Chief Justice John Roberts’ lesbian cousin to attend Proposition 8 arguments

Redress said:

So your problem is he once did not interpret the constitution as you wanted him to. Bummer. He has also ruled in ways I do not like, but like I feel with the rest of the justices, I have some faith they will actually attempt to rule based on the law.

Click to expand...

I have no faith in the judicial branch at all. I have studied them for far too long to feel any sort of faith in them. I hate to say it but I feel Obama was in part right about him all those years ago when he said he would vote for corporate interests. Sure, I support his prior decision in Citizens United, but when you combine that with other similar votes a pattern starts to form that I can't just ignore. The argument that forced commerce falls under the taxing and spending clause is not an argument anyone with any sort of understanding of the Constitution would ever accept and his argument on just why it was a tax was not only irreverent, but frankly wrong. I have no idea how he will vote in this kind of case, but he seems easily moved by things outside of the constitution and that worries me.

digsbe said:

It is a valid position, it's the most prominent legally recognized position by the majority of states, period.

Your right to marry is what the state allows. Your right to change the definition of marriage is also there, but you do not have the right to invalidate the laws and beliefs of others over your views. It is not your right to tell another state and the voters of that state that they must recognize inter-racial relationships as marriage and change their legally adopted definition just as much as it is not anyone elses right to tell a state that they must change their position that allows for inter-racial marriage.
.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the 1950's!!

digsbe said:

And he may not take his cousin into consideration. But if that becomes the case and evidence surfaces that this happened he needs to recuse himself.

Click to expand...

But you could make similar arguments for each and every Justice in each and every case. What you are doing is seeing gay relative and all of a sudden thinking it is more likely because of it, without any evidence to actually suggest that. In fact, I could make more compelling cases that all those who are potential votes in favor of DOMA and Prop 8 should recuse themselves. I would still consider them weak arguments, but more compelling that a gay first cousin.

digsbe said:

I certainly hope he doesn't put family issues and bias over legal matters.

Click to expand...

If I recall correctly Romer was a 6-3 decision and the case was decided more along the lines of the Colorado Amendment prohibited gays from seeking protection from the Courts/legislature and the ruling was basically everybody has a right to have their grievances heard both politically and legally. It has been awhile since I read the case but my recollection is that is is more of a procedural due process ruling.

digsbe said:

It is a valid position, it's the most prominent legally recognized position by the majority of states, period.

Your right to marry is what the state allows. Your right to push to change the definition of marriage through legislation and free speech is also there, but you do not have the right to invalidate the laws and beliefs of others over your views. It is not your right to tell another state and the voters of that state that they must recognize LGBT relationships as marriage and change their legally adopted definition just as much as it is not anyone elses right to tell a state that they must change their position that allows for SSM.



And he may not take his cousin into consideration. But if that becomes the case and evidence surfaces that this happened he needs to recuse himself.

Click to expand...

If the vote is another 5-4 decision and Roberts is one of the 5 that vote to overturn the ban, whether or not he took his cousins or kin into consideration, the taste will still be there that he did. The appearance that he was influenced by his cousin will hang over this decision for many a year to come.

This is why, which ever way they decide that the decision is nearly unanimous. 7-2 or 8-1 or even 9-0. Anything closer will cause the argument over gay marriages to continue much like the 5-4 decisions on abortion has continued on to this very day. There is no end in sight for that debate.

digsbe said:

Your right to marry is what the state allows. Your right to push to change the definition of marriage through legislation and free speech is also there, but you do not have the right to invalidate the laws and beliefs of others over your views.

Click to expand...

Damn, talk about using liberal logic against them. It is indeed true that liberals believe rights come from the state, so if the state says no then they would naturally have to accept it. The problem is they never do that. The logic is funny that way.

Not that agree with your position, but nice going there.

Your Star said:

People don't have the ****ing right to deny people equal protection under the law, period. Just like no state can vote to ban inter-racial marriage, no state should be able to vote to ban SSM.

Click to expand...

Did you see the other thread "Beyond Gay Marriage"?

digsbe said:

I don't understand why so many people default to that straw man argument when it comes to SSM. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Race is constitutionally protected. It's unconstitutional to deny a man and woman the ability to marry due to race. However, I don't think it's within the Constitution to suddenly force the traditional and legal definition of marriage that has been around for hundreds of years to change because public opinion has changed and it's somehow "gender discrimination" to uphold the correct and traditional definition of marriage that has been honored since the nation's creation.

Click to expand...

That's just it, the "traditional definition of marriage" changed. So why is "traditional definition of marriage" a defense?

Before that, marriage was between a man and his property. (the wife) (no seriously the wife was literally property)

Old testament bible had some people with many, many wives.

And another thing. Since ****ing when is your tradition good enough to be forced upon me via law of the nation? How come my traditional marriage doesn't count? Why is public opinion even a consideration here? I never got to vote on whether or not I approved of your marriage. I don't. Because I don't approve of people with your hair color being married.

Rocketman said:

Actually he should recuse himself

Click to expand...

Then so should all the ones who are married and religious.

digsbe said:

I don't understand why so many people default to that straw man argument when it comes to SSM. Marriage is the union between a man and woman. Race is constitutionally protected. It's unconstitutional to deny a man and woman the ability to marry due to race. However, I don't think it's within the Constitution to suddenly force the traditional and legal definition of marriage that has been around for hundreds of years to change because public opinion has changed and it's somehow "gender discrimination" to uphold the correct and traditional definition of marriage that has been honored since the nation's creation.

Click to expand...

You are discussing two different things. There is a religious definition of marriage which the state does not actually get involved in. that is defined by the religion marrying you in the eyes of god. Then there is the definition of marriage under law which is basically a partnership contract which infers legal responsibilities, benefits, and asset distribution upon breakup. The reason you are confused is because they have allowed religious figures to officiate the forming of these partnerships. However, since a marriage contract can be terminated without the need for a religious figure and the church may not be willing to marry a person a second time in the eyes of god shows that state marriage and religious marriage are two separate issues. I will admit it has caused a lot of confusion with people who want the two combined, but really the state doesn't hold any authority over who marries in the eyes of god even though certain people like yourself are looking for it to validate the religious partnership.

The reality you need to recognize is that any gay couple is able to get married in the eyes of god in any willing religious institution through their own ceremony. The only thing banning gay marriage does is keep them from getting government benefits. No one will arrest a preist or other religious figure for performing a religious gay marriage ceremony. the only thing that won't happen is the state will not recognize the union as a partnership and bestow things like legal protections, tax benefits, but they might actually allow for the dividing up of assets upon a break up in civil courts. So your point has no basis in the reality of the situation, especially considering congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion which clearly makes certain parts of DOMA unconstitutional.

As for the putting discrimination on the state level because you like it, I certainly hope they squash such a thing. Certainly if they don't enjoy the time while it lasts because the republicans and conservatives are cracking on this issue. It seems religious fundamentalism is failing them, and even straight people are becoming sick of it.