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

WOW...slow down.....Kagan evolved. She went to class with Obama & Clinton to the school of gay marriage enlightenment. Kinda like the DIY on evolving in rainbow land. I heard Jarret attended too. That's where she got the idea for the WH light show. Neat, hu? Not sure if Reggie Love was in the class, but if he was it was just for extra credit. He graduated a while back.

 

...and there still isn't regardless of the ruling... the ruling was an emotional political move, had nothing to do with the law....

resist and disobey.... works for lib/progs....

 

Well, the gay flag makes for a colorful parade prop, so it's got that going for it. Oh, wait....I got a few.....booming sperm banks and a whole new market for divorce attorneys! More prenup's, more cakes, more wedding planners, more party planners, more adoptions, .......wait a minute...I just remembered...gays only make up about 2-3% of the entire population...so how many of that 2-3% will actually even get married, .01?
OK...I give up. But still, the gay flag does make for a colorful parade prop. Admit it...the damn flag is really cute.

 

In the early 1900's, polls showed that only 4% of Americans felt that interracial marriage should be allowed in this country. Today, that number is about 80%. Supreme Court Justices did not strike Miscegenation Laws down for decades.

Why would it be such a big surprise for Supreme Court Justices to evolve their thinking on other marriage standards as well?

 

You too are misstating things so Kagan looks less a liar. At least be original.

 

There is no difference.

Every state interest that pertains to hetero marriage also applies to gay marriage.

Of course, some try to make the fact that two males or two females can not create children which share genetic material from both of the same sex partners. These people seem to forget that there are numerous ways to acquire children, and they are used by heterosexual couples, too.

Copying from my post (that you seem not to have read):

 

There is no Constitutional requirement that a member of SCOTUS have a law degree, or be a practicing attorney.

 

That is incorrect. The State has a huge vested interest in heterosexual union. It creates future taxpayers. This is not a joke. Tax breaks for children is common in all first-world countries, with some now paying bonuses.

 

I love word play! Looking closely at what she said and how she said it, it wasn't a lie. Her statement was true at the time that she said it, and nowhere in that statement is anything that would confirm that she actually supported what she said.

Anyway, such whining is pretty much beside the point.

 

Notice also, while we're at it, that Roberts and Alito and Thomas were all asked their opinion about abortion, and all of them testified that abortion was the law of the land, and they respect the laws. I think Roberts was asked how he'd decide an abortion case if it came up, and of course he weaseled, saying he couldn't pre-decide any case without knowing the exact facts of the case.

Remember, these people are mostly all competent lawyers, who know how to lie using the literal truth, but not quite all of it.

 

Lesbians can procreate twice as fast as a heterosexual couple - if limited to biological sexual procreation.

But, that is beside the point.

As I stated, there are plenty of ways to acquire kids: IVF facilities, surrogacy, previous relationships, inheritance from family and others, direct adoption from inside or outside our nation to name a few.

They are used by those who are married, not married and single.

Bonuses for kids is a separate issue entirely. We do not have a policy of attempting to increase the birth rate. If you want that, then go start a thread and I'll point out that craziness of that there.

 

They don't have to be a member of the bar or even a lawyer. Justice Reed was the last non-lawyer to serve on the Court in 1957.

 

The argument isn't that the state doesn't have this interest. The argument is that there is no difference in the state's interest between straight and gay marriage. The interests are the same across the board.

Procreation is linked to marriage only when the couples so choose. Many marriages produce no offspring. Many children are born outside of marriage. While it may be in the state's interest to promote marriage and childbearing, it is not a decision for the state to make. The argument that marriage law is related to procreation is a fallacy.

 

Well, for progressives there is no difference between men and women, goats, turtles, etc.

 

While most Americans waited in earnest for a ruling based on law, one had to suspect that the lib/prog block of SCOTUS was lying in wait to get their chance to make fictitious law where no constitutional right existed in the first place. And people are still shocked that the little weasel Ginsburg did not recuse herself since she made up her mind long before she was even on the SC.

Sad day indeed for the rule of law.

 

"Equal protection" is from the Constitution, silly.

 

??? Kennedy barely even addressed equal protection. The case was primarily decided as a substantive due process case.

 

Nope. ONLY a couple of the opposite sex has the potential of the procreation of children. Heterosexual sex has a strong natural tendency to lead to procreation while homosexuals sex has no such tendency.

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, the purpose is winning respect and dignity for gays. I would argue the it is an illigitimate governmental interest.

 

That was his point, silly.

 

Your comparison is a strawman. Interracial marriage doesn't change the fundamental 'standard' of marriage, which is one man+one woman. Ethnicity has zero impact on that.

 

The ship has sailed, get over it.

 

No it wasn't. She was asked if there was a constitutional right to same sex marriage. At the time there wasn't.

Yes, answering a question correctly is very "leftist"

- - - Updated - - -

Well, there is so..........

The 14th amendment is law.

lol, what are you going to resist? Marrying another man?

 

What?? So how did the Constitution change in between the time Kagan was asked that question and the recent Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage?

I think the nation, by and large, missed something because if Kagan was right before (there was no Constitutional right to same sex marriage) then she was wrong when she voted for same sex marriage in all 50 states based on that very same Constitutional justification she said before did not exist.



Care to explain? Or would you just like to concede that Elena Kagan lied her ass off twice in order to gain gay marriage for her constituents?

Yes. The real problem is she never answered the question correctly or, if she did, her rationale for gay marriage goes down the crapper. Which is it?

 

It didn't change. The question was never adjudicated by the Supreme Court before.

There is no reason to fein ignorance of how court rulings work.

Explain what?

Lol, you guys are hilarious. There was no lie.

she was correct in both instances.

 

Nope, he said "there is no constitutional right to any kind of marriage"