Trip
Spectemur Agendo
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,920
- Reaction score
- 425
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.”
[*=left]"the decision doesn’t definitively resolve many of the key arguments opponents of same-sex marriage put forward."
[*=left]“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: