The people saying it is destroying families, or society — the ones saying that SCOTUS will revisit the issue must have some issue of harm in their minds. I just wish they could put it into words instead of just saying same sex marriage isn’t marriage. I would really like to see their prospective, it shouldn’t be that hard to rationalize if it was based on fact and not opinion.
which is correct. no it can't, as nobody has standing to challenge the previous ruling. you are misunderstanding what you are reading. No case on the same merits can reach scotus a second time. All lower courts are bound by the precedent of the ruling, and the case can not advance past the very first lower court.
Which part of, "just because no one can come up with the proper arguments now, it doesn't mean that they won't be thought of later." did you not get? As noted, the courts initially upheld OSM only, because no one could develop the proper arguments as to why SSM should be legal. Then people managed to make the right arguments that made SSM legal. Again I point to the fact that SCOTUS has overturned their previous decisions over 200 times so far, and I don't doubt that it will happen many more times in the future.
If a later ruling overturns a previous ruling, then what does it matter how it got to SCOTUS? The fact remains that SCOTUS can overturn previous SCOTUS rulings. It's right there in black and white pixels.
Let me help you analyze this. He claimed homosexual marriage does not harm him nor his neighbors. I was attempting to point out to him that is not the standard applied in this instance and gave him an example where he would not be harmed yet would play an active role in blaming the robber. It is a false narrative to speak of this homosexual union having to harm a poster.
no, as I've shown you. Nobody has standing to bring a case before them on the same merits as the one that was ruled on. All lower courts are bound by the rulings precedent and any challenge would die in the first court it came to.
ask whoever wrote it. the simple legal reality is nobody has standing to challenge a supreme court ruling. all lower courts are bound by the precedent so if someone challenges, it can't get past the first court.
Or you could simply ask me what those acronyms mean?? That would be the easiest way to learn... RDCF = Repetitive Distortions and Contextomy Fallacies. ARF = Argument by Repetition Fallacy. RAAA = Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed.
That's from the Supreme Court of the United States' own website. Are you claiming that SCOTUS has its own abilities wrong on their website?
I'm pointing out that nobody has standing to bring a case before the court, based on a previous ruling they already made. Its why an amendment is required to overturn a SCOTUS ruling.
or you could actually learn what each of those terms mean, and quit throwing them around in ignorance when you can't address the fact your argument was destroyed.
Or a later SCOTUS ruling, as per the SCOTUS website. You are not showing us any evidence that they can't do what that are saying they can. It does indeed note that an amendment is one of the two ways. I'm not denying that such is a path. But there are over 200 examples of overturned rulings by subsequent rulings.
No, per constitutional law. No case can be brought before the court that they have already ruled on, as nobody has standing to challenge it. That isn't going to stop being true. I've refuted that already. None of the 200 rulings you are referencing were on the same merits.
I have provided the proof along with the link to the source upholding my assertion. You have provided nothing but your own assertions. The only point I have made is that rulings are overturned. Whether or not a subsequent case was brought up on the same, similar or completely different merits quite frankly is irrelevant. The previous ruling was overturned.
Wrong. They are NOT able to procreate in ACTUALITY. (due to them being infertile). They ARE able to procreate in PRINCIPLE. (due to them being a man and a woman).
I was afraid it could turn to this. Now I have to repeat the beginning of marriages, why marriage was needed and who was protected. Sorry, this is an argument I was making in the 1990s and it's worn me out. Hint if you truly want your answers, check into ancient roman history given this was going on prior to the written Bible or other religious books and see why a man wanted his children protected. That points you to all of your answers. PS, then there were homoxexuals and they were not getting married.
you are not comprehending what you are reading. I've provided constitutional law and case precedent. yes, via an amendment. it's in no way irrelevant. It's literally central to why you are incorrect. no it wasn't, as the subsequent case was not on the same merits.
And yet you cannot seem to explain what I am misreading in "by a new ruling of the Court" No, you have provided claims of such with nothing to back those claims. I provided the SCOTUS website itself, which backs up what I am claiming, despite you thinking I am not comprehending it. The phrase "by a new ruling of the Court" is rather clear. If a ruling is no longer in effect, then it has been overturned, has it not? Stanford vs Kentucky ruled that it was constitutional (i.e. did not violate cruel and unsual) to impose the death penalty on a person 16 and above at the time of the crime. Are you claiming that nothing has overturned that ruling?
I've thoroughly explained it. You not comprehending is not my problem. And I've shown why you are wrong. again, you are not comprehending the difference of merits. Stanford v Kentucky did not rule a law unconstitutional, so the complainant has standing to challenge. Had they ruled something unconstitutional, nobody has standing, and an amendment is required. As I keep pointing out.