|
On June 27 2015 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:whole opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfC.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with: Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
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 whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
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 Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. This is a load of shit. The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that. They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates.
the constitution doesnt require that all people be treated equally. you know how many laws would be unconstitutional if that were true?
|
nice banner on TL 
|
On June 27 2015 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 04:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2015 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words. thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear. I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic. can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile.
How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
|
I thank TL for showing their support!
|
What a glorious day to celebrate! Cheers TL!
|
On June 27 2015 05:24 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2015 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words. thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear. I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic. can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile. How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all.
There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
|
sucks when the contemporary practitioners of those religions still think they have authority over those words though
|
On June 27 2015 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 27 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:whole opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfC.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with: Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
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 whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
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 Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. This is a load of shit. The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that. They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates. the constitution doesnt require that all people be treated equally. you know how many laws would be unconstitutional if that were true?
Americans have a high opinion of their constitution and while I agree that constitutions deserve to be treated with a lot of respect, some folks act like it's sacred and perfect... The constitution of the US has quite a few issues.
Edit: That being said, CHEERS USA and fuck Scalia and Thomas.
|
Exactly, lets get back to how much of a tool Scalia is.
|
On June 27 2015 05:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:24 Slaughter wrote:On June 27 2015 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2015 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words. thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear. I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic. can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile. How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all. There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses.
Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover only their ceremony and definition of marriage. They combine this by pretending that historically and globally their definition is the only one which is horseshit.
|
As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL.
|
On June 27 2015 06:03 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:46 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2015 05:24 Slaughter wrote:On June 27 2015 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2015 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words. thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear. I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic. can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile. How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all. There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses. Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover their ceremony and definition of marriage.
You do realize that law is something that adapts and changes over time? Its stone carving or math. The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion and that is why it was defined the way it was.
|
On June 27 2015 06:00 Plansix wrote:
Exactly, lets get back to how much of a tool Scalia is.
I read Scalia's opinion in full, it made me sick on multiple levels. The interracial marriage point was already brought up by someone else but the whole opinion just reeked of a kid screaming for candy particularly in the critique of his colleagues.
|
On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote:
As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL.
Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed.
|
On June 27 2015 06:05 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote:
As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL. Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed.
But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands.
|
Good job America. On some level I feel like this should have been accomplished through more democratic means, but I suppose the federalist system makes that difficult. Overall a pretty good day for humanity.
|
On June 27 2015 06:10 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:05 Slaughter wrote:On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote:
As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL. Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed. But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands.
That's nothing new and has been that way in other points in history. The main problem right now with our politics is there is a section of Congress that actively loathes government and doesn't believe it's their job to lead by example or change things for the better. That needs to change and then amending the Constitution will be possible again.
|
On June 27 2015 05:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 05:23 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 05:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 27 2015 03:54 dAPhREAk wrote:whole opinion is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdfC.J. Roberts' dissent is what I have a problem with: Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sexcouples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.
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 whatthe law is, not what it should be. The people who ratifiedthe Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriageto same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. 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.
Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
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 Carthagin- ians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?
It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned withthe wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J.,dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutralprinciples of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent.
Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through theirelected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legaldisputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. This is a load of shit. The judges didn't decide what the law was. They didn't make a new law or anything like that. They ensured that all people are treated equally, as the Constitution already dictates. the constitution doesnt require that all people be treated equally. you know how many laws would be unconstitutional if that were true? Americans have a high opinion of their constitution and while I agree that constitutions deserve to be treated with a lot of respect, some folks act like it's sacred and perfect... The constitution of the US has quite a few issues. Edit: That being said, CHEERS USA and fuck Scalia and Thomas.
i doubt many americans actually understand the constitution or its effect (as is readily apparent if you read any forum discussion discussing it). i dont disagree it has its flaw, just as the entire governmental system has its flaws.
|
On June 27 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:10 Djzapz wrote:On June 27 2015 06:05 Slaughter wrote:On June 27 2015 06:03 Half the Sky wrote:
As for the constitution of the US being perfect...hasn't it already been amended 20 times or something?
On another note, I am loving the banner. Well done TL. Its why in theory it's good because its a living document that can change with the times as needed. But the way in which it can be changed is contained in the document and it's getting increasingly difficult to change the obsolete parts of the constitutions for multiple reasons, one of them being that it's really hard to get to a 2/3 majority in Congress and 2/3 or (something about states) when those idiots in Washington can hardly get regular laws passed. Toss the States in the mix and you've got a mess on your hands. That's nothing new and has been that way in other points in history. The main problem right now with our politics is there is a section of Congress that actively loathes government and doesn't believe it's their job to lead by example or change things for the better. That needs to change and then amending the Constitution will be possible again.
I wasn't saying it's anything new, I was also pointing out that the current context makes amendments to the constitution essentially impossible. It's unfortunate that this whole ordeal had to be done with the judiciary system when really it should've been done by the legislature. Not that in these times the legislative has much legitimacy anyway...
|
On June 27 2015 06:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:03 Slaughter wrote:On June 27 2015 05:46 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2015 05:24 Slaughter wrote:On June 27 2015 04:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:30 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2015 04:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 27 2015 04:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if Roberts would write the same dissent if the issue at hand were mixed-race marriage and he were deciding Loving v. Virginia. The argument for dissent seems pretty identical, you just have to tweak a couple words. thats just the introduction. the next page he talks about the historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. In 1967 there were plenty of states where the historical definition of marriage was between a man and woman of the same race (some since their induction to the Union) that all had their chance to democratically decided the issue taken away. He mentions California's statute in L v V wasn't written that way (which I honestly couldn't tell from his citation) but the intent was clear. I don't really think his dissent is wrong per se, reading more of it, but I'm a little disappointed he doesn't just say he would have dissented in Loving v. Virginia under the same logic. can you send me a link to those historical definitions? i dont recall that when i read Loving v. Virginia in law school, but its been awhile. How does this matter? All this "definitions" or marriage arguments is Bullshit. There isn't ONE definition out there like conservatives like to pretend there is. Sure there is a CHRISTIAN definition of marriage, but I am pretty sure our politicians should not be using one religion's definition of marriage for everyone. The whole separation of church and state and all. There is a legal definition for "act of god", so of course there would be one for marriage. The separation of church and state does not prohibit the use of words that religion also uses. Sure they can use the same words, but they aren't supposed to be using a specific definition of marriage taken from christianity. Religion doesn't own the concept and the legal marriage recognized by the state is separate from the religious ceremony. Two different things but religious groups want the government recognition cover their ceremony and definition of marriage. You do realize that law is something that adapts and changes over time? Its stone carving or math. The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion and that is why it was defined the way it was.
No it didn't. Marriage has its origins as a way of making alliances between tribes and families.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
