Implications of gay marriage ruling
SSC: Goddamn OC, you're good!
But heck, that ain't nothing. You should see me play snooker.
No Viviane, "So your complaint is "The U.S. Constitution, legislative, executive and judicial branches worked exactly as designed, but I don't like the results"?"
I say that the constitution is for checks and balances and separation of powers there was none in that case.
I agree fully with the dissent on law principles.
"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment."" and
" The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."
The dissenters said to leave it to the legislature and the people as it has been. That is what works best if no one is being hurt by that. The petitioners in this case were not hurt by leaving things alone. The Supreme Court works best when it helps the oppressed like in the Barnette case and in the aftermath of Gobitis when their wrong ruling caused more violence against JWs and and the court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically. But what of in the mean time? Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution; the expelled child was considered "unlawfully absent" and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days. That was a penal law that penalizes. So it had to be reversed. Thus West Virginia v Barnette was beneficial.
Since it is split liberal v conservative, the ruling can not be taken seriously. It was scripted. If one person had gone the other way, the ruling would have been different. 5-4 majorities are considered bad rulings.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not against gays. I like how they push the envelope like Game of Thrones pushes the envelope as to what is shown on TV. But there are hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws already.
jws said "Don't fool yourself either. The legalization of gay marriage was spreading anyway. And the more it became legal and was accepted, it's my opinion that the remaining states would cave as well. So like it or not, Gay marriage would be widespread and eventually be legal in all states. Probably. Except for the most ignorant states. Or states like Utah with it's huge Mormon presence."
Well, that is fine. That is democracy.
but they don't like democracy--much like the Watchtower!
Sir82, I disagree. The constitution said their job is not to define the law, it is the state legislature that defines it.
The dissent got it right, and give them credit, when it said: But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." and
"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."
"The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial "caution" and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own "new insight" into the "nature of injustice." Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"
"It would be hypocritical of me to lambast the Watchtower society, and then turn around and embrace this movement, for it stands against everything I hold dear--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc etc."
You and those like you remind me of the Confederates who went to war because they wanted the freedom to take other people's freedoms away. After decades of being verbally bullied, harassed at their jobs even beaten and raped (a lesbian) gays are now getting the freedom they deserve.
Too bad for you and your fellow worshippers of your demon god.
I see no one here has seen South Park. Funny then how the term "cheesypoofs" is understood. Oh well, my bad.
Rattigan: And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational...
...aaannnd...that is where I quit reading.
We have different ideas about what constitutes rationality. And a different understanding of cultural history.
Okay...carry on.....I shall observe your species...at which stage would you place your development? Oh right...somewhere back in one of those metal ages or something like that...pardon me for asking. As I said...carry on....
Wow, I totally agree with Junction Guy. A first time for everything. He is making sense because it is not about religion but in how proper law should be enacted.
You said "Viviane, that is not idiotic at all, that is just what happened! We left a country where the King and the royal family had the power concentrated in their hands, and came here to America, where we the people (majority rules) could decide our destiny as a nation. Power was no longer in the hands of a few, but was placed in the hands of the many."