It appears the Surpreme Court will uphold gay marriage bans

Listening to the comments the Justices were putting out during arguments I think there is little doubt anymore about how they are going to rule. We may even see some of the liberal Justices voting to uphold the bans.

I figured, and have stated here, that they were going to leave this up to the States and now it looks like I was right.

Here are some of their comments.

 

"He said marriage has been understood as one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time.” "

Rather interesting revisionist historical claim, isn't it? Especially considering there has been plural marriages throughout historical records for "millenia-plus time".

 

Historically accurate or not, it gives us an insight into the way his thinking is going and he is the one who gets to cast a vote based on what he believes.

 

That's the whole problem with these Supreme Morons, they're casting votes based on their beliefs!

They're not supposed to do that.

They're supposed to interpret the Constitution as it is written. That's their job description .It's also their oaths of office.

 

If the Constitution was written in a way that everyone could interpret it the same way than we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

Would we?

The Supreme Court was designed to be based completely off of opinion so that it can reflect the current views of any given society at any time. This is why slavery was allowed and then eventually done away with. There is a constant change of balance in the Supreme Court from conservative to liberal and it is this change that allows us to go left sometimes and right sometimes but to always hover around the middle.

It is imperative to our success as a nation that the Justices vote according to their beliefs, that is why they are nominated by the current President who picks people that share his beliefs.

 

Something eing "unpalatable" to a religion is not a reason to ban it by that basis alone. Abortion, pornography, sodomy, these are also things that are "unpalatable" to many religious people yet legal. And appeals to tradition are also a fallacy.

Not all their concerns or comments were ignorant, but some were.

 

"Justice Antonin Scalia said the issue is not whether there should be same-sex marriage "but who should decide the point." He expressed concern about the court imposing a requirement on the states that "is unpalatable to many for religious reasons." "

Another classic. Good thing that the country is not a democratic republic-theocracy, where religions run states and make laws.

 

That is incorrect.

You are making the "living Constitution" claim, which is saying that the Constitution changes as the political and social whims of society change. In other words, there is no true standard, no rule of law which applies from one day to the next.

The Supreme Court was supposed to act as a review of the Executive and Legislative branches to insure those branches stayed within the limits of the Constitution as written.

 

the catch 22 for you is that they will also say that once married in one state your married in all states and federally recognized as being married if legally married in any State

which would pretty much means a state ban would be pointless as they could just cross state lines, get married and head back home

.

 

Sounds like you are upset they may not interpret it as you see fit. It seems they are having second thoughts and decided to put more thought into their decision instead of bowing to the gay mafia. Good for them. Either way this decision should be made with more thought and some debate instead of allowing lefties force their view on everyone.

 

religion does not trump the constitution or we would have blasphemy laws

 

I do not believe anyone said that it did.

 

I disagree with the premise of the thread, and so do quite a few other legal scholars.

 

I did not know you were a legal scholar.....

 

The comments and especially questions, sometimes cannot be trusted.

The question is whether court is imposing on the states same-sex marriage while ignoring bisexual marriage (polygamy, and religious grounds for marriage polygamy), which is to be left to the States, because homosexuals are hypocritically more "special" than others?

“Justice Antonin Scalia said the issue is not whether there should be same-sex marriage ‘but who should decide the point.’ He expressed concern about the court imposing a requirement on the states that ‘is unpalatable to many for religious reasons.’"

It is unpalatable to have special rulings for “special” people for logical reasons too.

 

Of course we would, because the law applies differently to every case.

 

as far as marriage is concerned, gender discrimination should no more be allowed then racial discrimination

 

Aren't laws giving hetrosexual couples protected marriage rights just making hetrosexuals a "special" protected class of Americans?

 

Not exactly. At issue here, is two entirely different statures: The Stature of Marriage, as well as the Stature of Federal Benefits. I want to note that the Stature of Federal Benefits is ATTACHED TO, but not a part of Marriage. They are parcel and part, yet separate at the same time. It's like having benefits for joining the Country Club, but the Country Club is not itself the "benefits" of joining.

Federal Benefits, will of course be upheld in the 14th Amendment through the States. But the Stature of Marriage is an entirely different animal, Marriage being the cohabitation of human beings, as outlined religiously as well as morally. You really think the Courts are going to interpret the 14th in a way to enable anyone to claim "rights" to rewrite the privilege of private individuals?

Not at all. They're going to rule in a very traditional manner: The 10th leaves these affairs to the States, and so with the States they stay. If same-sex couples want to "marry", they're just going to have to marry in a same-sex State. It's no different from how if I want to legally own weed, I'll need to be in Washington DC or Colorado.

So: Yay: Everyone will get equal rights. Boo: It likely won't be classified as a "Marriage", since there's no legal argument propelling a reason for the Courts to mandate it as an Marriage.

 

I sure hope so! Then we can get all these rulings made by single judges overturned and returned to its rightful place.

 

Ah no, there are numerous states that have open carry and those who have only concealed. Out of state you have to abide by the state you go to and not your own.

By your definition, I should be able to open carry in new york( which constitutionally I should anyway).

 

Not exactly. The bill of rights are not up for amendment. They are considered natural rights that should not be infringed upon. The fact that they have been does not make being done do constitutional by the founders intent.

 

Lol, there is no such thing as natural rights. Only legal rights. And of course any one of the first 10 amendments can be amended. That's what amendments do. If enough of congress voted and then enough of the states ratified, there could be an amendment outlawing the possession of firearms. Or outlawing free speech.

It's entirely unlikely, but perfectly constitutional.

 

Ginsburg, by way of a “question” did a good job explaining the “traditional definition” to her colleagues:

But you wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible.

Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.

​

 

Not if your state won't recognize your out-of-state marriage. That's not equal.