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

Nope, your entire argument lost completely and entirely in court. It was one of the key arguments for the opposition.

But as in reality...people who can't or won't procreate marry just like everyone else. Because marriage is and always has been about much more than procreation.

Which is why you lost.

 

I've never heard any argument that Kagan was the turning point here.

And, measuring "activism" by comparing the court decision to what the president once said sounds more than a little crazy to me.

And, if you want to discount the 14th amendment, you're going to have to try harder than that.

 

Do you really believe that? Because the facts would seem to tell a different story.

In the 2014 Term that just concluded:
Dart Cherokee Basin v. Owens was a 5-4 decision that had Kagan joining Kennedy, Scalia & Thomas in dissent
T-Mobile South v. Roswell was a 6-3 decision that had Ginsburg joining Roberts & Thomas in dissent
Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean was a 7-2 decision that had Sotomayor joining Kennedy in dissent
Yates v. United States was a 5-4 decision that had Kagan joining Kennedy, Scalia & Thomas in dissent
Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation was a 7-2 decision with Ginsburg joining Thomas in dissent
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center was a 5-4 decision that had Sotomayor, Ginsburg, & Kagan joining Kennedy in dissent
Comptroller of Maryland v. Wynne was a 5-4 decision that had Ginsburg & Kagan joining Scalia & Thomas in dissent
San Francisco v. Sheehan was a 6-2 decision (Breyer recused) that had Kagan joining Scalia in dissent
Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO was a 6-3 decision that had Ginsburg, Kagan & Breyer dissenting.

Most of the time the decisions are 6-3, 7-2, 8-1 or unanimous. The Justices most likely to not be on the majority side are Thomas (only 61% of the time in the majority this past term), Scalia (69%) and Alito (72%). The rest of the Justices are 80% (Roberts) or better (Breyer tops the chart at 92% for this past term).

Source:http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SCOTUSblog_Stat_Pack_OT14.pdf
(http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/final-stat-pack-for-october-term-2014/) (specifically pages 21, and 41 through 49)

 

You are suggesting we prevent some heads of household from being married.

That isn't helpful to these families - in fact, it is a problem for them.

We allow even single adults to have access to all the methods of acquiring children, so don't suggest that people won't have children unless they are married. Just about anyone who wants children can have them. In fact, even those who DON'T want them often end up with children anyway.

The problem with your argument is that it simply doesn't describe the real world. In the real world, having children and getting married are two separate decisions. In the real world, anyone can have children. In the real world, we would like those who choose to have children to also choose to be in a marriage relationship, and preventing them from being married is counter to that objective.

The state interest in marriage is primarily one of stability. The legal requirement for mutual support and other features of marriage are oriented toward that objective.

 

OK, I'll answer in the context of your original statement.

You want to bring in children, so it is useful to point out that children are a separate decision.

You like the idea of children born in wedlock, but the issue here is your desire to PREVENT wedlock.

Today, anyone can have kids who wants them. This idea that you are going to cause kids (or our tax coffers) to be better off by preventing parents from marrying is absurd.

 

Are you smoking crack ? Drunk ? Poorly schooled ? Live in Colorado ?

You have no clue as to what I posted, even when it is right in front of your face. That is why I ask.

All first world societies have promoted heterosexual unions from the earliest conception of their societies. So as to produce new generations of taxpayers, workers, etc. It is a very simple concept.

Otherwise, I have not one post in this forum against gay folks. Against gay marriage. I don't care.

 

Show me the post where I even remotely suggested such ? Otherwise, I have to assume that you are "challenged" in some basic way.

 

She lied to get the appointment, apparently.

Personally, I do not care if gays can marry or not. It does not affect my marriage,doesn't affect me.

But if we are equal under secular law, it does seem that would cover marriage, which is actually a state marriage, and sometimes a religious marriage. When I got married, I married in a courthouse, in the judge's office. So, it was a state marriage. But even a religious marriage is a state marriage too, a legal contract with its own laws. If we are gonna have gays living as a couple, it just seems to me like they should get the rights that a state marriage gives to heteros. But I am not emotionally invested in this, unless the gov't injects itself into religion, and at some point tries to force a church into marrying gays, which is against the religion. The separation of church and state is in our founding documents. But of course that could be usurped, for those founding documents have been fairly well pee'd on several times in my own lifetime. So who knows?

 

Apparently not. She's a lawyer. She was asked if there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. At that time, there was not, so she answered correctly. Nobody asked her if she would vote to find such a constitutional right if she had the chance.

Now, if only more people would realize this. I have a feeling that, given a few years, this will be a complete non-issue.

I think this is right on. I don't know what "religious marriage" is, except for something important to religious people. It affords nothing different from a state marriage, except in the eyes of whatever church was involved. After all, weddings are not marriages.

In another discussion, it came up that certain marriages, under some circumstances, can be regarded as valid by the state, but void by certain religions. But religious marriage, whatever that might mean to the individual, is irrelevant to the state. I can see perhaps a same-sex couple who are devout adherants to a faith that denies them religious marriage, to be disappointed and feel rejected even though they can still get a state marriage. If they were like me, they'd curse the god that led them to such a pass.

 

You have stated that there is a difference between sames sex marriages and hetero marriages that affects their benefit to society in some way that isn't trivial. By society I assume you mean the state, since you talk about taxes.

You haven't provided anything to back up that contention. History isn't good enough, as one can see by the fact that slavery was ended AFTER our constitution became the basis of our law even though it had been accepted back to Biblical times. History is clearly not good enough to support continued discrimination.

And, I find it objectionable to see same sex couples pitched as "less than" as you have.

Plus, your contention would be important if you could prove it, because it would imply a possible basis for discrimination against same sex couples. And, it is probably the most cited excuse for this discrimination, making it quite difficult to ignore.

 

I proved my contention. You can easily research it as well. That others want to discriminate against gays is for you to take up with them. I have not voiced any discontent with gay marriage. I live in a state where it was already legal. It is a proven fact that same sex marriage is far more beneficial than gay unions. That does not make gay marriage bad. The latter just does not produce new taxpayers. To pay your Social Security, for instance.

 

Sorry but that's the latest leftist meme going around and it's bull (*)(*)(*)(*)! You are about the fourth or fifth person I've seen propagating this, umm...distortion.

Are you really claiming that Senator John Cornyn actually was asking Solicitor General nominee Elena Keegan if there was a constitutional right to gay marriage? As actual working policy? As law?
And not, more sensibly and much more logically, as a principle enshrined within the Constitution that Kagan might advocate as the nation's number one lawyer?

Doesn't such a bit of information like that seem like it might be more or less well known public news? Like it might
make Kagan's proposed defense of government DOMA laws moot and pointless? Like it might have ended all the
arguments over gay marriage in the US and ended all state plans to make same sex marriage illegal (as it has)?
Like all questions put to Keegan about Constitutional protections of gay marriage would be absolutely pointless and make Cornyn seem like an absolute fool for asking it?

Is that really something a United States senator might be unaware of? Would he be asking Keegan for confirmation
of something that he, and everyone in the nation, would certainly absolutely know?
That all seems about as stupid as it could possibly be and I'm amazed at how these leftist talking points makes the rounds even if you'd have to be dumb as a rock to believe them with only a bit of minimal thought about it.

Frankly anyone spreading this meme should be ashamed and people blindly swallowing this intellectual swill should also stop and wonder what's wrong with themselves. I'm stunned.

 

Frankly anyone that disagrees with that interpretation is blinded by partisan emotion on the issue and is clearly not thinking logically.

Wishful thinking does not equal logic. This particular canard...like so many others can be relegated to the dung heap of conservative tin foil hat theories. Thanks for playing though.

 

No, same sex couples can acquire just as many kids as can heteros.

In fact, if you limit to biological conception and birth, lesbian couples can procreate twice as fast.

Plus, lesbiam relationships have been shown to be more stable than hetero relationships.

 

And thanks for stopping by to put yourself on the record as believing Texas senator John Conryn (in 2009) was actually asking Elena Kagan if there was a constitutional right to gay marriage (though we only just got that a week ago).

That's so crazy, so, I can't even properly address it without violating forum rules, ignorant of actual reality I'm speechless. I can only surmise you did not read my post and it's absolutely clear Elena Kagan lied her ass off in order to save her nomination and further the left's drive to get gay marriage by any means necessary.

You made your partisan opinions irrelevant.

 

Protected Classes
Different laws define the protected classes. Protected classes for the laws as follows:

Title VII - race, color, sex, religion and national origin
Age Discrimination in employment Act (ADEA) – age: 40 and over
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, American with Disabilities Act 1990, Americans with Disability Act Amendment Act 2008 -disability

Homosexuals and lesbians are not a Federally protected class, in order to become one should require legislative, not judicial, action.

The Supreme Court basically put the cart before the horse. They presupposed the notion that homosexuals and lesbians deserve recognition as a Federally protected class.

Many States, do in fact afford the gay and lesbian protection from discriminatory practices in employment for example...again this protection was provided by legislative actions.

What the Supreme Court has done with their decision will impact legitimate legislative actions limiting marriage as brought forth by States; essentially nullifying them in one fell swoop. I'm surprised more don't realize the ramifications this decision will extend to...all under the umbrella of substantive due process.

Less than 1/2 of 1% of all marriages have been same sex...it's miniscule. The issue really isn't same sex marriage it's the Supreme Court bulldozing the state's legislative process while chanting "14th amendment," "14th amendment." They have opened a pandora's box of precedents to soon follow...including firearm ownership rights.

States have no right to limit firearms ownership under the substantive due process clause!
You should be able to legally carry on a national scale; as all states must honor another states decision to allow open/concealed carry of firearms.

 

I enjoy these creative fantasies. No, no protected class was created, no heightened scrutiny was mentioned. Discriminatory practices in hiring, firing, housing, etc. are unchanged by this decision. It only concerns marriage. There was no presupposition of a protected class - in fact, exactly the opposite. There was the presumption of equal protection of the laws for all citizens. State level legislation has never been allowed to overrule the US Constituition.

You can buy and own firearms in all states. I know that Alabama has reciprocal recognition of permits with 22 other states. But unlike firearms, you can't put your unloaded marriage in the trunk of your car while driving through a red state.

I suppose it's true that the US Constitution, in providing and recognizing guarantees of equal protection of the law for all citizens, is "bulldozing" state legislation to deny that protection. As it's supposed to do.

It's just amusing sour grapes kvetching that the Constitution, damn it, protects the rights of people to do things you don't want them to do. Why, the Constitution even allows people do things YOU are allowed to do. How humbling, how intolerable!

 

The record is clear. The fact that you fear you would have to resort to ad hominem attacks to respond is quite telling. Kagan did not lie in her confirmation hearings. The record is as clear as day. If you let your emotion on this issue go you would be able to see this as what is. Grasping for straws at something, anything to try and make the Constitutional right to same sex marriage less official. If conservatives spent half the time fighting against others rights as they did trying to govern the country would be a lot better off.

 

Perhaps you've never heard ot the 2nd Amendment.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Gun owners are in effect a Federally protected class...something the gay and lesbians were not.

There is far more Constitutionality in STRIKING down State laws imposing controls on firearms under the substantive due process principle of the 14th amendment, than there ever was for offering previously non-existent Federally protected rights to homosexuals and lesbians.

Wait for legal precedent to establish itself challenging State laws imposing unConstitutional limits to the 2nd Amendment.

Pandora's box has been opened, and once opened, cannot be closed.

 

Dude, there is no inherent right to carry a weapon, only own it. The SCOTUS has already ruled that no state can prevent a person from owning a gun. They can however prevent them from openly carrying them or carrying as concealed weapons. They can also restrict what type of weapons you can buy and how you can buy them. It just can prevent you buying one. Carrying a gun is not a right. Only owning a gun is.

 

keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

I suggest reading the 2nd Amendment

Keep - own
Bear - carry

 

The SCOTUS has ruled that this does not prevent states and municipalities from banning the open carry or concealed carry of weapons. The SCOTUS was clear you cannot restrict the ownership or purchase of weapons. Everything else is pretty much fair game.

 

Challenge State legislative actions on the principle of substantive due process using the 14th amendment to effectively strike down state law.

The EXACT same thing just happened with same sex marriage.

Pandora's box, once opened, cannot be closed.

All states must honor another states authority for citizens to open/concealed carry a firearm.

It's clear cut, legal precedent has been established.

Citizens have an inalienable right to life and this includes protection of that life up to and including the right to CARRY a firearm.
Federal courts can strike down State laws deemed unconstitutional as they limit gun owner's rights as provided in the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

The argument using substantive due process was never used before, however with precedent established, I believe the one two punch of the 2nd and 14th amendments will nullify State legislative actions designed to limit the rights of gun owners to both keep and bear arms. Own and carry.

 

There is no federal constitutional right to marriage. But when the government (state or federal) confers benefits in a discriminatory fashion (marriage for gays, but not homos), that entitles the homos to the same benefits enjoyed by the straights.

 

Of course there is.

2A plainly says they can't, so it doesn't matter what SCOTUS ruled.