Kasich on Gay Marriage - "We Have a SCOTUS Ruling ... Let's Move On"

[musiclady]

Slavery was denying people freedom by using the weight of The State.

If there is a correlation between slavery and same-sex marriage is that there are people working hard at using the weight of The State to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry each other.

The problem is that the "State" had no right to demand that the individual states accept the institution of marriage for anything other than what it actually is........... male and female.

The State isn't denying anything to anyone by not ruling on something it is Unconstitutional for them to rule on.

It was WAY out of bounds to make this ruling, and eventually, it should be repealed, as should abortion and other errant, Unconstitutional rulings.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Actually I see the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage as unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it lay out provisions/rights or parameters for gay marriage or mention marriage in general.  It is the duty of the SCOTUS to make rulings as to Constitutional law.  They had no business ruling on this issue to begin with.

Constitution of The United States Article III, Section 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Amendment XIV to the Constitution of The United States - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Rights Act of 1866 - "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts..."

Skinner v. Oklahoma, Loving v. Virginia - Marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man"

The role of the SCOTUS is to provide citizens, all citizens, with a voice and an advocate against an omnipotent government.

SCOTUS discharged their Constitutional duty and did their job well in this case.

[Bill Cipher]

Constitution of The United States Article III, Section 2 - "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Amendment XIV to the Constitution of The United States - Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Civil Rights Act of 1866 - "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts..."

Skinner v. Oklahoma, Loving v. Virginia - Marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man"

The role of the SCOTUS is to provide citizens, all citizens, with a voice and an advocate against an omnipotent government.

SCOTUS discharged their Constitutional duty and did their job well in this case.

Loving was about miscegenation, and prohibitions on interracial cohabitation, not just marriage. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

That was the primary point of Justice Scalia's stellar and spot-on dissent.

It's the conservative position as well, no matter what Jazzhead and Luis Gonzalez claim in terms of the liberal judges interpretation of what qualifies for constitutionally granted equal protection under the law.

There are no "liberal" or "conservative" positions to the Constitution. If there were, we'd have Constitutional tyranny.

No one is forcing you to accept or approve of same-sex marriage, and by the same token, no one is being forced to live their lives according to your acceptance or approval.

You are free to go stand with Fred Phelps' group and raise your "God Hates bleep" signs.

The SCOTUS says that is protected under the First Amendment.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Loving was about miscegenation, and prohibitions on interracial cohabitation, not just marriage.

It doesn't matter what Loving was about, it acknowledged marriage as a "basic civil right". 

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's bunk that the four most Conservative judges on SCOTUS disagree with your opinion on equal treatment under the law?  Hmm, I'm the idiot here?

  Tell me how this is bunk.  Just because you FEEL it is "bunk" doesn't make it so.

Do you have a reading disorder?

I told you why.

[libertybele]

There are no "liberal" or "conservative" positions to the Constitution. If there were, we'd have Constitutional tyranny.

No one is forcing you to accept or approve of same-sex marriage, and by the same token, no one is being forced to live their lives according to your acceptance or approval.

You are free to go stand with Fred Phelps' group and raise your "God Hates bleep" signs.

The SCOTUS says that is protected under the First Amendment.

Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention gay marriage rights or marriage in general.  The duty of the Supreme Court justices is to rule on Constitutional law; therefore they had no business in ruling on the issue in the first place.

[HonestJohn]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention gay marriage rights or marriage in general.  The duty of the Supreme Court justices is to rule on Constitutional law; therefore they had no business in ruling on the issue in the first place.

That's very true.  Which means that marriage is a matter of state law.  Where the Supreme Court comes in is when state law fails to comply with the Constitution.  In this case, it was failing to apply state laws equally among the citizenry within the state.  Much the same way it is unconstitutional for a state government to deny people with blue eyes a barber license.

A license is a license, whether it be a marriage license or a barbers license.  It's a license issued by the state.

[jmyrlefuller]

That's very true.  Which means that marriage is a matter of state law.  Where the Supreme Court comes in is when state law fails to comply with the Constitution.  In this case, it was failing to apply state laws equally among the citizenry within the state.  Much the same way it is unconstitutional for a state government to deny people with blue eyes a barber license.

A license is a license, whether it be a marriage license or a barbers license.  It's a license issued by the state.

Yet they were equal: any person was free to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Do you have a reading disorder?

I told you why.

Your "why" is absolute gibberish and makes no sense.

[AnybodyButaDem]

You are free to go stand with Fred Phelps' group and raise your "God Hates bleep" signs.

Do you even read what others post?  I'm fine with gay marriage.  Stating I'm an idiot and implying I'm a bigot seems like things a liberal would say as insults.  Exactly, actually.

That's not what  Scalia's dissent was about, either.  You'd know if you actually read it instead of typing out tangential posts that address nothing that I've said.

Also, are you saying there is no "liberal" position on, say, the 2nd Amendment and its wording?  Seriously?   Look, I already know you don't offer much other than insults, so let's just agree to move on from interacting.

[libertybele]

That's very true.  Which means that marriage is a matter of state law.  Where the Supreme Court comes in is when state law fails to comply with the Constitution.  In this case, it was failing to apply state laws equally among the citizenry within the state.  Much the same way it is unconstitutional for a state government to deny people with blue eyes a barber license.

A license is a license, whether it be a marriage license or a barbers license.  It's a license issued by the state.

However, there is a pesky little thing called the 10th amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Again, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution; therefore it should have been left up to the states.  The power to marry has never been, or is it delegated to the United States by the Constitution; the power to marry has always been granted and left to entities within the states.

If we use your example of licenses and states failing to apply state laws equally ... then ALL states would have to issues licenses to even those who are not qualified to obtain licenses.  If states cannot prohibit issuance of a license because of inequality among the citizenry for whatever reason, everyone would be entitled to the same license. 

If we take the example of same sex marriage, then multiple marriages, marriages between father and son or father and daughter or mother and daughter, twins, etc., should be granted as marriage licenses should be granted equally among the citizenry.

Pure and simple ... SCOTUS had no business ruling period.

[AnybodyButaDem]

However, there is a pesky little thing called the 10th amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  Again, marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution; therefore it should have been left up to the states.  The power to marry has never been, or is it delegated to the United States by the Constitution; the power to marry has always been granted and left to entities within the states.

If we use your example of licenses and states failing to apply state laws equally ... then ALL states would have to issues licenses to even those who are not qualified to obtain licenses.  If states cannot prohibit issuance of a license because of inequality among the citizenry for whatever reason, everyone would be entitled to the same license. 

If we take the example of same sex marriage, then multiple marriages, marriages between father and son or father and daughter or mother and daughter, twins, etc., should be granted as marriage licenses should be granted equally among the citizenry.

Pure and simple ... SCOTUS had no business ruling period.

Even more troubling is that a "conservative" like Kasich would assume the federal oversight side of the debate over what is a clear state issue regarding Mississippi law in my interpretation of both the 14th and the 10th.  He sounds exactly like a Democrat.  Hillary Lite, indeed!

But there is no "liberal" or "conservative" interpretation of the 10th Amendment, either, according to a poster who won't be named.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ok, we all have opinions on gay marriage. What do you propose a President to do about it, exactly?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Talk about it.  Advocate for Article V Convention of States to rein in the courts.  Appoint strict constructionist judges who believe in the Constitutional route to amendments, not the judicial tyranny route.  Even advocate for a marriage amendment.  But we have pretty much squandered that opportunity because we let the left sucker us with fake federalist "states' rights" cries until they could get their federal court case bring them a federal imposition of their will.  Now the marriage amendment would be much harder to pass because instead of supporting the near unanimously passed DOMA, it will be taking away something that never should have been given in the first place.  Best case, we restore federalism through a Convention of States and reinstate the already existing State Amendments.

I also expect a Presidential candidate to be pretty close to obsessed with religious liberty issues that have come up due to this mess.  And YES IT IS FEDERAL.  Read the First Amendment.  The first right mentioned in the First Amendment.

President doesn't need to talk about it. We have bigger fish to fry.

None of this matter, without a 2/3 majority in both Houses no amendments will get through. That won't happen if we keep nominating unpopular candidates.

[Fishrrman]

sinkspur wrote above:
"Unless you can muster a Constitutional Amendment (almost an impossibility on abortion or gay marriage), or get another conservative justice, Kasich is correct.  And the same holds true for Citizens United."

Hey, sinkspur, how 'bout Plessy v. Feguson ...?

It's "settled law", eh....????

[jmyrlefuller]

President doesn't need to talk about it. We have bigger fish to fry.

None of this matter, without a 2/3 majority in both Houses no amendments will get through. That won't happen if we keep nominating unpopular candidates.

Well,, that is also an unpopular position, too. The problem is to make the unpopular popular, and vice versa. Until then, the progression will continue unabated.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote above:
"You don't want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex weddings? Don't bake wedding cakes for a living."

Yep, Luis, you got that right, as usual! ;)

[HonestJohn]

If He-Man wants to marry Man-At-Arms... I don't really care.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32FB-gYr49Y

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are no bigger fish to fry when little kids as well as bigger kids are being sold this perversity in government schools.  I will never budge on this issue and it is a litmus test for any candidate who wants to earn my support.  Non-negotiable.  HOW DARE THEY!  IT IS NOT THEIR RIGHT TO INDOCTRINATE OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN WITH THIS GARBAGE -- Remember, they can't have children.  They have ZERO right to do this.

Why do you send your kids to government schools if they're so evil?

[sinkspur]

I don't.  That's not the point.  Many people have no choice.  It is a huge violation of their rights -- religious and every other right -- for the government to indoctrinate them in this perversity.  HUGE!!!!!!!  Makes me madder than about anything.  Liberal nasty interest groups get taxpayer dollars to go into the schools and corrupt the minds and morals of other people's children.  it's appalling.

You don't like homosexuals.  We get it.

You had best come to terms with homosexual rights and gay marriage.  They're done deals and will remain done deals.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention gay marriage rights or marriage in general.  The duty of the Supreme Court justices is to rule on Constitutional law; therefore they had no business in ruling on the issue in the first place.

The role of the SCOTUS extends to "all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution", the plaintiffs in Obergefell et al argued that laws disallowing them from obtaining a marriage license (laws banning same sex marriage) in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, as per the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, this was a case "in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

So you're wrong.

You're welcome to continue being wrong, but you're wrong.

What's amusing is that while Conservatives cry foul at the notion that a portion of the Federal government (the SCOTUS) has no Constitutional standing to "define" marriage, it was those very same Conservatives who in 1996 willingly handed the power to define marriage to the Federal government when they lobbied and passed the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't.  That's not the point.  Many people have no choice.  It is a huge violation of their rights -- religious and every other right -- for the government to indoctrinate them in this perversity.  HUGE!!!!!!!  Makes me madder than about anything.  Liberal nasty interest groups get taxpayer dollars to go into the schools and corrupt the minds and morals of other people's children.  it's appalling.

I've had my kids in public schools their entire life, and never, not once, have they ever been "indoctrinated in perversity".

You have every right to continue saying everything that you're saying for the rest of your life, but this ship has sailed. Upwards of 60% of Americans approve of both same-sex marriage and the SCOTUS decision.

That number will only go up with time.

[AnybodyButaDem]

So you're wrong.

You're welcome to continue being wrong, but you're wrong.

The four most conservative justices who sat on this case believe you are wrong.  You sided with the liberal faction of SCOTUS.  Congrats, but that doesn't make it right or wrong because 5 liberal judges outnumber 4 conservative judges.  You support Kasich, though, so you're no conservative, either.  It's why it's called an Supreme Court OPINION.

[AnybodyButaDem]

I've had my kids in public schools their entire life, and never, not once, have they ever been "indoctrinated in perversity".

Hey that's really neat.  I have a silver car!  Just as relevant to RAT Patrol's post.  I tend to agree with you on this issue, but how rude you are to those who don't treat your opinion as fact is very off-putting, and lashing out by calling me an "idiot" earlier is what liberals do.