Supreme Court ruling

[Str8Shooter]

I'm surprised I haven't seen a post yet.  I hope it's okay to post about this.

 

So once again, the Supreme Court steps out of it's authority and stamps it's foot down right onto the Constitution and so many are blissfully ignorant to what is happening.  PLEASE pay attention.  This is fascism.  Fascism is BAD.  Five unelected lawyers, appointed by politicians, just took away Constitutional rights.  This has nothing to do about same-sex marriage.  It has everything to do with taking power away from the people.

 

From dissenting Justice Alito:

 

"Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage."

 

"It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.  In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent."

 

"I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools."

 

"The system of federalism established by our Constitution provides a way for people with different beliefs to live together in a single nation. If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights. The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas."

Edited June 26, 2015 by Str8Shooter

[bytor2112]

And Nero fiddled while Rome...er, America burned. No surprise really....just a bit closer to the retun of the Savior.

 

Sidenote: How can u not love Scalia...

 

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Edited June 26, 2015 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps we can change the title of the thread to "Last gay marriage thread EVAH!" 

 

Right?

 

Right?

 

 

In seriousness (and I don't have time for much observation now):

 

1.  If one assumes that gay marriage was inevitable, Kennedy's opinion actually could have been much worse.  This is not the opinion that any of the four reliable left-wing justices would have written.

2.  Scalia's dissent is a riot.  Seriously--read  the whole thing.

3.  Thomas' makes some very thoughtful points about how the government is not the grantor of an individual's dignity.  It's an important political theory to remember, regardless of one's opinions on gay marriage itself.

4.  Pro-gay-marriage law professor Ann Althouse has a poll about the opinion on her website.  She currently has 1408 respondents in favor of gay marriage; but a whopping 994 of those gay marriage supporters concede that the opinion itself is very poorly written from a constitutional law perspective.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Str8Shooter]

Perhaps we can change the title of the thread to "Last gay marriage thread EVAH!" 

 

Right?

 

Right?

 

 

In seriousness (and I don't have time for much observation now):

 

1.  If one assumes that gay marriage was inevitable, Kennedy's opinion actually could have been much worse.  This is not the opinion that any of the four reliable left-wing justices would have written.

2.  Scalia's dissent is a riot.  Seriously--read  the whole thing.

3.  Thomas' makes some very thoughtful points about how the government is not the grantor of an individual's dignity.  It's an important political theory to remember, regardless of one's opinions on gay marriage itself.

4.  Pro-gay-marriage law professor Ann Althouse has a poll about the opinion on her website.  She currently has 1408 respondents in favor of gay marriage; but a whopping 994 of those gay marriage supporters concede that the opinion itself is very poorly written from a constitutional law perspective.

 

I am hoping this thread will be more about the law and rights part of the ruling and less about the same-sex marriage part........

 

 

.....and as I was typing that I realized that this thread is probably going to devolve into some kind of a medieval witch hunt with posts that will contain stabbing remarks (pitchforks) and flames (torches).

 

Oh well.  As long as nobody here weighs the same as a duck we should be okay.

[Guest MormonGator]

I agree with the outcome but how they got there is chilling. 

[Str8Shooter]

I agree with the outcome but how they got there is chilling. 

 

Very, very, chilling.  A court of nine are taking over the United States.

[bytor2112]

Very, very, chilling.  A court of nine are taking over the United States.

 

Courts everywhere.....

[Str8Shooter]

And Nero fiddled while Rome...er, America burned. No surprise really....just a bit closer to the retun of the Savior.

 

Sidenote: How can u not love Scalia...

 

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

 

Perhaps we can change the title of the thread to "Last gay marriage thread EVAH!" 

 

Right?

 

Right?

 

 

In seriousness (and I don't have time for much observation now):

 

1.  If one assumes that gay marriage was inevitable, Kennedy's opinion actually could have been much worse.  This is not the opinion that any of the four reliable left-wing justices would have written.

2.  Scalia's dissent is a riot.  Seriously--read  the whole thing.

3.  Thomas' makes some very thoughtful points about how the government is not the grantor of an individual's dignity.  It's an important political theory to remember, regardless of one's opinions on gay marriage itself.

4.  Pro-gay-marriage law professor Ann Althouse has a poll about the opinion on her website.  She currently has 1408 respondents in favor of gay marriage; but a whopping 994 of those gay marriage supporters concede that the opinion itself is very poorly written from a constitutional law perspective.

 

 

I love how Scalia said Californians do not count as genuine Westerners.

As one who lives in a state that was invaded by California, I say he is spot on 100% accurate.

[Str8Shooter]

Courts everywhere.....

 

A more accurate statement, indeed.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

My fly-by-night observation about the opinion itself is that, in light of the sorts of Due Process/Equal Protection analysis I remember hearing about in law school, this is really half an opinion. 

 

The idea is that you're supposed to first determine if the federal government is depriving someone of a "fundamental right".  Once you've made that call, you apply one of three levels of scrutiny--if it's a fundamental right, you apply "strict scrutiny" (is the state policy necessary to a compelling government interest?  If so, it can stay; if not, it is invalid).  If it's not a fundamental right, then depending on what kind of "protected class" you're dealing with you might still apply "strict scrutiny", or you might apply "intermediate scrutiny" or the most lenient "rational basis test". 

 

Kennedy's opinion basically defined marriage--including gay marriage--as a fundamental right; but from what I could gather he then basically said "so that means the Constitution requires gay marriage, and we can all go home now".  It omits, as near as I can tell, the other half of the analysis.  (I'm also inclined to think his arguments as to why marriage is a "fundamental right" were problematic--he basically took policy reasons as a basis to create a fundamental right; and that sort of reasoning is supposed to be the province of legislatures; as both Justices Roberts and Alito pointed out in their dissents--but I haven't really parsed Kennedy's opinion that deeply yet.)

 

The silver lining, I think; is that it's still technically an open question about what sort of "protected class" and level of scrutiny should apply to any future court cases involving alleged discrimination against gays in the public sector.  I quite suspect that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor would have each taken the opportunity to close that loophole.  Kennedy writes a relatively narrow opinion with some explicit sops to religious sentiment that we may be able to make some hay out of in the future.  I think Kennedy's touch makes it just a bit tougher for gay rights litigators to use this particular opinion as a precedental bludgeon in the enactment of the rest of their agenda.  A SCOTUS regurgitation of--say--Judge Vaughn Walker's smackdown of Prop 8, could have been devastating.

 

But then, this wouldn't be the first time I've fallen into the trap of reading Justice Kennedy more charitably than he deserved.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I would say the Supreme Court has blown it. That said, the ruling today is nothing, NOTHING compared to the filth and wickedness the Supreme Court ushered in with Roe v Wade. If we blew our hopes of America as a whole being a righteous nation, it was with Roe v. Wade. That said, I am sure God is not happy with America right now...

Edited June 27, 2015 by DoctorLemon

[Guest]

Hey I made a chiasmus.!

[pam]

I'm already tired of people telling me I should be happy today.  No I don't.

[Guest MormonGator]

It has an unforeseen consequence. It has awoken the political right in a way I've never seen before. It's wonderful to see. 

[bytor2112]

John Roberts said some interesting things as well:

 

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

[rameumptom]

I see it from the perspective of the Savior, who told the Nephites:

 

 

11 Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant.

 12 And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lionamong the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

 13 Their hand shall be lifted up upon their adversaries, and all their enemies shall be cut off.

 14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;

 15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;

 16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;

 17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;

 18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.

 19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.

 20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at thatday whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;

 21 And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard. (3 Nephi 21)

 

 

I fear the Day of the Gentile is now past, or soon to be.  Israel (including the Church) will gain in strength, with the elect flocking to the Old and New Jerusalems (Jerusalem and Zion).  The Gentiles will be scattered.  Only those who repent will have refuge.

 

Are we, as a people, ready to follow President Monson and the 12 Apostles through whatever danger we may be led, so that we can establish Zion?

[Average Joe]

Its not about homosexuals and lesbians being allowed to marry

Its not about bakeries being fined for not making wedding cakes for homosexuals and lesbians

Its not about landowners being fined for not allowing homosexuals and lesbians to be married on their property when they allow heterosexual couples to marry there

Its not about crimes against homosexuals and lesbians being labeled hate crimes - violence against all people isn't caused by love

This is just one more throe in the death of the republic

[Guest MormonGator]

I think every generation has viewed certain political events as "the end of the world." 

 

Maybe it's time to take a deep breath and wait till the dust settles before we start proclaiming Armageddon. 

[bytor2112]

OFFICIAL STATEMENT — 26 JUNE 2015

Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage

SALT LAKE CITY — 

The Church issued the following statement Friday:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

[Palerider]

I'm already tired of people telling me I should be happy today.  No I don't.

Agreed

[Leah]

I'm already tired of people telling me I should be happy today.  No I don't.

 

 

....or saying "Love won today".

 

The White House was lit up in rainbow colors afterwards.  SMH

[Syme]

Where's the 'checks and balances' for the judicial branch??

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3.  Thomas' makes some very thoughtful points about how the government is not the grantor of an individual's dignity.  It's an important political theory to remember, regardless of one's opinions on gay marriage itself.

 

I'm confused about this.  (I didn't read his whole statement, just the two paragraphs that some article quoted.)

 

I think that he is saying that rights and dignity are inalienable, which I want to agree with, and yet he mentioned slavery.  If you are a black man who is a slave, and you are not able to prevent your own children from being sold or your wife raped...and the law allows this, then where is the dignity, the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect, in that?  How could he respect himself, or ask anyone else to respect him.  The law said they didn't have to.  So it seems that the government can take away dignity.  

 

What am I missing?

Edited June 27, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

That said, I am sure God is not happy with America right now...

 

I wonder if or why He has not been upset with America for a very long time.  Since Judge Thomas mentioned slavery in his opinion, I think it relates here.  I learned recently that England and Mexico both abandoned the practice of slavery before the United States did, and it didn't take them a war to do it.  But then perhaps, the Civil War is my answer....God showing His displeasure...as I note that His covenant people were removed to Utah and therefore spared the most of the horror of the war.  

Edited June 27, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[bytor2112]

Yes, Brittain ended slavery before the United States, but practiced it for many hundreds of years whereas the USA practiced less than one hundred years and while slavery ended after the war between the states, emancipation was not the primary reason the North invaded the South. I would note that Brittain does not have nor have they ever had a black Prime Minister, while the USA has a black President.

 

The idea that God was "showing his displeasure" with a horrific war is offensive on so many levels.

Edited June 27, 2015 by bytor2112