|
On June 27 2015 06:21 Thax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:04 Plansix wrote: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.
"The concept of marriage in law grew out of religion"
Law didn't draw from tribes and families, it drew from organized religion.
|
On June 27 2015 06:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:14 Plansix wrote: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...
I completely agree and its why I didn't find Robert's dissent to be persuasive in any way. If the government was functioning and the legislator was doing its job, maybe. But the gay couples seeking legal marriage protection don't shouldn't be required to wait and hope it will get better next election cycle.
|
The colored fish is back on LD :-D
Good day for some actual equality.
|
Protecting minority rights against majoritarian abuse is one of the major purposes of the judiciary; since it's specifically known the legislature may not handle those well, due to its majoritarian nature. Thus I'd say its broader than the current specific dysfunction in the legislature, but a common occurrence in general that is planned for.
|
On June 27 2015 06:29 Badjas wrote:
The colored fish is back on LD :-D
Good day for some actual equality.
yep 
|
On June 27 2015 06:34 zlefin wrote:
Protecting minority rights against majoritarian abuse is one of the major purposes of the judiciary; since it's specifically known the legislature may not handle those well, due to its majoritarian nature. Thus I'd say its broader than the current specific dysfunction in the legislature, but a common occurrence in general that is planned for.
the senate was originally designed around that too but it got rekt
|
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: Show nested quote +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.
The counter-argument is that you could apply the same logic of his dissent against Brown vs. Board of Education, or to many cases that the Supreme Court can and has presided over. The "overstepping judicial bounds" argument isn't a very strong one because it can be applied fairly liberally to accommodate many different cases and ends up getting used to drive personal politics more than anything else.
|
On June 27 2015 06:42 TheYango 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. The counter-argument is that you could apply the same logic of his dissent against Brown vs. Board of Education, or to many cases that the Supreme Court can and has presided over. The "overstepping judicial bounds" argument isn't a very strong one because it can be applied fairly liberally to accommodate many different cases and ends up getting used to drive personal politics more than anything else.
isnt a very strong argument for what? the supreme court's role is constrained by the constitution, but when they overstep their role, who is going to call them out on it? impeaching a supreme court justice has never been done. they know they can do what they want and no one will do anything about it.
|
On June 27 2015 06:42 TheYango 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. The counter-argument is that you could apply the same logic of his dissent against Brown vs. Board of Education, or to many cases that the Supreme Court can and has presided over. The "overstepping judicial bounds" argument isn't a very strong one because it can be applied fairly liberally to accommodate many different cases and ends up getting used to drive personal politics more than anything else.
I agree with the general idea and I understand that fundamentally the judiciary overstepping in stuff that should be legislative is bad but I'd argue that the US and much of the democratic world is in the middle of a crisis and I would argue that it's especially obvious in the US where representation of the citizens has never actually been a priority and people are starting to catch onto that. Big money is winning elections and especially in the upper house it's extremely difficult to dislodge an incumbent. I think it's something like 95-99% of senators get reelected and it costs millions of dollars to kick them out.
Not to mention the obvious problems like the one brought up by zlefin. Legislatures are by their nature a tool of the majority. It's not optimal, but frankly the US legislature is in a deadlock.
As far as I'm concerned, polls showing >50% in favor of gay marriage in the US are more legitimate than the congress's opinion on the matter, especially since you're definitely not FORCED to gay-marry now.
|
I'm disappointed that a a majority of judges think that they can retroactively insert implied meaning into the 14th amendment in the name of morality and worry that this weakens our constitution substantively.
I'm happy for those who can now enter the legal institution of marriage with the same sex, but this wasn't the right way.
|
im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
|
On June 27 2015 07:04 ampson wrote:
I'm disappointed that a a majority of judges think that they can retroactively insert implied meaning into the 14th amendment in the name of morality and worry that this weakens our constitution substantively.
I'm happy for those who can now enter the legal institution of marriage with the same sex, but this wasn't the right way.
In Canada, the Supreme court can do these kind of things not based on implied meaning by the legislator or the legendary "founding fathers", but based on what the new context is. Knowing that the constitution is hard to modify given the rigidity of the legislature, I think it's reasonable for the justices to take reality into account, and not just shit out absurd out of date BS because the legislator is incompetent.
Not every governmental body needs to be slow and unresponsive. People will complain ad nauseum about how shitty and ineffective bureaucracy is and now that we have an example of an efficiently made decision which is aligned with the opinion of the majority of Americans, it's the wrong way? If it's the wrong way according to the constitution, consider the possibility that the constitution may have been wrong on that account.
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote:
im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
Because medias, church etc picture homosexuals as "not normal"?
Apart from the obvious, that you can just look the other way. It's not that people think they have the right - they do have that right. And it's something americans point proudly at in every discussion - why is it different for gay people?
|
On June 27 2015 07:16 Barrin wrote:
If the government is going to provide benefits to married couples (I'm not sure that it should) then all couples should be able to get married. +1
funny thing is that now gay couples will be subject to the same marriage tax penalties as the rest of us! =)
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote:
I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm.
You don't understand that those kids would otherwise not have any parents at all
|
|
|
On June 27 2015 08:15 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 07:57 Leviance wrote:On June 27 2015 00:52 FusionSC2 wrote:
I agree with ssm, but disagree with gay adoption. I think that todays society is so caught up in trying to get away from the conservative nature of the last 100 years, that many people have jumped to the social far left in order to seem different from generations past. Just 1 mans opinion.
Edit: Therefore, in practice I am against all ssm. You don't understand that those kids would otherwise not have any parents at all I used to be against 'gay adoption', and then someone informed me of this. I changed my mind immediately. 2c
Well it's a pretty convincing argument but at a more basic level, from my understanding, I believe studies showed that gay parents raised their kids just fine.
|
On June 27 2015 07:08 graNite wrote:
im so annoyed by this whole discussion. why do so many people think they have the right to tell me what their sexual preferences are? i dont care what anyone does at home, i just dont want those people to shove it down everyones throat by these gay pride parades or "huge news" what stuff like this happens. why cant it be a normal thing for everyone to keep it for himself?
It's really annoying for me too.
Like out of all issues we are going to make a fuss about, instead of focusing on more important things, we will spend years discussing simple things like abortion and gay rights.
Hopefully with this, LGBT community will quiet down a bit, and behave like normal people (and get treated like normal people), so this shit stays out of news, as well as gaming communities. 99% of people here agree with gay rights already... These last 4 years have been like following cavemen learn about fire.
edit: Funny how 30 years ago communism was the biggest fear... And then in the last 10 years, all of western europe and north america have been becoming very socialist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
