Kagan's Hearing: “There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage”

And when the votes of the people conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins, every time.

 

They don't conflict with the Constitution, as Kagan stated. Evidently there is a conflict with this new interpretation of the Constitution that the 5 justices recently dreamed up.

 

At the time of her confirmation hearings there was no right. Things changed. New arguments were brought forth that were more persuasive than previous ones.

Are you upset that she considered new evidence and came to a conclusion you don't like? Or are you just upset that that she came to a conclusion you don't like? The Supreme Court is allowed to change it's mind. They do it all the time. This is no different. And do you honestly think this is the first time the Court has invalidated a state law/amendment that violates the US Constitution?

 

Certain people here are just intent on dumbing this down in order the deride and bemoan the court’s decision. You can’t just call all decisions that you don’t like legislating from the bench or judicial activism. Some decisions may be but it is necessary to analyze each one on its own merits.

It seems to me that we all need to take a step back and consider what “legislating from the bench “ actually means and how the term is used.

It would appear that the term is most often used by those who wish to deride decisions that the court has made. And both liberals and conservatives do it.

Regardless of what it is called, the courts are sometimes the only place for an oppressed minority to turn

The courts either interpret the meaning of a law or rule on its constitutionality. That is a basic fact. The real question is to what extent the court is actually engaging in judicial activism or legislating from the bench- vs. judicial restraint or maintaining the status quo

In Obergefell, Kennedy, writing for the majority clearly relied on precedent and constitutional principles to come to his conclusion that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

At the same time, it can be said that he did have an agenda-specifically his passion for the plight of children who suffer the effects of discrimination against their parents

But that too draws on legal precedent. Applying the above definitions of activism vs. restraint it is hard to say that the court acted in an activist manner by going beyond the intent of congress in that the opinion is firmly grounded in the 14th amendment and case law. Any activism is with respect to the discriminatory state laws which were struck down. However, it is well established that the constitution trumps state laws which must abide by the supreme law of the land.

But was judicial restraint employed? Again, they relied on precedent and in that sense they most certainly did use restraint. Did they uphold the status quo? That depends on what the status quo was and is. I will offer that with the rapid ascent of gay rights, and the fact that at the time of the ruling some 36 states already had legal same sex marriage, that they did in fact uphold the status quo. On balance, while there may have been an element of activism, the decision is more representative of judicial restraint.

Another question is whether or not the decision should have been left to the legislature or congress, and if not, why not ? In this case there is a very good reason for not doing so:

 

Oh it's going to get bad.
Now we need more laws so churches don't get sued for not wanting to marry homosexuals.
more laws,more laws
This law wasn't made by Congress,this law was made by the Supreme Court.
btw..I really haven't seen this Congress do much.
Have any decent bills they proposed been vetoed by Obama?
or have they just been voting for big-pharma type bills and watching their portfolio grow exponentially?
This whole government is sucking:From the HOA,to the city,to the county,to the state,to the fed,to the top.
They all SUCKmoney out of your pocket and give you nothing in return.
It's not working the way The Founders of this country intended it to.That needs fixed.
The gay marriage thing probably should have been addressed a long time ago..I mean...7% of the 4% of the population that make up gay people that want to get married..Okay..let's let them give it a go.
That doesn't mean I'm all for letting them infringe upon other people's rights, though.
That's completely unacceptable.
So is "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crime" crap.
A crime is a crime.Okay..so it was especially heinous in a certain instance,right? Let the judge give them a harsher sentence,period.
They=more laws, too.
..And screw "PC" stuff,too.

 

Nah. They just hadn't yet dreamed up this new interpretation yet.

 

So in other words, you are just upset they didn't come to the conclusion that you thought was correct. If it had been a 6-3 or 7-2 decision, or even a 9-0, would you still be upset over their decision?

 

I am a communist. Let me tell you the real motivation behind all of the policies you've presented in your paranoid scaremongering.

25. Sex is a pleasurable and often emotionally intimate part of the human experience. It should not be suppressed, but rather celebrated because of how it can be used to bring people closer together and allow human beings to derive pleasure just from bodily contact.

26. Queer liberation is a portion of total liberation. Humanity will not be totally free until gender, sexuality, and romantic minorities of all kinds are no longer oppressed and are free to pursue the relationships and gender identities that make their lives the best they can be.

27. I have no desire to infiltrate Churches, I desire to obsolete them. Religion will no longer be necessary when life is no longer so painful that people numb themselves with such things, and religion will wither away and die a natural death.

40. People should not be bound to spouses that they no longer desire to be with. I'm a believer in long-lasting relationships, but sometimes people make mistakes and need to dissolve a relationship put into legal writing. Promiscuity should be permitted because people have the right to share their bodies as they please.

41. I assume that the nugget of truth under all of the reactionary tears of fear is that the left wing recognizes that some parents are abusive and unfit to raise children.

 

Or in Ginsbergs case.................

 

Provide purpose of
Kinship
Contract
Selective equality is not equality

- - - Updated - - -

Cherry pick. He said it is not the marriage as well

 

No proponent of government sposored homosexuality could explain what is the purpose of marriage. Sex per se cannot be a purpose,

 

Matrimony, Latin root of the word MATER. Mother. Only women become mothers and men having sex with women is what causes them to become mothers. Its biology, it predates religion. In Ancient Mesopotamia a marriage was not much different than the purchase of a slave. With one exception, if your wife doesn't produce a child, you get a refund of the purchase price.

 

Just because the government isn't condemning homosexuality doesn't mean that is sponsoring it. What we have now is the government treating heterosexuals and homosexuals equally, neither condemning their lifestyle or condoning, but rather being neutral.

 

Would seem its only remaining purpose is to help homosexuals feel equal to heterosexuals.


From the Queer Nation Manifesto-

Encouraging mother and fathers to join together to provide and care for their children through marriage, a noble cause, must be stricken from the law because it offends the delicate sensibilities of the gays who cant participate.

 

The thousands of governmental entitlements and tax breaks that accompany marriage would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

What are you rambling about?
Why don't you answer the questions? EmbarASSed?

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3


mat·ri·mo·ny (măt′rə-mō′n&#275
n. pl. mat·ri·mo·nies
The act or state of being married; marriage.
[Middle English, from Old French matrimoine, from Latin mātrimōnium, from māter, mātr-, mother; see māter- in Indo-European roots.]
mat′ri·mo′ni·al adj.
mat′ri·mo′ni·al·ly adv.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
matrimony (ˈmætrɪmən&#618
n, pl -nies
1. the state or condition of being married
2. the ceremony or sacrament of marriage
3. (Card Games)
a. a card game in which the king and queen together are a winning combination
b. such a combination
[C14: via Norman French from Latin mātrimōnium wedlock, from māter mother]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matrimony

 

Same sex couples have almost as many ways to build families as dohetero couples.

So, all participate. We even have single parents. And, your biology nonsense didn't stop that, either.

 

No, you just confirmed my statement was accurate with your definition. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Just not the one way 99 point something% of the children are brought into this world.

 

I don't get the question?

Getting the same right as someone else is equal.

 

We don't have matrimony in the U.S. We have legal marriage. Procreation is not relevant.

 

Nope. Nothing at all there about men and women and sex. I am bright enough to know when a contraction symbol needs to be used.
Just a condition or state of being married.
See, I am bright enough. lol

 

Not a cherry pick. A legal definition that you cannot get by so you just ignore it.

 

This thread has reached it's post limit. Feel free to restart it