GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[Bigun]

Lots of meaningless chatter in this thread.

Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6

Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.

   and 

[EC]

Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex.  Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related.  Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

Now invert it.

Everyone - NOW - has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the same sex, to whom they are not too closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the same sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

So - where is your loss of rights here? Where is the "extra right?"

[Hoodat]

Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6

Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.

Once again, Scalia and Trump are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Is there any court case where Trump and Scalia are on the same side?   I ask because I find it impossible to believe that Trump would appoint a 'Scalia-type judge' - one to whom he is so diametrically opposed.

[Silver Pines]

@sneakypete

First off,they may or may NOT be "gay",but what they ARE is "homosexuals". Generally speaking,I can't think of a single group of Americans that are LESS "gay" than homosexuals.

I agree with that.  However, don't presume to correct how I speak in the moment and I'll pay you the same courtesy.  Thanks.   ^-^

Having settled that,WHAT is your problem with homosexuals getting married? Are you afraid the government is going to require YOU  to marry one?

Or maybe you  think homosexual marriages will make your own marriage "less meaningful" in some respect?

Or maybe the idea of two men or two women being "married' is off-the-charts insane to me.  Remember when people didn't need that basic concept explained?

I honestly don't see how this affects anyone BUT homosexuals and divorce attorneys.  I say "Let's see how damn "gay" they are when they show up in divorce court!"

Okay.  That's what you say, but what I say differs.

[Hoodat]

Now invert it.

Everyone - NOW - has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the same sex, to whom they are not too closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the same sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

So - where is your loss of rights here? Where is the "extra right?"

The primary right is the right for the members of a society to create laws that mold and shape that society.

It is also noteworthy to point out your own restriction here:   a competent adult.  So if I want to marry two people, you are willing to place an arbitrary restriction on me denying me that right.  You see?  Once personal preference is applied, the entire equal protection argument goes flying out the window.

Before, we had equal protection.  Today, we do not.

[Silver Pines]

@sneakypete

Maybe you haven't noticed,but he is NOT the actual president yet,

Which is why I referred to him as "president-elect." 

and trying to pretend that he is would only make it harder for  him to form his cabinet and get ready to take over the controls. He would gain NOTHING from entering into the fray now. Let him focus right now on what he needs to be doing right now,and worry about the rest of it once he is in a position to maybe do something about it?

Right now he has no more authority to do anything about current laws or regulations than you or I do.

A fair point. 

[EC]

The primary right is the right for the members of a society to create laws that mold and shape that society.

It is also noteworthy to point out your own restriction here:   a competent adult.  So if I want to marry two people, you are willing to place an arbitrary restriction on me denying me that right.  You see?  Once personal preference is applied, the entire equal protection argument goes flying out the window.

Before, we had equal protection.  Today, we do not.

It wasn't my restriction, sorry.

However, marriage is a contract. It is a well established tenet of law (since well before the founding of the USA) that a contract entered into by coercion, or one between two parties where one party is incapable of understanding the terms due to age or mental incapacity either induced or organic, is not valid.

[Hoodat]

I disagree. It is immoral for a government to deny any group of American citizens rights that other groups of American citizens are free to enjoy

What specifically is this right that I enjoy that is being denied others?

[txradioguy]

What specifically is this right that I enjoy that is being denied others?

Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.

[Hoodat]

However, marriage is a contract.

And contracts place restrictions on the parties involved.

It is a well established tenet of law (since well before the founding of the USA) that a contract entered into by coercion, or one between two parties

Contracts are not limited to two parties.  It is a well-established tenet of law.  A real estate contract typically involves four parties:  Seller, buyer, lender, and legal.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Now invert it.

Everyone - NOW - has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the same sex, to whom they are not too closely related. Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the same sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

So - where is your loss of rights here? Where is the "extra right?"

Well, if that was a legislative change, then it would have been the loss of a previously-existing statutory right to marry a person of the opposite sex.  But there would have been no loss of a Constitutional right.

Had states chosen to pass such a law, it should have been deemed constitutional.

[Hoodat]

Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.

Even if it were, the legal ability to enter into a marriage contract is not being denied anyone.

[txradioguy]

People don't seem to comprehend the law of unintended consequences if this type of thing isn't returned back to the individual states to decide on their own.

We've already seen Polygamists sue to have their marriages legally recognized.

The movement to have pedophilia recognized as a normal sexual behavior has quietly begun.  How long before Pedo's sue for the right to marry their 8 y/o victim's?

And before anyone here tries to jump in and say "that will never happen" or "you're just using extreme examples"...I'll remind you that the idea of a federal gay "marriage" law or edict being handed down was crapped upon back when the decision came down in Lawrence v. Texas.

Justice Scalia predicted it would happen in his dissenting opinion:

In his dissent of that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia angrily warned that if the court was willing to strike down sodomy laws, other state laws on moral choices could soon be lifted, among them gay marriage. He wrote:



State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.


He further argued:



If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?' 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/06/26/scalia-warned-in-lawrence-v-texas-dissent-that-striking-down-sodomy-laws-would-lead-to-gay-marriage

[INVAR]

@INVAR

And people woke up and realized that organized religion is the enemy of freedom,so the laws changed.

Not for the better.

It cost the world roughly 60 million lives in just 6 years.

[Jazzhead]

What specifically is this right that I enjoy that is being denied others?

Your right to the equal protection of the law. 

[Hoodat]

Not for the better.

It cost the world roughly 60 million lives in just 6 years.

National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church.

-Paul Joseph Goebbels-

[Sanguine]

Your right to the equal protection of the law.

Wrong. Civil unions existed while marriage was still marriage.

[Cripplecreek]

National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church.

-Paul Joseph Goebbels-

Catastrophe was only narrowly averted. It was all due to the faith of one man! Yes, you who called us godless, we found our faith in Adolf Hitler, and through him found God once again. That is the greatness of our day, that is our good fortune!

    Speech given on November 3, 1936. Quoted in Wir alle helfen dem Führer "Schicksal — ich glaube!" (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP, 1937), pages 103-114
[/i]

We believe on this earth in Adolf Hitler alone! We believe in National Socialism as the creed which is the sole source of grace! We believe that Almighty God has sent us Adolf Hitler so that he may rid Germany of the hypocrites and Pharisees.

    Quoted in "Thus Spake Germany" - Page 30 - by W. W. Coole, Władysław Wszebór Kulski, M. F. Potter - 1941
[/i]

[Jazzhead]

Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.

The criteria for civil marriage has historically been set by the individual states (and every last one of them affirms a right to marry).   However, within our federal system,  two additional considerations are at play:

1.   Each state is obliged to honor another state's determination of marriage (the now discredited DOMA represented an unprecedented exception to that rule).

2.   The 14th Amendment to the Constitution applies to the states as well as the federal government.  Hence,  a state's definition of marriage, and the benefits and protections such status conveys, cannot violate a citizen's Constitutional right to the law's equal protection.   

Equal protection is NOT implicated when a state requires marriage to be between two competent adults. 

[chae]

@Cripplecreek


Replace "Hitler" in your quote with Trump and you've got "BlackFemaleArmyCaptain"

[mirraflake]

Nobody is being denied equal protection by laws that limit marriage to people of the opposite sex.  Everyone has the right to marry a competent adult, of age, of the opposite sex, to whom they are not too-closely related.  Just because some people do not wish to marry people of the opposite sex doesn't mean they have been deprived of a right.

When I die my wife gets 100% of everything I own tax free or vica versa.

If a gay man dies, his partner if not allowed to be married, has to pay taxes on the proceeds.

I would say that is deprived of a right.

@Maj. Bill Martin

[Jazzhead]

Wrong. Civil unions existed while marriage was still marriage.

A civil union and civil marriage are essentially the same thing.  But the name IS important.  If you doubt me, ask yourself if you would be content with a change in the law that labels your own marriage to be a civil union.   

I wasn't married in a church.  But I sure as heck don't want to lose the status of being "married" just because made my vows before a judge. 

[Jazzhead]

When I die my wife gets 100% of everything I own tax free or vica versa.

If a gay man dies, his partner if not allowed to be married, has to pay taxes on the proceeds.

I would say that is deprived of a right.

@Maj. Bill Martin

Correct - so long as that gay couple is willing to undertake the obligations of marriage.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

When I die my wife gets 100% of everything I own tax free or vica versa.

If a gay man dies, his partner if not allowed to be married, has to pay taxes on the proceeds.

I would say that is deprived of a right.

@Maj. Bill Martin

No, he can leave 100% of his assets to his wife if he chooses to as well.  If he chooses not to have a wife, that's his decision.  And just like a straight person, a gay person is not permitted to marry a person of the same sex.

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult.  The Constitution says that the law must treat all people equally.  It does not say that the law must treat all choices equally.

[txradioguy]

Your right to the equal protection of the law.

That's a lie.

Marriage is NOT a right.

No one is denying gays a seat at a lunch counter. 

No one is telling them to sit at the back of a bus.  Gays are not being given literacy tests or being subjected to any Jim Crow style laws where voting is concerned.

Gays are not being denied the right to vote or own property.  There are not "Gays Only" water fountains and restrooms.

They are not being forced into "separate but equal" segregated schools on the other side of the tracks.

Gays are not being lynched.  They aren't being told that because they are gay they are not considered citizens of the U.S.


All of the above are clear violations of the 14th Amendment and actual violations of the separate but equal clause you keep misusing.


There is no rights violation if a state doesn't have a provision in their laws that does or does not allow two gay people to get married.

And I don't care how many times you try to repeat a lie...it's not going to make it so.  Just because some Liberal judge with a lifetime appointment decides to read things into the Constitution that is clearly not there...doesn't mean it's right or legal.