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

Short people got no reason
short people got no reason
short people got no reason to live...

 

I said it was "wrong". The fact that they are the Supreme court gives it all the validity it needs. But, it is the ultimate example of judges legislating from the bench. Of this evolving, 'living breathing' Constitution that means whatever 5 or more justices decide it means. They wrote in an Amendment process to change the meaning of the Constitution.

 

Did the unmarried sue the married on the grounds of equal protection? If not your rant is, as usual, totally irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't write any legislation. And the 14th amendment didn't evolve.

 

You mean by ignoring the votes of the people?

 

Only if and when you connect enough dots...and defy the Constitution. Not to mention justices not interpreting law but establishing new precedence which has opened up one really massive pandora's box

 

It is the activist's and the irresponsible judges that have opened up this can of worms...short sighted and foolish.

 

No it would of been legislating from the bench if they had denied the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage. The definitions are clear.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Again we are not a true democracy. The majority cannot undermine the rights of the minority or the individual no matter how many votes they take.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, as I have explained before the judges would have been activist and irresponsible if they would have denied same-sex marriage.

That being said the open can of worms argument sounds very similar to the slippery slope.

 

You dont have a clue as to what you babble on about. With the opposite decision, all the legislation by legislators would have stayed in place.

 

She answered truthfully. There was no federal right to same sex marriage at the time. Now there is.

She was not asked if she thought that there should be such a right. She was asked if there was such a right.

 

Huh?

the 14th amendment is the law of the land. "All persons" means all persons. "Equal protection" means equal protection. This isn't hard.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is against the constitution. That's why you lost.

 

Legislating from the bench does not mean overturning legislation. That is an enumerated power of the SCOTUS and courts in general in the Constitution. Legislating from the bench means making new law from the bench. Given the precedents that existed and the fact that the 14th Amendment clearly applied, the SCOTUS would have had to made new law by upholding bans on same-sex marriage. That is what it means to legislate from the bench. By prior court precedent and the application of the 14th Amendment their ruling is sound and falls within the courts prior precedent. If they would have upheld the ban they would have been disregarding prior precedent and invalidating the 14th Amendment...ergo legislating.

 

Another one that doesnt have a clue as to what he is babbling on about. Had they decided the other way, the original law would have stayed in place. Instead the state laws are now rendered invalid, replaced with the new law legislated from th bench.

 

No law was legislated. Bans on same sex marriage violates the 14th amendment and thus are null and void.

 

Again you do not know what is meant by legislating from the bench. It is funny you keep telling everyone else they don't know what they are talking about when it is clear you do not know what is meant by legislating from the bench. Invalidating unconstitutional laws is direct enumerated power of the courts in the Constitution. This fact could not be clearer. What is meant by legislating from the bench means changing the meaning of legislation from its legislative intent or ignoring court precedent and the Constitution to allow laws that should otherwise be invalid. Neither of those scenarios occurred in this case.

I seem to recall a cliche that is applicable in this case...something about rocks and glass houses.

 

I and most everyone else knows exactly what it means. Google search on "legislating from the bench" and gay marriage produces
About 15,600 results (0.67 seconds)

 

And that shows you that those who disagree with the US Constitution are all accusing the Court of "legislating from the bench." All you have demonstrated is that this phrase actually refers to "making a decision I disagree with."

 

It wasn't a hard ruling if you have marriage for straight couples and its not an undue burden to extend it the same to this other group gay couples then it must be done, sine they have a right to equal treatment under a law and this is a civil matter of law. Marriage has tons of built in legal powers the second its legally done the couple is afforded. If States eliminates civil marriage for common law marriage keeping the contracts private then the whole issue goes away since anyone can marry as they wish as long as they can legally enter a contract.

 

What is that supposed to prove? It is meme being put out there by conservatives pundits. Does not make it true. Besides a Google search will just turn up articles that state support or argue against that meme. Again just because other people believe it does not make it so. I think we all learned at about 6 or so that that much is true.

 

Actually, it does.

 

That says it all. What is up with the partial out of context quotes. I believe that to be very dishonest debate tactic.

 

It doesn't matter. The nation is being improved despite your best efforts to stop it. I don't care how it happens. You don't reject free muffins because you don't like the basket they came in.

 

Welcome to conversations with Dixon.

 

Well, considering that the entire context within the post, appears 4 inches above my partial quote, its not out of context

 

Yeah that makes it ok.

 

Not sure how promoting homosexuality improves the nation. Unless your a Communist, adhering to the Communist Party playbook from the 50s.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."....
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

Or the NEA

"Oral sex, masturbation and orgasms need to be taught in education. The only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity is comprehensive sex education. Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum and those opposed to homosexuality are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create" NEA spokeswoman Diane Schneider.