Same-Sex Marriage is now a Right

[AerchAngel]

you know it was created to be a document that changes, right?

cause if you don't think that, then you are 3/5ths of a person

to quote a guy who had a little something to do with that document:

Oh, I don't mind the changes, but do it the right way. Kennedy crapped on that with his "opinion". Do it the right way, not because "you" think it should be this way.

Because of his "opinion", it opens a lot of doors for others to get their way, like I mentioned above. I hope polygamy is passed because due to Kennedy's opinion of me people being alone and not happy, what about those who want this? Do you not want them happy?

I have not got to the States part, you know, the 10th amendment, it got ripped from them based on an "opinion". It is like the 10th Amendment is not applicable anymore as the Fed Gov and the SCOTUS can do whatever the hell they want, the States be damned.

 

[zitothebrave]

I think Scalia gets a bad rap for 100% voting pro-republican. I mean he's not Thomas of course or even ALito, but he's not roberts who's gone a few different ways at times. I'd say he's more Breyer than Ginsberg to go the other way.

 

[striker42]

you know it was created to be a document that changes, right?

cause if you don't think that, then you are 3/5ths of a person

to quote a guy who had a little something to do with that document:

That picture is from the Jefferson Monument I believe and is one of his quotes. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Madison was the mind behind the Constitution.

You're arguing the Living Constitution theory. That's one theory that some legal scholars ascribe to. Usually the liberals.

Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap. If you look at how the Constitution came about you see that you had sovereign states coming together to create a federal government. Since these states were all sovereign, they had all the power. They decided to create a federal government but one if enumerated powers. They only turned over a limited amount of power to the federal government.

The federal government was not supposed to be able to grab more power from the states. The states remained sovereign.

Knowing the constitution might not work forever, a method of changing it was built in. The states could amend the constitution to give power to or take away power from the federal government.

The idea that the amount of power given to the federal government changes due to an "evolving understanding" flies in the face of what the states were doing in creating a federal government of enumerated power.

Where things get really, really shaky is the doctrine of incorporation. Incorporation is where some, but not all, of the amendments are applied to state governments. There is no legitimate basis for this idea. A court decided it should happen and it's been that way so long people just assume that's how it works. It's not.

The constitution spells out the powers of the federal government. The amendments put some restrictions on the use of those powers. You even have the words "Congress shall make no law..." Which is clearly applying the amendment to the U.S. Congress.

The idea that the state were binding themselves with the amendments is ridiculous. It goes against the whole structure of the document!

I actually had a super liberal constitutional law professor that clerked for O'connor that had incorporation as a pet peeve. He thought it was a good idea but would require the states to amend the constitution for it to be valid.

 

[AerchAngel]

So Scalia big question is "what did the section of the constitution mean when it was adopted?" Naturally this puts him at odds with the doctrine of substantive due process the court trotted out yesterday.

.

Bingo. This is really dangerous precedent that can open ugly doors.

Innocent until proven guilty and they have to have their due process is Goldlfy's favorite blanket statement.

I am glad a lawyer on the site sees it like me. Ramrodding or strong-arming our founding document to suit a need without going through the proper process. Our Civil Right Act went through the proper process to get pass. You can say well it should never been an issue in the beginning. Well the Founding Fathers never knew that slaves wanted freedom, it was accepted back then, same as same sex marriage or polygamy was not. Times change, if it change for one, it should change for all but do it the right way like they did in 1964 or let the 10th Amendment be applicable and not just shat on.

The only good part about it, this is a non issue when presidency comes up and I don't have to hear about it or ACA.

 

[striker42]

I think Scalia gets a bad rap for 100% voting pro-republican. I mean he's not Thomas of course or even ALito, but he's not roberts who's gone a few different ways at times. I'd say he's more Breyer than Ginsberg to go the other way.

The complaint that any justice votes one way too much is usually premised on high profile cases where all the justices (except Kennedy and, to a lesser extent, Roberts) are predictable. On other, more technical cases that make up the majority of Supreme Court cases, you're liable to end up with some very strange groupings of justices.

If it's being predictable on high profile cases that gets him a bad rap, the same bad rap should be applied to all four of the court's liberals. They're all easily as pro-dem as Scalia is pro-rep

 

[AerchAngel]

The complaint that any justice votes one way too much is usually premised on high profile cases where all the justices (except Kennedy and, to a lesser extent, Roberts) are predictable. On other, more technical cases that make up the majority of Supreme Court cases, you're liable to end up with some very strange groupings of justices.

If it's being predictable on high profile cases that gets him a bad rap, the same bad rap should be applied to all four of the court's liberals. They're all easily as pro-dem as Scalia is pro-rep

Strong arm tactics on a volatile situation. It is a polarizing event. Like you said, this should have went through the proper process aka like the Civil Rights Act. People can site changes is required in the Constitution, but they did not do it the right way.

This is not going to be good down the road. Picking and choosing due to where the wind blows is not going to be good for our nation. SCOTUS is now political, not Constitutional. The Constitution is irrelevant.

 

[Hawk]

Barney Frank is labeling Scalia a homophobe.

I tend not to like it when we start deconstructing legal decisions, even political ones, as necessarily personal.

 

[DaneHill]

Does a firebombing count? Link

I see your Link (from 30+ years ago), and I raise you This, This, and This.

Religion and governments have persecuted gay people much longer and more horrifically than any of the "intolerant" things you may hear about gays treating Christians these days. Violence is abhorrent in all instances. But let's not pretend that gays haven't had their fair share against them.

 

[DaneHill]

As for yesterday's ruling, obviously I'm beyond emotional that this day has finally come. I'm no lawyer, so how the ruling was written is far secondary to me to gaining the actual rights across the full nation. I don't believe that citizens should be able to vote on the rights of a minority. So that the courts had to be involved seems apparent and inevitable to me. Aren't courts supposed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the many? This all seems pretty textbook example. Let me vote on your right to marry, and see how you feel. Marriages and the rights that come with it should not dissolve or resume depending on which border is crossed here in America. That makes a far bigger mockery of the institution than two people of the same sex could ever do. Now, of course, the Right is trying to backdoor their anti-gay marriage laws with these so-called religious freedom laws. Are these not slippery slope precedents that worry you? People like to point to the pizza parlor incident, which seems more like a PR stunt to me by the Right. But where will religion draw the line? Pizza is fine to discriminate. Bathrooms are fine to discriminate. Water fountains are fine to discriminate. (Starting to sound familiar?) Buses. Schools. Medical facilities....

 

[goldfly]

You're arguing the Living Constitution theory. That's one theory that some legal scholars ascribe to. Usually the liberals.

i don't see how you could argue against it since the man who wrote it argued that. he wanted to scrap the damn thing every few years cause he thought the new generation shouldn't be tied to the old generations thinking and ways

 

[chop2chip]

Bedell, polygamy is next. They open pandora's box by interpreting the word of the Constitution in doing that, they can't go after the Mormons and their practice now. If good for them it is good for all. No holds barred.

This will be good.

As the residential Mormon I disapprove of this message.

No practicing Mormon has practiced polygamy in a 150 years.

 

[50PoundHead]

striker, where are you on Brown v. Board of Education?

 

[bravesnumberone]

Considering we have amendments I would say it's a living document. I don't think that's a liberal-conservative thing.

Pretty tough week for some folks in Mississippi, Alabama, etc.

On a side note a few months ago when gay marriage was legalized here in South Carolina, I covered the first couple applying for the certificate in this county. It was only a gay marriage by technicality though. One of the people was a transgender male and South Carolina doesn't recognize that so it was treated as a woman marrying a woman.

 

[weso1]

The complaint that any justice votes one way too much is usually premised on high profile cases where all the justices (except Kennedy and, to a lesser extent, Roberts) are predictable. On other, more technical cases that make up the majority of Supreme Court cases, you're liable to end up with some very strange groupings of justices.

If it's being predictable on high profile cases that gets him a bad rap, the same bad rap should be applied to all four of the court's liberals. They're all easily as pro-dem as Scalia is pro-rep

I actually just read Scalia's dissent and to me he was spot on. If folks truly read it with an open mind then it's hard not to understand that he makes some great points. The same folks who write it off are likely the same folks who write off those who are against gay marriage as homophobes. I would like to challenge folks to read it with an open mind.

This might just be me, but democracy and state rights are much more important than gay marriage. And that's not to belittle gay marriage, which I support, but these are two conerstones of our society, imo.

 

[striker42]

i don't see how you could argue against it since the man who wrote it argued that. he wanted to scrap the damn thing every few years cause he thought the new generation shouldn't be tied to the old generations thinking and ways

Again, Jefferson didn't write the constitution, he wrote the Declaration of Independence. James Madison was the principal author of the constitution.

Madison actually wrote:

"I entirely concur in the propriety of restoring to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is a legitimate constitution. And, if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for consistent and stable government."

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was an originalist.

 

[striker42]

I actually just read Scalia's dissent and to me he was spot on. If folks truly read it with an open mind then it's hard not to understand that he makes some great points. The same folks who write it off are likely the same folks who write off those who are against gay marriage as homophobes. I would like to challenge folks to read it with an open mind.

This might just be me, but democracy and state rights are much more important than gay marriage. And that's not to belittle gay marriage, which I support, but these are two conerstones of our society, imo.

I'm with you. Scalia was spot on. If you actually read the dissents they're not about the facts of the case, they're about the greater effect of a court acting in the way it did. The left wing of the court wants it to be the architect of the world as they want it. The right rebelled against that.

I'll say this, beware an active court. They might not always believe the same as you.

 

[goldfly]

Word. Hate when I **** that up. Not the first time and won't be the last I am sure but he was influential in its creation and way of thinking of the document from the declaration

But Jefferson didn't think it should be the law forever and ever. That it should be rewritten for each generation though and their ideals

 

[weso1]

Word. Hate when I **** that up. Not the first time and won't be the last I am sure but he was influential in its creation and way of thinking of the document from the declaration

But Jefferson didn't think it should be the law forever and ever. That it should be rewritten for each generation though and their ideals

But there is a process for that, and Scalia's point is that the 9 people on the supreme court shouldn't decide that result. He made sure to point out that the democratic process was working in this situation. That those who were pro gay marriage legitimately had their say and they were changing opinions and they could go back and fight those same battles later that they lost. I just personally could not have less respect for liberal judges after this ruling.

We don't want 9 people making decisions in a democracy. This is my concern here. I know Dane is happy and I am glad that he can marry his significant other, but I think it's a huge mistake to discount the process. I think the process was important.

 

[50PoundHead]

But there is a process for that, and Scalia's point is that the 9 people on the supreme court shouldn't decide that result. He made sure to point out that the democratic process was working in this situation. That those who were pro gay marriage legitimately had their say and they were changing opinions and they could go back and fight those same battles later that they lost. I just personally could not have less respect for liberal judges after this ruling.

We don't want 9 people making decisions in a democracy. This is my concern here. I know Dane is happy and I am glad that he can marry his significant other, but I think it's a huge mistake to discount the process. I think the process was important.

You mean the same 9 people who decided the 2000 election?

 

[weso1]

You mean the same 9 people who decided the 2000 election?

The people decided the 2000 election.