Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Dfairlite

At the moment i don't have a Boyfriend much less a Husband

it shouldn't matter, Humans have the right/privilege/protection to get married, regardless of sexuality. we are still Human...

so they didn't rule anything, they checked the constitution and saw that GLBTQ people should be served the same, States don't vote on Heterosexual Marriage..

Would you be okay if the state voted all Heterosexual Marriages are Illegal, and other states wouldn't recognize your Marriage, your name couldn't be on a death certificate, you couldn't get hospital visitation rights, custody of your children etc.. you would be okay with that?

a reply to: Annee

Exactly, i fear that it will be a 'Response" of sorts from certain states

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
It's time for a constitutional amendment to give states their rights back.

The states never had the right to make laws and apply them to their citizens unequally.

I mean, they just took an amendment from 1868 and claimed it confers rights that the people who wrote it didn't even know about.

The 14th amendment is actually from 1866. And it doesn't confer any rights to anyone. It is a limit on the states, saying that if a state is going to make a law (like marriage), the law must apply equally to all citizens of the state.

It scares me how excited everyone is that the unelected supreme court can take on the role of legislator.

The Supreme Court did not make any laws. They did not legislate anything.

Again, they are applied equally, unless you can actually find a flaw my argument. Stating that they're applied unequally doesn't make it so.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Yes, the supreme court took away the right of the states to regulate marriage as it pertains to the sexes of the parties involved. Show me the legislation that gives the federal government any say over marriage. All you'll find is court cases. Legislation from the bench has been going on for at least the last 75 years.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's not that complicated:

Marriage is a state-regulated covenant between two individuals (a contract) that allows for certain financial and social benefits.

Specifying the sex of a party to a contract violates the "equal protection of the laws" concept found in common law, the Fifth Amendment and specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.

Those who are non compos mentis to enter contracts (animals, minor children, the dead, etc.) are obviously restricted.

(Before we go there for the humpteenth time).

Slavery was corrected, women's legal rights were corrected, racial segregation was corrected, ... it's an ongoing process.

The question is, was it the courts place to do it. Not whether it should happen or not. This was not a place for the court to decide. The courts job is to interpret not infer. They like to infer a lot lately.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

youtu.be...



While he said he believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, he also said that he would not support a Constitutional definition of marriage as so.

His argument is that marriage has not been defined by the federal government, traditionally. He said that it is up to the states to decide

ho hum

a reply to: Dfairlite

*chuckle*

Did computers exist in 1791? Did AK-47s? SBA?

Your paltry argument that unless something existed at the time of statutory language being written into the Constitution it isn't covered by the Constitution is ludicrous.

Blithely continue to ignore the facts, while you're arguing for marriage discrimination, you're also arguing for segregation, slavery, stripping women of the right to vote, etc.

Your reiteration of the same flawed argument is quite boring.


Taa, taa.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Tell me, was gay marriage legal in 1868?

Marriage was legal. Marriage was a state law. Gay people existed. It's not like John Bingham was an idiot with no clue. Regardless of the law, it should be applied equally. No state should be permitted to make laws for SOME of the citizenry alone. Bingham was a pretty interesting guy... The Father of the 14th Amendment

He took the lead in framing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and he authored its guarantee that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” More than any man except Abraham Lincoln, John Bingham was responsible for establishing what the Civil War meant for America’s future.
...
He made an impassioned plea for the successful abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, commenting that the legislation “illustrates the great principle that this day shakes the throne of every despot upon the globe, and that is, whether man was made for government or government made for man.”
...
Most significantly, Bingham drafted the crucial language of that 14th Amendment. It is Bingham who is responsible for the words: “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.”

This sentence would be the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions desegregating the public schools, securing equality for women, and creating the right to sexual privacy.

And the right to marriage equality!

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Dfairlite

At the moment i don't have a Boyfriend much less a Husband

it shouldn't matter, Humans have the right/privilege/protection to get married, regardless of sexuality. we are still Human...

so they didn't rule anything, they checked the constitution and saw that GLBTQ people should be served the same, States don't vote on Heterosexual Marriage..

Would you be okay if the state voted all Heterosexual Marriages are Illegal, and other states wouldn't recognize your Marriage, your name couldn't be on a death certificate, you couldn't get hospital visitation rights, custody of your children etc.. you would be okay with that?

I would be mad, except that I can get all of those things with a POA (other than maybe the death certificate thing, but IDK on that).

a reply to: Dfairlite

Show me the wording in the 14th that says it ONLY applies to blacks directly after the Civil War.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It's not that complicated:

Marriage is a state-regulated covenant between two individuals (a contract) that allows for certain financial and social benefits.

Specifying the sex of a party to a contract violates the "equal protection of the laws" concept found in common law, the Fifth Amendment and specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.

Those who are non compos mentis to enter contracts (animals, minor children, the dead, etc.) are obviously restricted.

(Before we go there for the humpteenth time).

Slavery was corrected, women's legal rights were corrected, racial segregation was corrected, ... it's an ongoing process.

The question is, was it the courts place to do it. Not whether it should happen or not. This was not a place for the court to decide. The courts job is to interpret not infer. They like to infer a lot lately.

The case was brought to the SCOTUS through the proper channels. Whether you personally wish to use the word "infer" or "interpret" or "interpolate" or "instigate" or whatever silly semantic game you want to play ... SCOTUS ruled on a case brought before it that the question was answered by the CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

There's no more clear or evident way to describe the process.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Tell me, was gay marriage legal in 1868?

Marriage was legal. Marriage was a state law. Gay people existed. It's not like John Bingham was an idiot with no clue. Regardless of the law, it should be applied equally. No state should be permitted to make laws for SOME of the citizenry alone. Bingham was a pretty interesting guy...

He took the lead in framing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and he authored its guarantee that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” More than any man except Abraham Lincoln, John Bingham was responsible for establishing what the Civil War meant for America’s future.
...
The Civil War transformed Bingham from a dissenter into a legislator. In the 37th Congress, from 1861 to 1863, he was instrumental in drafting bills to support the war effort, including the muster of the state militias, the admission of West Virginia and the suspension of habeas corpus. He made an impassioned plea for the successful abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, commenting that the legislation “illustrates the great principle that this day shakes the throne of every despot upon the globe, and that is, whether man was made for government or government made for man.”
...
Most significantly, Bingham drafted the crucial language of that 14th Amendment. It is Bingham who is responsible for the words: “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.”

This sentence would be the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions desegregating the public schools, securing equality for women, and creating the right to sexual privacy.

And the right to marriage equality!

You realize I'm not arguing that the court didn't rule that way, right. I'm arguing that it has no actual legal basis. Could a man not marry a woman, regardless of their sexuality. Of course they could. That satisfies equal protection. The supreme court changed the definition of marriage, the essence of the relationship. They didn't establish equality, because it already existed.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I believe Dfairlite is starting to see the irrationality of their argument ... as they literally keep chanting the same thing over and over.

We've demonstrated the facts of the matter ... and you were particularly elegant as usual.

Thanks for being an Ally (and to many others here at ATS)! It's folks like you that have made the difference in this long fight!

a reply to: Dfairlite

firedoglake.com...

www.nytimes.com...

There are many more

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Dfairlite

Show me the wording in the 14th that says it ONLY applies to blacks directly after the Civil War.

Well if I were a supreme court justice ruling on obamacare I would tell you that the 14th amendment was created to achieve equality for blacks, therefore I must interpret it in that light. But even if you look later on it was ruled that the 14th amendment allowed segregation. See pace v. alabama. So tell me, who had a better understanding of the 14th amendment and it's purpose? Was it the writers of the 14th amendment and the generation of judges who grew up when it was written? Or a few supreme court justices 150 years later?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

*chuckle*

Did computers exist in 1791? Did AK-47s? SBA?

Your paltry argument that unless something existed at the time of statutory language being written into the Constitution it isn't covered by the Constitution is ludicrous.

Blithely continue to ignore the facts, while you're arguing for marriage discrimination, you're also arguing for segregation, slavery, stripping women of the right to vote, etc.

Your reiteration of the same flawed argument is quite boring.


Taa, taa.

I'm not arguing that, you are. I'm arguing that there is a difference between something that existed and something that didn't. When new things emerge we adapt to them. Homosexuality is not new, there is no need to adapt to it.

a reply to: Dfairlite

you are correct Obama said so in the video, no bases in the constitution

He is a constitutional lawyer ya know lol

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Yes, the supreme court took away the right of the states to regulate marriage as it pertains to the sexes of the parties involved.

The states never had the right to regulate marriage as it pertains to one group of citizens over another. Their laws banning marriage for some were found to be unconstitutional.

Show me the legislation that gives the federal government any say over marriage.

The "say" the federal government has is not over marriage, but the constitutionality of states' laws as they are applied to the citizenry.

This is why the nomination of Supreme Court judges and federal judges by a prez is soooooo important....probably the most important power the prez has, especially since they serve for life once appointed. The ruling on this issue was 5to4. One appointment made the difference. One.

So you are Okay with States Denying the 'Constitution'. so your state could Ban Guns, deny you free speech, and ban you from Practicing any Religion.. and you would be ok because the state made that law?

To put the lie to the repeated statement here that the ruling in OBERGFELL has no legal basis ...

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choicescentral to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. History and tradition guide and discipline the inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.

When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. For example, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12, invalidated bans on interracial unions, and Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95, held that prisoners could not be denied the right to marry. To be sure, these cases presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners, as did Baker v. Nelson, 409 U. S. 810, a one-line summary decision issued in 1972, holding that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage did not present a substantial federal question. But other, more instructive precedents have expressed
broader principles. See, e.g., Lawrence, supra, at 574. In assessing whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. See, e.g., Eisenstadt, supra, at 453–454.

This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Pp. 10–12.

That has a lot more basis in law than oh, say, Hobby Lobby ...