Re: Texas AG Says Workers Can Refuse Marriage Licenses to Gays
[
If I was feeling charitable at best, that would be what you are doing.
What "personal prejudices" could you be referring to?
It is assuredly not sound, which is the entire reason for my frustration with this absurd ruling.
Okay, please explain in detail why, despite my clear explanation, you continue to think the decision is not constitutionally sound.
I would ask that you not use rationale's presented in each of the four dissents that the four dissenting Justices felt the need to provide. I add this restriction for the following reasons:
After reading each of the dissenting opinions I found:
1. Justice Robert's argument is primarily based on denying the petition because of a "states compelling interest in preserving the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman." Just like all other proponents of this argument he does not explain factually why this is actually a compelling interest allowing any State to ignore 14th Amendment prohibitions under due process and equal protection for same-sex marriages allowed by law in other states for couples who move to states where it is NOT legal.
2.Scalia's dissent is even more irrational since his argument's start off against use of the 14th Amendment because same-sex marriage was not an issue of "fundamental right" at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted; then goes on to argue that nine Justices are not qualified to make such a constitutional determination before going off on a rant about the flowery verbiage used in the decision. This from a Justice who has voted for quite a few decisions which would be considered "questionable" under his "not qualified" argument.
3. Thomas argues that the Framers would not have accepted same-sex marriage as a liberty to be preserved under the Constitution, because they would never imagine any marriage other than one between and man and woman. Then argues such a decision undermines the right of states to decide this for themselves. Of course he completely disregards the fact that the original drafters also included members who would never imagine slaves as anything other than property, free only if their master manumitted them himself. Or that throughout his term he, like Scalia, had no problem making decisions (like the D.C. v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010)) that overturned gun control laws supported by "compelling state interests." (BTW, as a 2nd Amendment advocate I support both those rulings too).
4. Finally, Alito's argument is that since the desire for constitutional protection of the right to same-sex marriage is not "deeply rooted in history," and is "contrary to long-standing tradition" it is undeserving of such protection until it has been democratically decided in each and every state, however long that may take. He does not explain why this must be so other than to argue that the estate of marriage provides legal benefits to encourage "procreative conduct and provide for the children thereof." So, in essence his argument is that unless a right exists for a clear social purpose, it does not deserve protection under the law.
I've heard each of those arguments from fellow citizens and they all appear to be constructs to justify nothing more than prejudice, religious-based or otherwise. I cannot understand such argument because clearly no one is harmed by allowing same-sex marriage; yet people were harmed by denying it.
So I'd like to hear YOUR reason(s) for opposing same sex marriage that stand against the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
