Supreme Court weighs longshot appeal to overturn decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide

[Sighlass]

End of the day, it doesn’t really matter whether you approve or not. It’s done.

Yeah, 81% of our state voted that marriage was between a man and a woman. We didn't want to create special rights for homosexual that wasn't intended since time began. Heck, the liberal courts went full monty on anyone that dared not be swayed by "it is love" crapola. It was an assault on Christianity, it was an attack at the government for daring to believe that they should uphold an institution designed to raise children in the best environments, it was a ploy to get adoption rights, it was joke when shown that most of these marriages were "open" at best. Not to mention, cheaper rates through government means (loans, taxes).

Mark me down in the don't approve and will never approve catagory. One person (Roy Moore) stood for what was right in Alabama, and he was buried politically for daring to defend our state constitution by every crooked way they could find.

[Bigun]

Let's add another dimension to this discussion. In 1868 many states remained under martial law and the ratification of the 14th - which was akin to ratification of the Constitution itself since it fundamentially changed the character of this republic - went like this:





I wonder why so many states reused to ratify initially and then changed their minds. I'm sure gun barrels in faces had nothing to do with it. /S

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yeah, 81% of our state voted that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Seventy percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage at the time Loving was decided.

We are a Constitutional Republic.

[Hoodat]

Seventy percent of Americans opposed interracial marriage at the time Loving was decided.

Not sure why you keep bring up Loving since it refutes your claim by reaffirming the fundamental of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Maybe you can explain how the Loving decision was deemed 'Constitutional' in 1967, yet deemed 'unconstitutional' in 2015.

[Hoodat]

I’m satisfied with my arguments. I (as is plainly visible) have made them quite well. But unfortunately I can’t help you understand them.

I understand your arguments.  It's just that they don't have a damn thing to do with Obergefell.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I understand your arguments.  It's just that they don't have a damn thing to do with Obergefell.

So in spite of all the evidence — and the Court’s own reasoning — you’d rather oppose SCOTUS by leaning on the ol’ ‘it’s always been that way’ defense? That’s the appeal to tradition and popularity teaming up for one last dance. Unfortunately, neither holds up under the XIV Amendment — and that’s exactly why Obergefell does.

We understand each other.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not sure why you keep bring up Loving since it refutes your claim by reaffirming the fundamental of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Maybe you can explain how the Loving decision was deemed 'Constitutional' in 1967, yet deemed 'unconstitutional' in 2015.

It refuted the notion that society could, as a voting block, continue to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, your oversimplification and misinterpretation of the case and its finding notwithstanding.

The decision says what it says and there is no mention of “one man, one woman” in it as a deciding factor in the doc, and in both cases the XIV was the base.

Nah. I’d rather see you defend Dredd Scott from your double-pour of logical fallacies. 

[Fishrrman]

Lots of meaningless and useless banter in this thread.

Makes me wonder...

What if you had asked the Founders at the Constitutional Convention (each and every one of them):
"What do you think of homosexual marriage? Will this Constitution protect that?"

I wonder what their replies would have been (each and every one of them)...?

[roamer_1]

So in spite of all the evidence — and the Court’s own reasoning — you’d rather oppose SCOTUS by leaning on the ol’ ‘it’s always been that way’ defense? That’s the appeal to tradition and popularity teaming up for one last dance. Unfortunately, neither holds up under the XIV Amendment — and that’s exactly why Obergefell does.

We understand each other.

It goes way past mere tradition and approaches violating instinct.

It also helps to destroy the lowest common denominator of governance, removing the household. Yet another destruction of the sanctity of marriage, and the sanctity of family.

It is insidious in its perfidy. It is a lie. A vile cancer to cut out.

[Hoodat]

So in spite of all the evidence —

What evidence?  I've asked you for evidence multiple times.  And your only response has been to repeat the claim.

(See logical fallacies:  Begging the question)

— you’d rather oppose SCOTUS by leaning on the ol’ ‘it’s always been that way’ defense?

No, not at all.  Nowhere in any of this have I made that argument.  Let me remind you that it was YOU who introduced all that "fundamental right" bullshit, not I.  You're the one who keeps bringing up Loving which affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman.

No, my defense from the get-go has been that there has been zero evidence presented showing that Ohio marriage law violated Equal Protection.  In fact, when it comes to Equal Protection, it is the Obergefell decision itself that violates it by creating a special class with special rights that trump all other groups.

That’s the appeal to tradition and popularity teaming up for one last dance.

That was your argument, not mine.  Remember, you are the one who introduced Loving.  I don't give a damn about tradition or popularity.  My concern is with the wording of the Constitution itself as it applies to the facts of this case.  The Fourteenth Amendment hasn't changed in 145 years.  Neither has Ohio marriage law.  That's not tradition, that's fact.  So what did change?

Unfortunately, neither holds up under the XIV Amendment —

Yet again, how so?  Explain how a marriage law deemed compliant with Amendment XIV for almost a century and a half suddenly finds itself in violation of it?  Let's hear it.  Stop repeating the conclusion.  Make your case.

— and that’s exactly why Obergefell does.

No, it does not.  Obergefell creates a protected class at the expense of all others.  That isn't "equal".