G.O.P. Hopefuls Denounce Marriage Equality Ruling

At her solicitor general nomination hearing in 2009:

Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage'


When asked if the constitution confers a right of same sex marriage:

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...itutional-right-same-sex-marriage_981272.html
 
fhl said:
At her solicitor general nomination hearing in 2009:

Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage'


When asked if the constitution confers a right of same sex marriage:

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...itutional-right-same-sex-marriage_981272.html
More...
Of course there is no Right to Gay Marriage in the Constitution, have you lost your mind? What does this have to do with the Court's ruling??? The Court made their ruling on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The Fourteenth Amendment IS in the Constitution!
 
Queer marriage is guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment and canning vegetables in your basement is regulated by the interstate commerce clause.

Wow, who knew?
 
I really liked Chief Justice Robert's dissent, I thought it was well reasoned. Roe v. Wade has been settled law since 1973, but that has not stopped States from legislating restrictions and limitations according to the religious and moral views of the electorate.

Personally, I could care two hoots if a gay couple wants to get married. There are plenty of really shitty heterosexual couples with a shipwreck for a home life and with horrific parenting skills. Furthermore, careful what you wish for. Half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and divorce is painful and expensive. Divorces are rarely amicable or constructively resolved with minimal damage. Up to this point, gay couples splitting up had no such legal contract to litigate in many States. Which, in the opinion of many, was much more ideal than a legal marriage.

My concerns were well addressed by Justice Roberts. The majority's ruling did not adequately address protections for the long standing religious tenets ( which are also supposed to be constitutionally protected ) for a substantial population of US citizens.
 
The only reason homosexuals want marriage is because they couldn't have it. It's completely opposite their lifestyle.
---
"In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

· A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

· In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

· In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: "
----

Homosexuals want marriage for the same reason that arabs want Israel's land. The arabs had little or no use for the land until the jews moved in and improved it and called it their state, and then the arabs had to have it.

And now homosexuals, who live a lifestyle that is completely incompatible with marriage want marriage just because the other side has it.
 
a. which is why I put the disclaimer in that this was the Supreme court so I don't feel like re litigating the issues. your response was anticipated and devoid of any real legal reasoning.

But, even if it is where the buck stops... the frequent critique of the Court is that it is no longer following the constitution... it has gone off the rails. (which is a critique the Court is historically open to... but in this case this crew of justices is a leftist's wet dream. When traditional jurisprudence is tossed out the window by Roberts or Kennedy they can always find 4 lefties will to vote leftist any time they wish. thank you to the poster who pointed out what Kagan wrote in 2009. that is the case in point )

b. Roberts rewrote obamacare law... if they wanted to put the state out of the marriage business they could have fashioned such a remedy. (I am not saying they have the authority... just as I don't think they had the authority to do what they did here... but this court does not seem to feel obliged to follow the Constitution or 2000 year old institutions.)

c. when someone extends the reach of the constitution beyond the very limited areas the left for the federal govt... the Constitution does not top states rights. The states consented to be governed by the Constitution... (I will add to this in the next post.)


d. what is it that you called yourself... a stalinist libertarian? You believe in big central govt. You are willing to see the IRS used against conservatives. That is not the fruit of libertarian thought... you are pre fascist. (although I am sure you would prefer a nice authoritarian over a mean one.)



piezoe said:
You've got some interesting points, but they're all wrong of course. In case you did not notice the decision was 5 to 4 against Roberts. In other words, the majority did not agree with him that this was a States Rights issue. You are a lawyer. Didn't they teach you in law school that the Constitution trumps States Rights if they are in conflict? This was a Constitutional issue. And the Majority held that way. Sorry for your side. You lose this one. Maybe next time!

The Court rules only on what it is asked to rule on. They were not asked to consider the question of whether the States should be in the marriage business, as you put it.

And yes, of course I am a libertarian. You're confused, which is understandable, considering all these tea party folks who are calling themselves "libertarians".
More...
 
Last edited:
wow... piezoe that is top of the line sophistry.

1. Kagan said it does not exist.

2. presumably as a future supreme court justice she would have realized the 14th amendment is part of the constitution.



from the link above...

Over at the blog Legal Insurrection, law professor William Jacobson reminds us of this answer Elena Kagan gave to Senator John Cornyn in her confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General in 2009:

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Emphasis added. Of course, there was no right to constitutional right to same-sex marriage right up until last week when Kagan joined four other justices on the court in creating one. Appropriately enough, your opinion of whether or not Kagan lied to Congress in her confirmation hearings depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.




piezoe said:
Of course there is no Right to Gay Marriage in the Constitution, have you lost your mind? What does this have to do with the Court's ruling??? The Court made their ruling on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The Fourteenth Amendment IS in the Constitution!
More...
 
a. now back to limited govt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_government

...
In 1789, James Madison presented to the First United States Congress a series of ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, today known as the Bill of Rights. After enumerating specific rights retained by the people in the first eight Amendments, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment summarily spelled out the principle of limited government. Together, these two last Amendments clarify the differences between the un-enumerated (as well as enumerated) rights of the people versus the expressly codified delegated powers of the federal government. The Ninth Amendment codified of the people do not have powers are expressly delegated to the federal government specifically by the Constitution. Government can do some things and not others.

The Constitution limits the power of the government in several ways. It prohibits the government from directly interfering with certain key areas: conscience, expression and association. Other actions are forbidden to the federal government and are reserved to stateor local governments.

-----

hence... the constitution states the federal govt may only top the states in explicitly defined and limited areas...

how dow we know this... as I stated earlier, states nullify federal law when they wish.
Marijuana laws are a good example.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how the Right is Wrong on every issue. Gay rights, global warming, aid to poor and disadvantaged, military action, drug laws, abortion rights, taxation of the super wealthy, environmental laws, science.......


How the hell are righties still even a thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top