow this, but I think we're beating a dead horse at this point.
[/QUOTE]
There is nothing within the constitution itself that would require this ruling. It is only within the opinions of the Justices involved and hopefully they act as a reflection of the will of the people and the general opinion of the public on the matter. It is a legitimate ruling but not because there is any sort of explicitness to the constitution for this ruling. We just had five pro marriage equality Justices and 4 anti-marriage equality Justices. That is all. It probably won't but it could just as easily be ruled on again with a different group and have the ruling reversed. I don't think it will, at least not any time soon.
*edit* To add there is nothing within the constitution that would deny them this ruling either.[/QUOTE]
This is what the 9th Amendment is all about, ie, we can enumerate additional rights when recognized.
Who knows what rights will pop up & be handled thusly?
Anyway, this is our system....functioning as designed.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't follow this, but I think we're beating a dead horse at this point.

There is nothing within the constitution itself that would require this ruling. It is only within the opinions of the Justices involved and hopefully they act as a reflection of the will of the people and the general opinion of the public on the matter. It is a legitimate ruling but not because there is any sort of explicitness to the constitution for this ruling. We just had five pro marriage equality Justices and 4 anti-marriage equality Justices. That is all. It probably won't but it could just as easily be ruled on again with a different group and have the ruling reversed. I don't think it will, at least not any time soon.
*edit* To add there is nothing within the constitution that would deny them this ruling either.[/QUOTE]
This is what the 9th Amendment is all about, ie, we can enumerate additional rights when recognized.
Who knows what rights will pop up & be handled thusly?
Anyway, this is our system....functioning as designed.[/QUOTE]
I agree we are beating a dead horse.

 

[dgirl1986]

I am sure that people said the exact same things when interracial marriages were permitted federally by the supreme court.

 

[Curious George]

There is nothing within the constitution itself that would require this ruling. It is only within the opinions of the Justices involved and hopefully they act as a reflection of the will of the people and the general opinion of the public on the matter. It is a legitimate ruling but not because there is any sort of explicitness to the constitution for this ruling. We just had five pro marriage equality Justices and 4 anti-marriage equality Justices. That is all. It probably won't but it could just as easily be ruled on again with a different group and have the ruling reversed. I don't think it will, at least not any time soon.
*edit* To add there is nothing within the constitution that would deny them this ruling either.
This is what the 9th Amendment is all about, ie, we can enumerate additional rights when recognized.
Who knows what rights will pop up & be handled thusly?
Anyway, this is our system....functioning as designed.
I agree we are beating a dead horse.

I don't know who is saying what in this post, but this ruling was not a matter of having 5 marriage equality judges and 4 anti marriage equality judges.

 

[Aquitaine]

Gun control, multiple welfare programs, having less freedom because you might "offend" someone, healthcare that's crappy and forced upon others, these are all things socialist countries do. How do you not see this? Social security is something a socialist would do. Trying to spread the wealth around is a socialist trait.

There are times where I feel like I'm Mugatu from Zoolander and I just want to scream "Doesn't anyone see this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

Healthcare that's crappy and forced on others? Pfffft, dream on.
I'm so thankful for the NHS, and not having to worry about going bankrupt to pay for medical care.
Sorry buddy, but there are certain areas in life where Socialism beats Capitalism.

Less of the FOX News for you, methinks.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't know who is saying what in this post, but this ruling was not a matter of having 5 marriage equality judges and 4 anti marriage equality judges.

IF there had been 5 judges who opposed same sex marriage and 4 that were for same sex marriage do you think that the ruling would have been different? The fact that 4 judges were vehemently against it should be evidence enough that the constitution was not decisive or clear on how much of a right it actually is. The ruling has made it clear now but the clarity did not exist prior to this ruling.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I am sure that people said the exact same things when interracial marriages were permitted federally by the supreme court.

Indeed it was. And now thanks to that ruling, as it was not clearly applicable before, it is now. We also have several amendments and federal laws that are specific to racial prejudice and equality with races. Thus safeguarding the ruling of that court.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Healthcare that's crappy and forced on others? Pfffft, dream on.
I'm so thankful for the NHS, and not having to worry about going bankrupt to pay for medical care.
Sorry buddy, but there are certain areas in life where Socialsm beats Capitalism.

Less of the FOX News for you, methinks.

I find it odd that one of the selling points of capitalism is that it brings prosperity to others and spreads the wealth, but then capitalist often complain when it comes time to make good on that promise.

 

[Aquitaine]

I find it odd that one of the selling points of capitalism is that it brings prosperity to others and spreads the wealth, but then capitalist often complain when it comes time to make good on that promise.

Aye, because having a more economically equal society is apparently Communism. Anyway, I shouldn't go in to it any further: I already came in to this thread off-topic lol.

 

[Curious George]

IF there had been 5 judges who opposed same sex marriage and 4 that were for same sex marriage do you think that the ruling would have been different? The fact that 4 judges were vehemently against it should be evidence enough that the constitution was not decisive or clear on how much of a right it actually is. The ruling has made it clear now but the clarity did not exist prior to this ruling.

Lol, no I don't think the ruling would have been different. I think that philosophical approach to the law certainly affects their disposition, not their views on marriage equality. The interpretations seen here are not anything remarkable. While Kennedy could have gone either way, it is hard to ignore the stare decisis.

Marriage is a fundamental right. This is well decided and not likely to change. While people may argue that it is not written in the constitution, can anyone honestly think it otherwise. No one invented a new right. Marriage was never in question. Why in the world would you think that marriage is not a fundamental right? If the government cannot take your gun, why the hell would they be able to your spouse?

 

[Revoltingest]

IF there had been 5 judges who opposed same sex marriage and 4 that were for same sex marriage do you think that the ruling would have been different? The fact that 4 judges were vehemently against it should be evidence enough that the constitution was not decisive or clear on how much of a right it actually is. The ruling has made it clear now but the clarity did not exist prior to this ruling.

We know it's the luck of the draw.
The justices can (& often do) rule based upon personal whim.
We just got lucky this time with the Constitution & public opinion on our side, albeit barely.

 

[Curious George]

We know it's the luck of the draw.
The justices can (& often do) rule based upon personal whim.
We just got lucky this time with the Constitution & public opinion on our side, albeit barely.

Are any of the justices against marriage equality? Are any of them against homosexuals having a legal marriage?

I am not sure but I would like to see proof. This was not the case of the interpretation of the second amendment where the judges strayed from their predictable jurisprudential philosophies. So, I think such an assertion requires some proof. The judges in the supreme court did not get there by ruling on whims.

 

[metis]

We sometimes tend to forget that the judges were appointed and approved largely based on their political positions, typically reflecting many of the presidents' views. Even though they are expected to look at cases as if they're non-biased, the reality is typically different with probably most of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are any of the justices against marriage equality? Are any of them against homosexuals having a legal marriage?

I am not sure but I would like to see proof. This was not the case of the interpretation of the second amendment where the judges strayed from their predictable jurisprudential philosophies. So, I think such an assertion requires some proof. The judges in the supreme court did not get there by ruling on whims.

Given the lame religiosity offered in the dissenting justice's opinion, I sense anti-gay marriage sentiment.
Proof?
Just my opinion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The federal government didn't have to stick their noses in it. People act as if every state had slavery. Some didn't and it wasn't just the south either. The North had slaves, too. You can phase those things out without having it forced on everyone. Once you use force, you create more problems.

Funny how gays talk of getting married, but a lot of them are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married. Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long. Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you? It ends up ruining the family because both a mother and father are needed to balance things out. Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well. Diseases are spread more because they tend to be more promiscuous. Lots of strippers and porn stars are gay or at least bi. AIDS was more common in gays than hetero couples. That and with messing up the family, THAT is the reason why religions were against it, not just because it's disgusting and weird.

I find this whole post disgusting and weird.

 

[freethinker44]

Are any of the justices against marriage equality? Are any of them against homosexuals having a legal marriage?

I am not sure but I would like to see proof. This was not the case of the interpretation of the second amendment where the judges strayed from their predictable jurisprudential philosophies. So, I think such an assertion requires some proof. The judges in the supreme court did not get there by ruling on whims.

I think the fact that they can and have overruled the decisions of previous courts, and even their own courts decisions, shows just how subjective the process is.