Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

Why? Reason and Root have argued for less deference to legislative majorities all along. It fits in both cases.

Is it because it's a biased source?

No, because judicial deference to the will of a legislature in statutory interpretation is completely different from judicial deference to the will of the legislature in the face of a Constitutional challenge. No matter how you feel about either decision, the distinction between the two should be obvious to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with our laws and our government. Conflating them requires a total absence of reason.

 

[rockaction]

Scott Walker the fist GOP candidate to jump in! Calls the decision "a grave mistake" and demands a Constitutional Amendment to "give states the right to decide the issue".

Yep. Been waiting for this.

 

[Scoresman]

Apologies to Canada. From reading social media. you are apparently about to receive an influx of America's worst.

 

[dickey moe]

Wonder if this is the first time that the phrase "... I would hide my head in a bag" has ever appeared in a SCOTUS dissent.

 

[Kal El]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

 

[rockaction]

Why? Reason and Root have argued for less deference to legislative majorities all along. It fits in both cases.

Is it because it's a biased source?

No, because judicial deference to the will of a legislature in statutory interpretation is completely different from judicial deference to the will of the legislature in the face of a Constitutional challenge. No matter how you feel about either decision, the distinction between the two should be obvious to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with our laws and our government. Conflating them requires a total absence of reason.

"John Roberts urges..."

It's a summation of Roberts's position. Maybe it's not conflating or defying reason, it's just simple reading comprehension.

n every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. - Roberts

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. - Roberts

eta* Those quotes are pulled from the article to make the author's point. They're not mine.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

Good for her.

 

[roadkill1292]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

Good for her.

And how does her wife define it?

 

[Joe Summer]

Scalia: "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

 

[Koya]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

Whose God? Or gods. Or Gods.

 

[rockaction]

Scalia: "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

Is this for real?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why? Reason and Root have argued for less deference to legislative majorities all along. It fits in both cases.

Is it because it's a biased source?

No, because judicial deference to the will of a legislature in statutory interpretation is completely different from judicial deference to the will of the legislature in the face of a Constitutional challenge. No matter how you feel about either decision, the distinction between the two should be obvious to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with our laws and our government. Conflating them requires a total absence of reason.

"John Roberts urges..."

It's a summation of Roberts's position. Maybe it's not conflating or defying reason, it's just simple reading comprehension.

n every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. - Roberts

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. - Roberts

eta* Those quotes are pulled from the article to make the author's point. They're not mine.

The article you linked suggests that it's somehow inconsistent to favor deference to legislature in matters of statutory interpretation of a federal law but then to reject it when it comes to whether a state statute violates the Constitution. That is an incredibly stupid argument because they are two totally different things. No amount of quotes from Roberts, or any other person, makes it less stupid.

ETA: Here is where he seems to suggest the inconsistency:

I lost count yesterday of the number of liberals who cheered Roberts for his "principled" act of conservative judicial deference. I guess we'll have to wait and see how many of those same liberals celebrate Roberts today for wanting the Court to practice judicial deference two days in a row.

 

[dickey moe]

Scalia: "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

Is this for real?

Yes. His dissent is filled with inappropriate yet hilarious prose like this.

 

[njherdfan]

Why? Reason and Root have argued for less deference to legislative majorities all along. It fits in both cases.

Is it because it's a biased source?

No, because judicial deference to the will of a legislature in statutory interpretation is completely different from judicial deference to the will of the legislature in the face of a Constitutional challenge. No matter how you feel about either decision, the distinction between the two should be obvious to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with our laws and our government. Conflating them requires a total absence of reason.

"John Roberts urges..."

It's a summation of Roberts's position. Maybe it's not conflating or defying reason, it's just simple reading comprehension.

n every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. - Roberts

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. - Roberts

eta* Those quotes are pulled from the article to make the author's point. They're not mine.

Clearly Roberts doesn't think the Constitution applies to gay marriage, which is a fine argument to make, but that was the basis of today's decision. Once a case hinges on the Constitution, legislative majority doesn't matter.

 

[Henry Ford]

Scalia: "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

Is this for real?

Yes.

 

[Joe Summer]

Scalia: "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."

Is this for real?

It's part of his published dissent. Here's another good one:"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: 'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity', I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

 

[Gawain]

Wonder if this is the first time that the phrase "... I would hide my head in a bag" has ever appeared in a SCOTUS dissent.

I believe so, but there is dictum that uses the phrase when Rehnquist went through the what would I do if I banged Ginsberg hypothetical.

 

[Kal El]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

 

[trogg78]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

I would like to hear that directly from God. I don't trust those that claim to speak for God.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

Good for her.

And how does her wife define it?

Deeeelicious

 

[rockaction]

Clearly Roberts doesn't think the Constitution applies to gay marriage, which is a fine argument to make, but that was the basis of today's decision. Once a case hinges on the Constitution, legislative majority doesn't matter.

I get your and Tobias's and RHE's and HF's points, but if one has an overarching political philosophy -- say, like Robert Bork -- that tends to place the primacy of legislative majorities at the forefront of every decision, what's the issue with him complaining about finding a constitutional solution to a question he feels shouldn't be solved constitutionally -- a problem that he feels is primarily the scope of the legislature?

Think political philosophy for a minute here, not the procedure, precedents, and categories of constitutional law.

 

[Scoresman]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They're all moving to Canada so its not really our problem anymore. What do we do with all that vacant land in the South?

 

[squistion]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

Presumably the same thing that happened to those people or groups who didn't wish to recognize interracial marriage after Loving v Virginia.

 

[Kal El]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

I would like to hear that directly from God. I don't trust those that claim to speak for God.

Go ahead and ask Him. I did, and that's the answer I got.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Clearly Roberts doesn't think the Constitution applies to gay marriage, which is a fine argument to make, but that was the basis of today's decision. Once a case hinges on the Constitution, legislative majority doesn't matter.

I get your and Tobias's and RHE's and HF's points, but if one has an overarching political philosophy -- say, like Robert Bork -- that tends to place the primacy of legislative majorities at the forefront of every decision, what's the issue with him complaining about finding a constitutional solution to a question he feels shouldn't be solved constitutionally -- a problem that he feels is primarily the scope of the legislature?

Think political philosophy for a minute here, not the procedure, precedents, and categories of constitutional law.

The problem is that you can't just have a "political philosophy" regarding deference to legislatures that applies to both federal statutory interpretation and Constitutional challenges to state laws. It doesn't make any sense and leads to preposterous conclusions.

What if a state legislature passed a law forbidding the publication of articles critical of President Obama? Does a justice who deferred to Congress on interpreting federal law in some other case just throw up his hands and say "well, if a legislative body of some kind passed the law I guess I'm in no position to argue?"

 

[njherdfan]

Clearly Roberts doesn't think the Constitution applies to gay marriage, which is a fine argument to make, but that was the basis of today's decision. Once a case hinges on the Constitution, legislative majority doesn't matter.

I get your and Tobias's and RHE's and HF's points, but if one has an overarching political philosophy -- say, like Robert Bork -- that tends to place the primacy of legislative majorities at the forefront of every decision, what's the issue with him complaining about finding a constitutional solution to a question he feels shouldn't be solved constitutionally -- a problem that he feels is primarily the scope of the legislature?

Think political philosophy for a minute here, not the procedure, precedents, and categories of constitutional law.

Well if you're talking philosophically, that's a different issue. There are a lot of people who have argued that judicial review should be limited to only the most egregious cases, where a statute facially violates a part of the Constitution (like a law mandating cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the world we live in, and I didn't read the article you were quoting as a musing on how legislative bodies aren't accorded the supremacy they deserve. I took your article as a specific complaint about this decision because it doesn't defer to state legislatures.

 

[Koya]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

Same thing that happened to those who didn't (don't) recognize interracial or inter-religious marriage.

Duh.

 

[Kal El]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

 

[Scoresman]

http://i.imgur.com/XSOa75K.jpg

 

[rockaction]

Clearly Roberts doesn't think the Constitution applies to gay marriage, which is a fine argument to make, but that was the basis of today's decision. Once a case hinges on the Constitution, legislative majority doesn't matter.

I get your and Tobias's and RHE's and HF's points, but if one has an overarching political philosophy -- say, like Robert Bork -- that tends to place the primacy of legislative majorities at the forefront of every decision, what's the issue with him complaining about finding a constitutional solution to a question he feels shouldn't be solved constitutionally -- a problem that he feels is primarily the scope of the legislature?

Think political philosophy for a minute here, not the procedure, precedents, and categories of constitutional law.

The problem is that you can't just have a "political philosophy" regarding deference to legislatures that applies to both federal statutory interpretation and Constitutional challenges to state laws. It doesn't make any sense and leads to preposterous conclusions.

What if a state legislature passed a law forbidding the publication of articles critical of President Obama? Does a justice who deferred to Congress on interpreting federal law in some other case just throw up his hands and say "well, if a legislative body of some kind passed the law I guess I'm in no position to argue?"

No, but that's far out there. When it comes to prudential questions, or determining which basis test to use, and the level of said tests, or finding a constitutional question, if one tends to defer to the majority as a matter of philosophy, one will do so when there is a choice to be had.

 

[rockaction]

Clearly Roberts doesn't think the Constitution applies to gay marriage, which is a fine argument to make, but that was the basis of today's decision. Once a case hinges on the Constitution, legislative majority doesn't matter.

I get your and Tobias's and RHE's and HF's points, but if one has an overarching political philosophy -- say, like Robert Bork -- that tends to place the primacy of legislative majorities at the forefront of every decision, what's the issue with him complaining about finding a constitutional solution to a question he feels shouldn't be solved constitutionally -- a problem that he feels is primarily the scope of the legislature?

Think political philosophy for a minute here, not the procedure, precedents, and categories of constitutional law.

Well if you're talking philosophically, that's a different issue. There are a lot of people who have argued that judicial review should be limited to only the most egregious cases, where a statute facially violates a part of the Constitution (like a law mandating cruel and unusual punishment). But that's not the world we live in, and I didn't read the article you were quoting as a musing on how legislative bodies aren't accorded the supremacy it deserves. I took your article as a specific complaint about this decision because it doesn't defer to state legislatures.

Reason and Root ardently support gay marriage. Perhaps it's a bad one-off article by a guy who is pointing out -- and had written extensively about -- the need for less deference to legislatures in a general sense.

 

[Tom Hagen]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

 

[roadkill1292]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

They'll probably just continue to lose membership. Every year fewer people wish to be associated with those kinds of attitudes.

 

[Kal El]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

 

[ClownCausedChaos2]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

They'll probably just continue to lose membership. Every year fewer people wish to be associated with those kinds of attitudes.

Beat me to it.

 

[Koya]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

What happened to such institutions when they would marry neither out of race or out of religion?

Why try to push this irrational fear that extending the liberty of another must in some way threaten your own?

 

[Henry Ford]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

This. People will ridicule them and realize they're backwards idiots. Just like they do with churches that refuse to perform interracial marriages.

See, the right wing idiots have convinced you that this is about forcing churches to do something. Or that it will be about that in the future. It's not. It's not going to be. It has nothing to do with that and never did and never will.

 

[Henry Ford]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

That's because you, for some reason, believe the incendiary morons who have told you this is possible or probable or Constitutional. It's not. If the Courts were going to force clergy to marry people they didn't want to, don't you think the Civil Rights Act would have made that happen for interracial marriages?

 

[TobiasFunke]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

Why did you ask the question if this is your response to the accurate answer?

 

[shader]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

They don't perform them

 

[trogg78]

No matter what happens, God still defines marriage between as man and a woman.

I would like to hear that directly from God. I don't trust those that claim to speak for God.

Go ahead and ask Him. I did, and that's the answer I got.

Apparently God loves Gays. Heard straight from Gods facebook feed.

 

[rockaction]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

 

[rockaction]

That's because you, for some reason, believe the incendiary morons who have told you this is possible or probable or Constitutional. It's not. If the Courts were going to force clergy to marry people they didn't want to, don't you think the Civil Rights Act would have made that happen for interracial marriages?

More banking done today.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

 

[shader]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

Absolutely nothing. I believe Kennedy even referenced this in his opinion.

Somehow I'm not convinced this will stay the case.

CURRENTLY, they can't FORCE a church to perform a marriage under any laws.

I'm sure it will be similar to the pizza place that refused to cater a gay wedding (or whatever the story was). There will be a gay couple that will try to get married in a church, they will get denied, and there will be a social media outrage against that church. That's one prediction you can see coming from a mile away.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

Or successfully sued for damages specifically for refusing to marry an interracial couple. I'll keep waiting.

 

[roadkill1292]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Why don't you go back to losing legal arguments?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

My biggest concern now is what happens to people or groups who don't wish to recognize same-sex marriages.

They become even more irrelevant?

What about churches and other places of worship that don't want to perform them? What happens to them?

They'll probably just continue to lose membership. Every year fewer people wish to be associated with those kinds of attitudes.

It ain't easy being a bigot these days.

 

[rockaction]

You know why you're worried? Because when societal norms were different decades ago, the people in the majority always brought the hammer down on the minority. It's the mindset of the prohibitionist culture.

Wow. These assurances. I'll bank them. Good. As. Gold.

Go look for a case where a church was forced to marry an interracial couple. I'll wait here.

Will it simply be the calls for quid pro quo on tax-exempt status, or what will the carrot and stick be?