Posted on 09/05/2015 2:51:59 PM PDT by djf
Your argument seems to be that the Supreme Court shouldn't say that homosexuals can marry in all states because there may be some state that doesn't recognize any marriages and therefore doesn't violate the equal protection clause. The problem with your argument is that there really aren't any states that don't license and recognize marriages. When there is such a state, they'll have a pretty good argument.
But, of course, that is an empty threat because any politicians who voted to end all marriages would soon be unelected politicians. So, don't count on that.
We'll probably need an amendment if we're going to change this situation.
> Your argument seems to be that the Supreme Court shouldn't say that homosexuals can marry in all states because there may be some state that doesn't recognize any marriages and therefore doesn't violate the equal protection clause.
That is not at all my argument.
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” - Obergefell
Here is the error:
“The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States.”
This goes too far. This commandeers the legislative process of the States. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States. No court, least of all the USSC, has the authority to legislate.
There may be a legitimate Art IV basis for the USSC declaration that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, although I am not convinced. This would strike Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable, but it does not touch other provisions of Kentucky's marriage statutes.
Kentucky can not be forced to issue marriage licenses contrary to its laws, or to have it's laws written for them by the federal Supreme Court.
I’ll agree with you that the Court’s language went too far (farther than they wanted it to) if there are states that don’t recognize heterosexual marriages. The problem is, there isn’t any such states.
Also, the court is saying, and you and I have to accept it, that they don’t care if you or I disagree with their opinion. They don’t care!
> I’ll agree with you that the Court’s language went too far (farther than they wanted it to) if there are states that don’t recognize heterosexual marriages
If the people of a state decide that marriage is between opposite genders that is their prerogative.
They have exceeded their authority.
Yeah, that's what you and I say.
I've been in this situation before. I felt one way and the Supreme Court felt a different way. In terms of winning and losing, I'm not sure what the current score is, but it's (some large number) - 0 and I'm not winning. ;-)
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have acted as legislators, an act infinitely beyond the authority of the Court. They all need to be impeached for their lawlessness, abuse of power, and violation of their Oath. States must defend their people from this illegitimate diktat.
The people need to rise up and make some political changes.
Impeaching them is one action. States defending their citizens is another. Both need actions need to be taken.
People on FR are leaders. I think we collectively need to rally those around us.
I encourage you to vote for people who will represent your interests in selecting judges. It’s a very iffy business, though. There has been disappointment about the CJ.
“Not so much- homosexuality is not a right anymore than pedophilia is a ‘right’ - it may be ‘allowed’ but it is not a right protected under the constitution”
But the issues isn’t whether or not homosexuality is a right of not. The issue is whether or not people of the same sex have a right to marry each other. That’s mostly of concern to homosexuals, but not entirely. Someone might want to marry their great grandchild of the same sex if for no other reason than to stick the feds with survivor benefits.
In reality, homosexuals always had the the same right to marry as non-homosexuals. They could marry someone of the opposite sex, whether or not that person was a homosexual, just the same as anyone else could.
[[Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not. Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage. The USSC has arrogated to itself the authority to alter the definition of marriage.]]
Ray, that was the point I was trying to make-
[[What federal law?
There is no federal marriage law, marriage laws have always been within the purview of the States.]]
exactly- The SC’s decision (which illegally became law) is an assault on state sovereignty inthat states passed laws against immoral acts, banning them from marrying, based on natural law and the laws of God.
[[There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.]]
And here is the crux of the matter- the supreme court can’t just decide that there is when there isn’t- As you point out no one’s true rights have been violated, therefore there was no need for the supreme court to hear the case to begin with- IF equal protection of homosexuals had been violated, then it can be said equal protection of ALL deviant sexual practices had been violated- but no one In their right mind would think a bestiality practitioner’s ‘rights and desires to marry animals’ has been violated because heterosexuals are allowed, under the law, to be married.
You know more about these things than I- so I’ll let you discuss it further with Lurking Libertarian as it was going down a wrong road on my part concerning jurisdiction- but you seem to have rescued it a bit by stating the SC doesn’t have the jurisdiction to interfere with a states laws that do Not violate a person’s rights to begin with- I’m just out of my league trying to discuss these harder legal issues-
Just one more quick thought though
[[Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage.]]
Right- and it was pretty obvious to all that it was wrong to ban marriage based on color, and so the courts had an obligation to decide the case because it was a clear case of discrimination
Gay groups claim discrimination based on sexual orientation, but their claim is no more valid than the bestiality practitioner claiming discrimination, because both are subject to well established moral laws that do NOT violate rights, but rather consider the immoral acts themselves as the basis for denying marriage- IF we are to all of a sudden consider the one not immoral, when in reality it is still immoral, and still a deviancy of natural and God’s laws, then we must afford every immoral deviancy the same ‘equal protection’, and we can no longer ban any of them from marrying- (Except perhaps the ones that hurt others against their will)
Meh- too tired to think further-
[[In reality, homosexuals always had the the same right to marry as non-homosexuals.]]
Not so much- most, if not all, states had laws criminalizing homosexuality- but liberals stepped in and slowly but surely convinced the public that it’s ‘not that bad a sin’ and shouldn’t be looked down on- and since many states were liberally run- they simply stopped enforcing laws against homosexuality, and began an aggressive campaign to brainwash the public in an effort to influence courts as their ultimate goal-
It’s not that homosexuality became ‘less of a sin’ or less of an abomination- it’s just that liberals brainwashed the public slowly and surely to believe it’s simply a practice that is ‘none of our business’ - and now there is an ultra aggressive push to actually criminalize opinions that don’t accept and approve of their lifestyles
Sounds like a great idea to me.
Quitter. Get out of my foxhole.
“Not so much- most, if not all, states had laws criminalizing homosexuality-”
Which states had laws stating criminals couldn’t marry?
Which states had laws stating homosexuals couldn’t get married to a person of the opposite sex?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.