SCOTUS Arguments on SSM Case Today

[n david]

SCOTUS rules 5-4 in favor of SSM.

Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissented.

The opinion is definitely worth reading. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the dissenting opinion.

PDF version of SCOTUS decision

[Fionn mac Cumh]

How free of a country are we really if two consenting adults cant be legally married?

Keep the Govt out of my church and my church out of the Govt. That is how I see it and want it.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

How free of a country are we really if two consenting adults cant be legally married?

Keep the Govt out of my church and my church out of the Govt. That is how I see it and want it.

Because private religious institutions should not be forced to recognize such "marriages". Furthermore, SCOTUS had to take the 14th Amendment out of context to make this ruling work.

Those who feel gay marriage should be legal in all States should have to work for it by convincing 3/4 of the States to amend the Constitution.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Because private religious institutions should not be forced to recognize such "marriages". Furthermore, SCOTUS had to take the 14th Amendment out of context to make this ruling work.

Those who feel gay marriage should be legal in all States should have to work for it by convincing 3/4 of the States to amend the Constitution.

How are private religious institutions being forced to recognize them? Serious question.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Because private religious institutions should not be forced to recognize such "marriages". Furthermore, SCOTUS had to take the 14th Amendment out of context to make this ruling work.

Those who feel gay marriage should be legal in all States should have to work for it by convincing 3/4 of the States to amend the Constitution.

Here is what Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent:

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.

When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.

We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue. But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”

One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”

The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”

Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Is equal protection under the law really that vague? Gays were not getting equal protection under the law.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Is equal protection under the law really that vague? Gays were not getting equal protection under the law.

Here's a perfect article for you, from me. Too bad I didn't write it.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...amacare-ruling

[Fionn mac Cumh]

I guess the question should be is the 10 amendment a shield against the 14th? I say no.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

How are private religious institutions being forced to recognize them? Serious question.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.


You are like people who take one verse in the Bible out of context like "judge not". Are you familiar with the original intent of this amendment? It is saying that the State governments can't seize anything, execute someone, or imprison anyone without having tried them and found them guilty, and that in a court of law everyone must be treated equally. It has nothing to do with marriage.

This amendment did not even give negro men the right to vote. By your interpretation it should have. But it didn't. The 15th Amendment had to added for negro men to vote.

By your thinking this amendment should have given women the right to vote, but it didn't. The 19th amendment had to added to do that.


But hey you'd make a great SCOTUS Justice! They interpret the Constitution like you do, ignoring the original intent of its framers.

Obama's Solicitor General admitted to the SCOTUS and on talk shows very lately that tax exemption religious institutions will become an issue over gay marriage. Where have you been?

[Fionn mac Cumh]

So we need to change the constitution and not take it literally? Does this also apply when you agree with a decision?