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

Whoever is arguing this decision to Federalize gay marriage involves the 14th amendment is incrorrect.

The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with details of reintegrating the southern states after the Civil War and defining some of the rights of recently freed slaves.

The first section of the amendment, however, was to revolutionize federalism. It stated that no state could “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gradually, the Supreme Court interpreted the amendment to mean that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights apply.

Marriage is not part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact the Federal government is violating the 10th Amendment, by over-reaching their powers to essentially veto the States.

Marriage is a States' right issue, and has been all along.

I'm sorry but arguing for same sex marriage on the grounds denying it violates the 14th Amendment is incorrect.

This decision by our Supreme Court was not based on Constitutional law at all. The crux of the majority opinoin was that States have no right to define marriage, no one has the right.. It opens fhe doors for Polygamy and other deviance...precisely because the Supreme Court has NOT defined what marriage is, they merely argued the States have no right to define it either.

 

OP means Original Poster. This is referencing the Original Post for this thread which all subsequent comments are based on. The legal insurrection article is only linked to in the OP's linked article. The linked article clearly gives the impression this was from her SCOTUS hearing.

That being said even the testimony from 2009 clearly does not indicate how Kagan felt about whether or not the Constitution can be inferred to support the right of same-sex marriage which she clearly answers she has no position on.

All of this aside it is all still misleading as she was asked again in her SCOTUS hearing similar questions in which she again stated this time because of a pending court case, that she does not hold a position and will wait until it comes up in front of the court to make a decision. Therefore the whole premise that she somehow lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings about this is a lie itself.

 

Yes, the state has a role in determining legal guardianship of children.


But, marriage is never affected by state action in such cases.

My wife and I have kids who we have come by legally and without contest. Beyond that, the state does not care where the kids came from.

And, there are many ways we could have acquired kids.

In fact, ALL the methods of acquiring kids are available to those who are NOT married.

The "it's about the children" arguments against same sex marriage are total nonsense.

 

I am not desperate. It is your desperation that is clearly showing through by trying to continue to argue something that has been exposed as purposeful misinformation campaign. Your emotion on this issue has blinded your logic. The clear inference from the questions and answer is that at the time the question was asked no legal right to same-sex marriage existed. That was factually correct. She also went on to say when asked whether or not she has opinion on whether or not the Constitution can interpreted to allow for a right to same sex marriage and she states she never expressed and opinion on the matter. She was never pressed for a further answer indicating that sufficed on that subject.

That being said it is equally clear she stated the same thing in her SCOTUS hearing. That she as not expressed an opinion and would reserve her judgement on the matter for the impending arguments to made in front the SCOTUS.

The whole OP is based on the dubious fact that she somehow lied to Congress on her position on same-sex marriage. That could not be further from the truth as clearly indicated by the evidence.

To continue this as a question belies your clear emotional attachment to the issue as your abandonment of logic and inference can attest to. This is just another pathetic attempt at some sort of sour grapes over court decision you and other conservatives disagree with. Get over it. It is done, finished, over.

 

Your point was that the state had no differing interest. You now backpedal by saying that childbearing is not dependent upon marriage to any worthy degree. And you are still quite wrong.

Outside of the black community, most folks still respect marriage before baby-making. Percentages say so heavily. Further, a child born in wedlock is 5 times more likely to be a taxpayer rather than a tax consumer, that is, an asset to society rather than a liability.

None of the above makes same-sex marriage a burden on society. However, heterosexual marriage is a major benefit to any society.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...tlement-quote-is-even-scarier-than-you-think/

and the right had no issue with this, course this was a republican (Scalia) saying this

" Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act."

republicans were gonna lose votes if they vote against the Voting Rights Act, so the SC decided to act for them...

.

 

It's not the only unalienable right that is unenumerated in the BoR.

But then it's also not a right any homosexual ever valued.

 

This is a bit of nonsense that in no way supports continued discrimination.

You are simply groping for an alternate majority opinion you hope to attach.

But, the fact is that our laws do not care whether you have or plan to have kids, and we provide numerous ways to get kids regardless of whether anyone's idea of optimal situation exists.

So, same sex couples have had many ways to acquire kids without benefit of marriage. To now think kids justify discrimination is just plain stupid.

We should be helping those with kids to have stability - which is one of the primary reasons for state marriage.

In other words, you got it backwards.

 

And there is something very sad about someone continuing to argue a proven lie.

 

Have you even read the ruling?

 

Procreation is irrelevant. Presumption of paternity is a paternity law not a marriage law.

This argument was refuted the first time you made it.

 

Well next is going to be amending the non-discrimination laws at the federal level to include gays, lesbians, and transgendered people.

 

And as has been stated many many times before..this argument is completely irrelevant as procreation to the ability to marry. So once again...your argument was put before the court...and it lost.

 

Have you even read Justice Roberts dissenting opinion?

This is activism, no more and no less.

In Justice Robert's own words...

As I've said, arguing this case on the basis of the 14th Amendment is incorrect..as there is scant evidence of any marital rights withing the Bill of Rights. The majority ruling on this case believed the Bill of Rights to be as malleable as a piece of clay and as times change, so should the Bill of Rights. Activism basically.

What this actually was, was an over-reach of Federal powers and an annhilation of the 10th Amendment which clearly spells out the powers of when the Federal government can intervene in State matters...marriage is never mentioned as an inalienable right to anyone. States set the minimum age limits, whether first cousins can marry, whether polygamy is allowed,...these marriage laws vary by State. Marriage has traditonally been a State issue. This was an over-reach by the Judiciary.

 

In 2009 the gay marriage issue was very active, however and Obama's Solicitor General was in a position of defending a law that, as with so many other under Obama, he wasn't interested in dealing with.
Therefore Cornyn's question had real purpose.

She said she couldn't recall which is a bit more elusive especially when it is known that she called
don't ask don't tell "shameful" policy.

No doubt because her memory "failed" her when asked to elaborate about her opinions of the legality of gay marriage. She, along with Ginsburg, had been called on to recuse themselves for officiating at gay marriages prior to the court taking on the subject.
So it's very, very unlikely she had no opinions on gay marriage when asked. She just couldn't remember.

Me? You're the guy who insists John Cornyn asked Elena Kagen if she believed "current" Constitutional law protected gay marriage. He did no such thing.

There is nothing for me to get over. I just get insulted when ideologue quislings lie to my face and insist up is down.

 

Nope, the strawman you all assign to me lost.

 

Then you must really be mad at the OP. Why argue with me?

 

Who cares? Dissents mean nothing they hold no weight. SSM is the law of the land. Its over.

 

No one claimed otherwise. Grasping for refuge already in your next strawman? I'll wait here

 

Rights were meant to be violated........eh? If written out Constitutional Rights can be violated so can "perceived" rights under a SCOTUS decision. You can't have it both ways.

 

If you think the 1sr gives religious people power to violate any laws they don't agree with then we are well on our way to sharia law.

 

The President's own words...3 years ago

Obama added:

What changed?

Activism.

Obama was worried about his legacy. He needed to appease the pro-gay voting bloc which extends well I have no doubt the Obama Court appointee...namely Justice Kagan felt pressured to Federalize same sex marriage within President Obama's legacy.

Activism...not Constitutional law is why the majority decided this case.

This has nothing to to with substantive due process within the 14th Amendment. There is scant mention of marriage, it's all CONTRIVED under the guise of implied rights this is no more than ACTIVISM!

 

Yes, well, I know what I thought I was responding to, unfortunately for me that isn't what you actually said! It looks like I didn't even attain "strawmanhood", sad to say.

I'm only glad I didn't add my normal level of snark.

I'll try to do better.

 

You speak with forked tongue. No where did I say that gays should be discriminated against. What I did was disprove another poster's statement about State interest in the promotion of heterosexual marriage. It is a long-term proven fact of society to promote childbirth within a family structure. Neither you nor anyone else has shown one iota of fact to counter such.

 

There is a constitutional right to not be discriminated against.
This is the country of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not divide due to discrimination.