Page 96 of 159 FirstFirst ... 46869495969798106146 ... LastLast
Results 951 to 960 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #951
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post

    Oh, so now you are talking about legalities? Guess what? DOMA was struck down. You were wrong.
    YOu really don't understnad what's happened, do you? Even at this late hour of the day, and given the fact that the decision was made early today, you still have not put two plus two together. THe problem is you're too smug buried and deep in your rabid ideology, having actually convinced yourself that your arguments are legitimate, that you don't yet realize how deep you've strayed into No Man's Land.

    The Court didn't strike down Doma today; the five members of the court struck down their own validity, and vacated themselves as legitimate justices.

    There are three points that you quite evidently have not begun to grasp, much less their cumuliative significance. I'll give you those three points, the first of which you've brushed against yourself.

    POINT 1: First, DOMA was not possibly unconstitutional in any fashion. (Oh, he's talking raw opinion now, right? Wrong.)

    As my previous post expressed, but the significance of it slipped way past you unnoticed, the only thing DOMA did was apply a FEDERAL regulation to FEDERAL action.

    Doma did not deny the states from making any legislation, or prohibit them from redefining marriage; it did not provide marriage licenses; it did not insist the states recognize the federal government's definition, which had been the only recognized definition for marriage during this country's history, and long beforehand; it did not violate state federalism nor the 10th Amendment;

    And DOMA did not possibly violate any individual rights, not of due process, and not of equal protection, because rights do not apply to equal outcome, and equal recognition, do not apply to the same outcome under different terms,...and here's a biggie ... there is no right for individuals to receive favorable legislation by the federal government.

    The ONLY thing DOMA did was the FEDERAL government regulating the FEDERAL government -- which is ENTIRELY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE, a legitimate act of Congress and nowhere the domain of equal rights!

    Here's the clincher question where you and the Court hang themselves: If the Federal government does not have authority to write legislation and terms only applicable to the actions of the federal government itself, then who does?

    Answer: ˙sɹǝʍoԀ ɟo uoıʇɐɹɐdǝS oʇ ǝnp 'ǝuǝʌɹǝʇuı oʇ ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ sɐɥ ʇɹnoƆ ǝɯǝɹdnS ǝɥʇ uǝʌǝ ʇoN ˙ʇuǝɯuɹǝʌoƃ lɐɹǝpǝℲ ǝɥʇ ʇsnɾ 'ǝuo oN

    Only the Federal government (Congress) has original authority to write laws applicable to the Federal government's authority. Given that the terms of marriage is only applied to the federal government's own discretionary actions, there is no legitimate cause for a Civil Rights action by the Court, much less any authority whatsoever to nullify DOMA.

    POINT 2: Kennedy's majority opinion has an extremely high personalization, an extreme amount of venomous condemnation in its direct personal attacks on any that disagreed with its intended outcome, and even describes those who disagree as


    And yet despite this inappropriate personalization, the legal scholars from the full range of the political spectrum have agreed on something else too: the majority opinion utterly lacks any substantial reference to Constitutional principle to validate this entirely new and prejudicial rationalization.

    These comments from legal scholars cover the gamut:


    • “He doesn’t do any constitutional analysis or equal protection analysis.”
    • “There’s no parameters, no objective analysis, no guidance as to how to apply this other than if you use enough horrible words about people who don’t agree with same-sex marriage, you win….He resorts to, essentially, name calling.”
    • "the decision doesn’t definitively resolve many of the key arguments opponents of same-sex marriage put forward."
    • “It’s not addressing the question of whether there are any interests a state could put forth that would be sufficient to sustain” a ban on same-sex marriage."
    • “It doesn’t address claims that marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman…."



    POINT 3 The result of response to Kennedy's personalized attack, and unsupported legal argument for its entirely novel (unsupported) rationale, was an absolutely unprecedented scathing attack from Scalia and the minority dissent. Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":
    But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.


    EFFECT: Not only was there no civil agreement on the decision, and no real constitutional law supporting the minority opinion, and the minority via Scalia openly charged that the majority was not judging by the Constitution, but rather that the hear was about imposing change via the Court.

    The result is this will be the straw that sets the nation against itself, and against the federal government, and it has already started this very day.

    BUT THERE'S MORE! <Next Post>

    Last edited by Trip; 06-27-13 at 04:11 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  2. #952
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Early on in Scalia's opinon, he not only recognizes that the Court had no legitimate authority to hear the case, but more than that, Scalia indicates something that has been thus far overlooked, that the case was only before the Court as a result of collusion between the petitioner, The United States <pushed by Obama>, and the appellant, for the purpose of pushing Social Engineering through the Court via Supreme Court fiat, all while the Court claimed Congress had no legitimate authority to legislate over its own federal business.

    In truth, this Court hearing on DOMA was not any sort of legitimate hearing of fact, with judgment based on the Constitution, but rather a contrived horse-and-pony show to allow the Court to issue court dictate falsely elevating gay marriage. :


    Scalia (p 5): " "What the petitioner United States asks us to do in this case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not provide relief from the judgment below but to say that the judgment was correct. And the same was true of the Court of Appeals. Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgement of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings should have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to elevate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States.

    We have never before agreed to speak-to "say what the law is" - where there is no controversy efore us. In more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question's answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument."

    The fact is there was no law to support this case, and no jurisdiction to even hear the case.

    What happened is the United States, through the Obama Administration, agreed to bring the case to a higher court, and yet another, to make it to the Supreme Court, via corrupt procedure, with the United States not at all representing the Congress, nor the standing law DOMA that had been in effect since 1996, as is proper procedure and duty.

    The petitioner and the appellant were operating in collusion to in order to advance a Social Engineering agenda by Supreme Court fiat that was in no way supported by Constitutional Law, precedent, or court procedure, and the Supreme Court had no legitimacy in hearing it!
    Last edited by Trip; 06-27-13 at 04:04 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  3. #953
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Again, you're posting like an ideologue.

    When I present the accurate information that I do, those who simply don't like that information because of what it means, left-wing ideologues, well, they're going to whine, obviously.

    That ideologues whine in response to my accurate information posts is, of course, meaningless.
    The one who is whining is you. Again, you have refused to source your ridiculous opinions, demonstrating that you do nothing but post dishonestly. So, let me ask you again... you claim that the majority of folks who support gay unions do NOT support these unions being called marriage. Prove it. Links are required. Let's see if you do what you always do... run away or divert from any challenge to prove your position.

    That you seem so obsessed about repeatedly discrediting me personally likely implies that the accurate information of topical relevancy I present is something you indeed recognize to be a threat to your particular ideology on the topic.
    I have no need to discredit you personally or discredit what you post. You do both of those things each time you say anything. All I have to do is point out your errors which is quite easy since your posts are full of them.

    And, that you're so upset that I bowed out of responding to your obfuscating subterfuge some posts ago means, apparently, that you're really incensed about me not acknowledging your "it's all about me" attitude.
    You ran... as you usually do when you are proven wrong. This is a demonstration of your lack of integrity. All you needed to do was either quote where I used the word "redefine" or when you couldn't (and since I didn't, you couldn't) admit that you were either wrong or had screwed up. But you don't have the integrity to do that. So instead you ran away from the challenge. Tell you what... I'll give you one more chance to show the community here that you do have some integrity and that you can actually debate a topic. Here is your claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Now you try to deny that you previously clearly stated that the word "marriage" was redefined some time ago and that today's SCOTUS rulings substantiated those redefinitions.
    My challenge is for you to find where I stated that marriage was "redefined".

    Here is your claim:

    Reality remains that today's SCOTUS rulings were simply nothing but state's rights decisions
    And here is your challenge... show where I have said that today's ruling is anything but a state's rights decision.

    Come on, Ontologuy. Show the community what an awesome debater you are. Show everyone how you are right and I am wrong. Will you accept the challenge? Or will you run away? I'll even give you a HINT... Post #842 was the first post I made towards you in this thread. You can start there.

    So, what's it going to be. Are you going to show everyone how good a debater you are, how you called me out on something and proved me wrong? Or are you going to find out that you were wrong... and either show some integrity and admit it or run away and dismiss it... showing the community that I don't have to do a thing to discredit you. You do all the work yourself.

    Maybe you should just give it a rest for a while.
    Nah... I'm just waiting to see if you'll accept any of my challenges and actually debate this issue... or if you will do exactly what we all know you will do.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #954
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Where is the poll question about calling the SS domestic partnership civil unions something other than marriage that correctly differentiates between OS ones and SS ones?

    When the poll does not present all the information in the form of logical and topically relevant valid questions, then responders have to decide between letting SS couples have their recognition by government and private enterprise but stomaching "marriage" as the description, or rejecting "marriage" as the description and thus also the recognition.

    You'd have a lot more people supporting the recognition of SS couples than in the mere mid-50 percentages if you let them accept the recognition but under a different and appropriate name other than "marriage".

    Again, obviously.

    Put some detailed and deeper thought into your arguments.
    In bold. Prove your position. Links are required.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  5. #955
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Further information regarding the collusion discussed in previous post:


    Scalia (p. 36-37)

    Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit. They agree that the court below got it right; and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well. What, then, are we doing here? The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today's opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority's vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our "primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law" (at least one that "has inflicted real injury on a plaintiff ") would "become only secondary to the President's." Ante, at 12. But wait, the reader wonders--Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we "undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Ibid. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

    That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere "primary" in its role.

    This image of the Court would have been unrecognizable to those who wrote and ratified our national charter. They knew well the dangers of "primary" power, and so created branches of government that would be "perfectly coordinate by the terms of their common commission," none of which branches could "pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers." The Federalist, No. 49, p. 314 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The people did this to protect themselves. They did it to guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today's majority finds so attractive. So it was that Madison could confidently state, with no fear of contradiction, that there was nothing of "greater intrinsic value" or "stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty" than a government of separate and coordinate powers. Id., No. 47, at 301.

    For this reason we are quite forbidden to say what the law is whenever (as today's opinion asserts) " 'an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution.' "Ante, at 12. We can do so only when that allegation will determine the outcome of a lawsuit, and is contradicted by the other party. The "judicial Power" is not, as the majority believes, the power " 'to say what the law is,' " ibid., giving the Supreme Court the "primary role in determining the constitutionality of laws." The majority must have in mind one of the foreign constitutions that pronounces such primacy for its constitutional court and allows that primacy to be exercised in contexts other than a lawsuit. See, e.g., Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Art. 93. The judicial power as Americans have understood it (and their English ancestors before them) is the power to adjudicate, with conclusive effect, disputed government claims (civil or criminal) against private persons, and disputed claims by private persons against the government or other private persons.

    Not only do we have a case of judicial supremacy, and supremacy over the Congress, but being able to exert this illegitimate supremacy as a result of the collusion of the Executive, entirely overriding Congress, and the people. What we're witnessing is an overthrow of the Constitution and disregard of its terms, by a "black-robed supremacy."
    Last edited by Trip; 06-27-13 at 04:41 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  6. #956
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You'd have a lot more people supporting the recognition of SS couples than in the mere mid-50 percentages if you let them accept the recognition but under a different and appropriate name other than "marriage".
    In bold. Prove your position. Links are required.
    It would seem a statement of fact in need of no external support.

    Any familiarity at all with the positions regarding gay marriage, should recognize that quite a number of those persons who defend the institution of marriage, have no desire to withhold similar recognition to gays under some other name than marriage, myself included.

    This is a reasonable expectation of logic and statistics: by expanding the parameters of a consideration to make them less stringent, it is anticipated under a normal distribution that a greater number of people would be included in those expanded parameters.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  7. #957
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Here you whine with false accusation, when it's you who didn't present the relevant facts you're supposedly debating me on.

    So, let me do it for you.

    Here's the results on the question about allowing SS couples civil union domestic partner ships but calling those relationships something other than "marriage":

    Notice that the most recent response causes a drop from your mid-50s percentage for "marriage" to 37 percent!

    And, notice that the 29 percent who favor recognition but not oxymoronically calling it "marriage" came from, not only the "marriage" group but from the opposed to SS marriage group.

    Thus supporting SS recognition jumps to 70% if you call it rightly something other than "marriage".

    This proves my point that the majority does not support SS .. wait for it .. .. marriage, as 63% do not support SS "marriage" though 70% want SS relationships recognized.

    Now sure, there will be extreme ideologues who'll refuse anything other than the oxymoronic "marriage" as the term for these SS recognitions, but they're a really tiny and unreasonable extreme.

    So, though you falsely accuse me of not reading the link, it apparently is you who didn't read it .. either that or you purposely omitted the poll of topical relevance because it refuted your debate point.

    Whatever, clearly SS organizers would have much more success if they'd simply heed what I'm saying and work to create homarriage domestic partnership civil unions in every state.
    Thank you. You just proved your position incorrect. Here is your claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Of those who support SS couples' civil union domestic partnerships, a significant marjority of them prefer that a different name be used.
    So, you said that of those people who support SS couples partnerships, A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF THEM PREFER THAT A DIFFERENT NAME BE USED.

    Let's look at your stats and look at the most recent number. Of 100% the people polled, 70% support SS couples partnerships. Of the 100% polled, 37% support using the term "marriage" and 33% support using a different term. The other 30% are irrelevant because they do not support SS couple partnerships, which is not part of your claim. So, what have we learned? That a MAJORITY of people who support SS couples partnerships SUPPORT CALLING IT MARRIAGE, BY 37%-33%.

    This is called self-pwnage, Ontologuy. You made a claim and you yourself provided the information that proved your claim to be false. It's a shame... the ONE time you provide a link when challenged, the link turns out to prove the OPPOSITE of what you claimed.

    But let's go even further. There are other polls in the link that Redress supplied and that Ontologuy used. Here's one:

    "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."


    .
    Legal Legal
    .....................marriage.......Civil unions...No legalrecognition..... Unsure

    ............................%.................%... ................%.......................%
    5/11-13/12............ 38................24...................33......... .............5
    Now, what do we notice here? Once again, the MAJORITY of people who support SS partnerships prefer it to be called marriage. In this case, the Majority is nearly twice those who prefer calling it civil unions. So, once again, Ontologuy is wrong, this time VASTLY wrong.

    Here's another one:

    "Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR, There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship."



    ...................Legal
    ...................marriage...Civil unions.......No legalrecognition...Unsure
    .......................%.............%............ ....%........................%
    2/8-13/12..........40............23...............31..... ...................6
    So, what do we learn from THIS poll? Same as we've learned from the other two. Ontologuy's assertion was patently false and he spoke before doing his homework... a common theme with him. In this poll, of those who support SS partnerships, a STRONG MAJORITY support calling it marriage over civil unions.

    3 polls, all 3 the same results. All of which prove that Ontologuy was wrong. And the best thing is that HE POSTED ONE OF THEM. As I said... self-pwnage. Always cool.
    Last edited by CaptainCourtesy; 06-27-13 at 07:34 AM.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #958
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:46 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,315
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    It would seem a statement of fact in need of no external support.

    Any familiarity at all with the positions regarding gay marriage, should recognize that quite a number of those persons who defend the institution of marriage, have no desire to withhold similar recognition to gays under some other name than marriage, myself included.

    This is a reasonable expectation of logic and statistics: by expanding the parameters of a consideration to make them less stringent, it is anticipated under a normal distribution that a greater number of people would be included in those expanded parameters.
    Odd, the poll data sourced in this very thread, just one page back, shows that what you believe is not fact, but actually incorrect conjecture. Confusing your opinions with facts is probably a bad plan. Go back another page or two and you will find a link I provided to a site that collects polling data from various sources on SSM. Might want to take a look before you make more easily avoided mistakes.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #959
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    YOu really don't understnad what's happened, do you? Even at this late hour of the day, and given the fact that the decision was made early today, you still have not put two plus two together. THe problem is you're too smug buried and deep in your rabid ideology, having actually convinced yourself that your arguments are legitimate, that you don't yet realize how deep you've strayed into No Man's Land.

    The Court didn't strike down Doma today; the five members of the court struck down their own validity, and vacated themselves as legitimate justices.
    Of course they struck down DOMA. It's in all the papers and on all the websites. This is just you whining.

    There are three points that you quite evidently have not begun to grasp, much less their cumuliative significance. I'll give you those three points, the first of which you've brushed against yourself.

    POINT 1: First, DOMA was not possibly unconstitutional in any fashion. (Oh, he's talking raw opinion now, right? Wrong.)

    As my previous post expressed, but the significance of it slipped way past you unnoticed, the only thing DOMA did was apply a FEDERAL regulation to FEDERAL action.

    Doma did not deny the states from making any legislation, or prohibit them from redefining marriage; it did not provide marriage licenses; it did not insist the states recognize the federal government's definition, which had been the only recognized definition for marriage during this country's history, and long beforehand; it did not violate state federalism nor the 10th Amendment;

    And DOMA did not possibly violate any individual rights, not of due process, and not of equal protection, because rights do not apply to equal outcome, and equal recognition, do not apply to the same outcome under different terms,...and here's a biggie ... there is no right for individuals to receive favorable legislation by the federal government.

    The ONLY thing DOMA did was the FEDERAL government regulating the FEDERAL government -- which is ENTIRELY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ISSUE, a legitimate act of Congress and nowhere the domain of equal rights!

    Here's the clincher question where you and the Court hang themselves: If the Federal government does not have authority to write legislation and terms only applicable to the actions of the federal government itself, then who does?

    Answer: ˙sɹǝʍoԀ ɟo uoıʇɐɹɐdǝS oʇ ǝnp 'ǝuǝʌɹǝʇuı oʇ ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ sɐɥ ʇɹnoƆ ǝɯǝɹdnS ǝɥʇ uǝʌǝ ʇoN ˙ʇuǝɯuɹǝʌoƃ lɐɹǝpǝℲ ǝɥʇ ʇsnɾ 'ǝuo oN

    Only the Federal government (Congress) has original authority to write laws applicable to the Federal government's authority. Given that the terms of marriage is only applied to the federal government's own discretionary actions, there is no legitimate cause for a Civil Rights action by the Court, much less any authority whatsoever to nullify DOMA.

    POINT 2: Kennedy's majority opinion has an extremely high personalization, an extreme amount of venomous condemnation in its direct personal attacks on any that disagreed with its intended outcome, and even describes those who disagree as


    And yet despite this inappropriate personalization, the legal scholars from the full range of the political spectrum have agreed on something else too: the majority opinion utterly lacks any substantial reference to Constitutional principle to validate this entirely new and prejudicial rationalization.

    These comments from legal scholars cover the gamut:


    • “He doesn’t do any constitutional analysis or equal protection analysis.”
    • “There’s no parameters, no objective analysis, no guidance as to how to apply this other than if you use enough horrible words about people who don’t agree with same-sex marriage, you win….He resorts to, essentially, name calling.”
    • "the decision doesn’t definitively resolve many of the key arguments opponents of same-sex marriage put forward."
    • “It’s not addressing the question of whether there are any interests a state could put forth that would be sufficient to sustain” a ban on same-sex marriage."
    • “It doesn’t address claims that marriage has historically been limited to a man and a woman…."



    POINT 3 The result of response to Kennedy's personalized attack, and unsupported legal argument for its entirely novel (unsupported) rationale, was an absolutely unprecedented scathing attack from Scalia and the minority dissent. Scalia wrote that Kennedy and the majority regarded those in opposition as "enemies of the human race":
    But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "disarage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.


    EFFECT: Not only was there no civil agreement on the decision, and no real constitutional law supporting the minority opinion, and the minority via Scalia openly charged that the majority was not judging by the Constitution, but rather that the hear was about imposing change via the Court.

    The result is this will be the straw that sets the nation against itself, and against the federal government, and it has already started this very day.

    BUT THERE'S MORE! <Next Post>

    All of this is just you whining that DOMA was struck down. You can complain all you want, but you were wrong and the reality is that DOMA was declared unconstitutional. No matter how wrong YOU think this is, your opinion is irrelevant.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  10. #960
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Early on in Scalia's opinon, he not only recognizes that the Court had no legitimate authority to hear the case, but more than that, Scalia indicates something that has been thus far overlooked, that the case was only before the Court as a result of collusion between the petitioner, The United States <pushed by Obama>, and the appellant, for the purpose of pushing Social Engineering through the Court via Supreme Court fiat, all while the Court claimed Congress had no legitimate authority to legislate over its own federal business.

    In truth, this Court hearing on DOMA was not any sort of legitimate hearing of fact, with judgment based on the Constitution, but rather a contrived horse-and-pony show to allow the Court to issue court dictate falsely elevating gay marriage. :


    Scalia (p 5): " "What the petitioner United States asks us to do in this case before us is exactly what the respondent Windsor asks us to do: not provide relief from the judgment below but to say that the judgment was correct. And the same was true of the Court of Appeals. Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgement of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there. The further proceedings should have been a contrivance, having no object in mind except to elevate a District Court judgment that has no precedential effect in other courts, to one that has precedential effect throughout the Second Circuit, and then (in this Court) precedential effect throughout the United States.

    We have never before agreed to speak-to "say what the law is" - where there is no controversy efore us. In more than two centuries that this Court has existed as an institution, we never suggested that we have the power to decide a question when every party agrees with both its nominal opponent and the court below on that question's answer. The United States reluctantly conceded that at oral argument."

    The fact is there was no law to support this case, and no jurisdiction to even hear the case.

    What happened is the United States, through the Obama Administration, agreed to bring the case to a higher court, and yet another, to make it to the Supreme Court, via corrupt procedure, with the United States not at all representing the Congress, nor the standing law DOMA that had been in effect since 1996, as is proper procedure and duty.

    The petitioner and the appellant were operating in collusion to in order to advance a Social Engineering agenda by Supreme Court fiat that was in no way supported by Constitutional Law, precedent, or court procedure, and the Supreme Court had no legitimacy in hearing it!
    More whining and crying. DOMA was struck down. It's a matter of record. You not liking that is irrelevant to reality.

    But let's see if YOU have integrity. Tell us what was the decision that was made on DOMA, today?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •