Gay marriage and the US Constitution

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Assuming you think gay marriage is a good social policy or a moral good, is violating the Constitution justified to adopt universal gay marriage rights? Applying equal protection and due process to extend to a supposed Constitutional right for gay people to get married is quite blatantly a misunderstanding of these clauses given the enumerated rights in the same Constitution, especially in light of the 10th amendment explicitly reserving non-enumerated powers to the states.

Under no sane reading of the U.S. Constitution can there be found any right of marriage, particularly a right to same sex marriages. This right was created by certain states legislatively, other states chose not to create that right; now by judicial mandate this right has been assumed into existence on a false Constitutional grounds.

If you value gay marriage, do you think that falsification of the Constitution is justified? Do the ends justify the means in this case? And if so, at what point or forwhat issues is it not justified to shred the same Constitution that grants powers and limits to all branches of the U.S. government?

I’ve read the opinions on this issue from the court’s decision yesterday, the majority and also the dissenting opinions. Anyone else who is also well versed on the issue and the legality concerns, please weigh in. Note that if you do not agree with gay marriage you probably will find no justice in the court ruling, but feel free to weigh in anyway.

And no, this is not a topic about homosexuality really, it is a topic about judicial abuse and on what grounds, if ever, such abuse is justified, and why or why not.

The system is set up to allow states to make these kinds of determinations, although many federal level mandates have been imposed before. Explicitly identifying a violation of gay people’s “constitutional rights” is interesting to me here, since obviously no such right exists in the law (until now), and judges are not allowed to legislate (create laws, like has now been done with this issue).

If you haven’t read the court opinions on this I recommend you do so. Ought we be a nation of laws or of men? And regarding or without regard to any given issue you feel is good or bad?

2

From my perspective as a fascist looking down from my balcony upon the cogs of my most excellent machine, I consider only the pragmatic consequences of this kind of stuff.

Three things are then very useful about this decision: first, homosexual men tend to be more easily controlled. I don’t anticipate a bunch of spandex wearing pansies in roller-skates ever storming my headquarters and taking me prisoner.

Second, every man that turns gay is a man that probably won’t mate with a woman to make another human being. This helps keep the herd thin and the population down.

Third, homosexual women tend to be better laborers because they want to do what men do. If a good percentage of my female population was like Rosie the Riveter, imagine what kind of productive output would result.

The rest is neither here nor there. The great bulk of society is not important.

3

This is a kind of a silly screed, given that a majority conservative court consisting some of the most prestigious constitutional scholars in the nation just ruled that there was a constitutional right for gays to marry. The constitution is in many places pretty ambiguous, so you may reasonably disagree with them, but to claim that their ruling is a “blatant misunderstanding” which “no sane reading” of the document could produce is clearly just facile rhetoric for the sake of venting your disapproval.

Of course, this is the sort of dime-a-dozen response you get from people on all parts of the political spectrum when SCOTUS issues a ruling they don’t like. It’s the result of cognitive dissonance: ‘How could they possibly NOT see things my way?? Nobody in their right mind could possibly interpret this text in a different way than me!’

It’s not an argument, and it’s a shamelessly leading question you’ve posed.

We are a nation of men (and women, btw) governed by laws. The constitution is a legal document, and your objection to the ruling seems to be on legal grounds, so yeah, this is decisively NOT about laws versus people as you have framed it in the concluding line of your post.

4

Sorry, actually I do not “believe” the perspective from which I wrote the OP, instead I chose that perspective because that is the view against which I want to see responses and discussion framed in this topic. The reason for this is because I needed to clearly articulate one side as a principled approach, or I wanted to do this in order to get (hopefully) equally principled responses, even if those other principles are different (hopefully they will be).

I’m not on any side of the issue, you might call me an outside observer. I happen to find the issue and the legal ruling in particular fascinating from both sides.

Specific to what you said about the court, this was a 5-4 decision so please refrain from doing what many other supporters of gay marriage are doing right now and glossing over the obvious deep divide on the issue. One vote caused this decision to swing one way and not the other. One man, Kennedy, was the deciding vote. What I said about the ruling being a “blatant misunderstanding” is the literal and stated perspective of 4 of the 9 “most prestigious constitutional scholars” as you put it.

5

Pro universal marriage rights is based on the 14th amendment of the Constitution, that no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, or equal protection.

The universal marriage antagonists who are against the legalization of gay marriage base their contention on the idea that the 14th amendment does not provide that right or protection. They instead rely on the 10th amendment to buttress their claim that it is only and specifically a matter of states rights.

By the way, those that wish to deny or abrogate rights to any group nearly always use the 10th amendment as their foundation to discriminate.

Me, I do not think that states rights trump federal laws and protections. I think we need an overriding and overarching foundation of universal rights and principles in order to forestall the actions and laws of states that wish to deprive people of their rights.

6

Me too. i didn’t realize what you were doing in the OP.

The deep divide is central to my point. It’s not likely that 5 0f 9 Supreme Court Justices are “blatantly misunderstanding” what the constitution says on the issue, it’s more likely there is more than one reasoned way of interpreting the constitution. In any case, Scotus votes these days are generally always 5-4 one way or another. This is a conservative court and it has ruled that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. I’m not big into the whole “i have rights, end of story” attitude, but i see it as a goose / gander thing. If there can be a constitutional right to carry an AR-15 into a supermarket, then there can be a constitutional right for two people of the same sex to marry.

7

There isn’t even a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage. Fuck, we don’t even have a right to sleep, several cities pass laws banning the homeless from sleeping. We give that right only to prisoners of crimes, and prisoners of war.

Yes, this was deeply unconstitutional. The reason it is known to be in constitutional is 2 Factors… Plain Language of the constitution, and historical awareness of the actual usage of the law.

Without plain understanding of the constitution, or the law (though all constitutional arguments are within a legal context, the constitution itself is not a law, but above the law. Don’t get the US Constitutional tradition mixed up with that of other countries), court cases would lack any justification for having a defense… you got to defend yourself against set standards, in this case, written laws and common understandings of the law (hence our tradition of precedent, dating back to the 9th century, independent of the law of executives and parliaments, but based on procedures commonly understood to offer judicial predictability and stability).

Our juries need a predictable ability to judge what is law, and if such judgment on the parts of defendants is in accordance with what we expect right behavior to be, or at least excusable, where the jury can nullify a charge, aquit the defendent, or offer lenient sentences.

Now, there isn’t a single aspect of our laws, including the constitution itself, that isn’t amendable. We have several ways to amend the constitution itself… through states voting on constitutional amendments, through the ratification of bloc compacts between states (if enough states were tired of California doing something, enough could come together to derail particular legal mechanisms by forcing an end to them). The supreme court has also recognized the right of revolution, primarily for two reasons:

  1. The US was the result of a revolution
  2. The Supreme Court would like to survive said constitution, they are after all, usually just 9 justices and some clerks, and have a security force that works as reservists for the Maryland National Guard… best of luck enforcing the law if the legislative and judicial branches collapse, they have EVERY intention of going with the flow in that situation… they are geriatrics after all, not Judge Dress.

Which brings me to my point. They ceased in this act being the interpreters of the law. Traditionally, they could make a profound ruling, and give a list of court cases that offer a logic back to the Tudor era, involving laws, treaties, concepts of international courts that we’ve considered when constitutional relevant, ect. Our psychological understandings of our legal doctrines comes from use of excessive force, avoiding cruel & unusual punishments (we give cruel punishments all the time, such as life sentences in rough prisons, and unusual, such as the premise of the movie Doc Hollywood). The amendments adopted antebellum were designed to integrate a slave population denied political and human rights, and ensure we never have to have a civil war again.

As I pointed out, there is no “right” to heterosexual marriage. The only people who claim a legal right (and technically this is not a legal right either federally nor in most states until it is written as such by a legislature and signed off by a governor) are gays now, and in some states prisoners, and conjugal visitation doesn’t even follow. Likewise, polygamy is still outlaw, interspecies martiage, and marriage to material objects and abstract objects are outright shrugged off and denied. We give rights of personhood to corporations, but I have yet to see someone marry a corporation.

So technicalkt , in a pure legal sense, gay marriage only constitutionally exists in states that have legalized it. It continues not to exist on the federal level. What does exist are certificates validating a marriage ceremony, and state and federal bureaucracies that choose to comply.

As the certificates are legal documents, it comes to pass to question if they were legally approved in the first place. If the US realizes it unleashed Pandora’s box, and the Court increasingly brazenedly makes new laws pop up out of the blue, and cleans house in the supreme court, a future court might judge such documents as illegitimate (but unlikely to void legal, good faith contracts surrounding them, as it APPEARED legal in some justifiable sense if a apparent legal authority claimed they were legal then. No difference if it is a despotic court, or even a Confederate or British colonial court)

Right now, the Supreme Court isn’t technically supreme. Its the first time were aware that it gas intentionally chosen to violate its own authority which governs it. We are in a constitutional crisis right now, no different that in England if the Queen suspended Parliament and started ruling by decree, or in china if the Communist Party suspended the courts and announced another Long March, and everyone was coming along. Thus shit isn’t supposed to happen.

During the first term of Obama’s Presidency, we saw the legislative branch functionally collapse. The Senate was in complete and absolute control of the actual functions of state, and worked in complete lockstep with the executive. The elections, which was luckily still observed (we aren’t at the total banana republic stage where Obama could reasonably defraud the elections) forced a more equal balance. Legislation in both houses can now go forth. We also saw the constitutional rights of the house of representatives effectively stripped from them… all spending bills must originate in the house of representatives, as the represent to popular will… this was to avoid the “No Taxation Without Representation” issue we had with the English Parliament. For Bi-Camerialism to work, it requires a certain degree of administrative maturity, skill and wisdom, as well as a need to compromise for the greater good. This collapsed completely during this era. It was regained to a large degree since then, and both dominant parties in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have since started passing laws since.

However… the country just lost its supreme court. The supreme court was much more than just a case judging mechanism, it more or less cemented the moral integrity of our entire system. We expect politicians to do shady stuff, always a few bad apple charlatans. We expect an occasional overstep of power from a president. We have laws and constitutional constraints such as our idea of the balance of powers. The supreme court rulings are supposed to decisively put a end to debates on constitutional aspects of laws. It doesn’t mean it will remain forever that way… a future precedent may modify it, or “we the people” may choose to pass new laws or admendelments…

Right now… This isn’t possible. The collective state isn’t one of clarification and understanding, but of confusion and panic. What’s next? We didn’t elect these people, they were appointed, and they are now adding invisible amendments to the constitution only they can see. There is 100% certain no right to marriage in the constitution, much less gay marriage. The gays were not, and are not, included… even hinted, as a ethic or national group, or a oppressed group in the constitution, and even if they were, fuck… we honestly gave a list of abstractions that have higher priorities than homosexual recognition. What about the rights of people to sleep? Not loose their property? Not be imprisoned due to judicial snobbery? The rights of bald men to be provided hats so their heads don’t sunburn? A lot of people had rights more pressing than gays, especially considering they allready had equivalency in legal documentation.

As to the question if gays should or shouldn’t be married, that is a legal question. Legal questions should be decided by legislatures, operating upon the willvof the people, voting and electing representatives. Again, I doubt even the most hardcore anti-gay campaigner could honestly say in time more and more states weren’t going to pass the laws, and that gay marriage wouldn’t be legally valid across the country legitimately. That’s the way it should of been done.

Instead, were stuck in the same legal quagmire the Romans twice found themselves in. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Senators who killed him had the option to declare him a tyrant, and under the Roman Constitution, this would of nullified every law passed under his dictatorship… including their status as dictators. Marc Anthony had gotten out of town, Octavian was a mere penniless nephew who merely inherited Caesar’s political will and social clout (the clout of a man who was stabbed to death by the Senate, whatever that’s worth). The senators blinked, and decided they liked being Senators. Anthony and Octavius joined arms, and drove the Republican Faction out completely. SPQR existed only in name, a imperial monarchy from that point on (save for a brief period of time in the East Roman Empire when the Senate took over because the Emperor was too young to rule).

Rome never figured out how to legitimise the office of emperor, they even admitted to it in the sixth century, but from Augustus (Octavius) until the fall of Trebizond to the Turks (1459 or 1463, can’t recall), there was never a mechanism in any constitution that worked the emperor into the machinery of state. He was always understood to exist, but what that power was changed from emperor to emperor. Add 1500 years of mutation, and it turned into a feudal princely state.

Which brings me to the second state that the Supreme court can find its actions in precident with the Romans. The concept of “princely desponates”, the most famous (and which produced some interesting philosophers) was The Desponate of the Morea… Basically Roman Sparta. During the middle ages, post 4th crusade, the East Roman Empire was politically fragmented because it was geographically fragmented. The various parts were ruled by noble lines, but were not always able to be effectively under the control of a Emperor, or cared to be. The basic idea was, whoever was locally in charge, couldn’t be the actual emperor if there was a better claimant to the throne, but was none the less effectively in charge, and by that virtue, was the local ruler, even if not acknowledged by the emperor. This is like the king of Prussia saying he was merely the King IN Prussia, and not the King OF Prussia. We know where this leads, but if the imperial authority can’t immediately stamp this out, its going to protest, declare its rights of supremacy, and go along with it under a legal fiction. Hence the Byzantine Desponate, an illegal power, but a somewhat recognized power none the less.

The Supreme Court is no longer the Supreme Court. This is a fact. Yes, it can take court cases appealed to it, but already some judges are rejecting it. The court in Alabama I think it was, already rejected it’s supremacy to overturn its gay marriage laws a few months back (on the federal level). It causes issues, given the supreme court is supposed to be “supreme”.

We now live in a era where of a court that rules by whim and ideology, and not from a justifiable reading of the constitution. We actively exist in a Constitutional Crises, its default. Our supreme judicial authority now invents new kinds of constitutional laws. Do they qualify as enemies of the state, under the foreign and domestic oath? I don’t know. I’m simply not aware of a mechanism we can make to the constitution that stops a supreme court from making up constitutional rights, or suppressing them if it cared to do so. That’s up to every US citizen pissed off, polishing a gun at home over these next few decades who will be stunned to hear the supreme court invented a new law out of the fucking blue radically changing everything… political parties cgange , and presidencies too. With them, supreme courts. The party you favor isn’t always going to be in charge. In order to carry on from this point on, we are going to find some constitutional functions at times will be respected, while others will not. Some state judges who will refuse to recognize a supreme court ruling as utterly invalid as its not based on the courts piwer to interprete law, but rather violates it as it was making law… will sometimes be slammed by the mechanisms of state, or othertimes upheld by later courts. This causes panics in what ‘is law’ at all levels, as a state court might nullify a despotism if the supreme court, but a later supreme court might say, after that said state judged was removed or suppressed, was valid and the supreme court that made the system was wrong, lacked the authority to make such decisions, and thus was “NOT LAW”, upholding the legality of the imprisoned or debarred judge, but lacking the authority to institute pardons or reinstatements.

So we end up with a cutt throat, coat and dagger approach to dealing with judges. I completely and fully expect (but do not advocate) that supreme court justices will be increasingly targeted for assassination. I’m not merely talking about this court, or our generation… Were looking at serious political instability for the foreseeable future. The Romans never solved the paradox of the emperor… It took another civilization, the English with the Magna Carts, The English Civil War with the execution of the king and a brief English republic, a dutch invasion and occupation during "The Glorious Revolution, and finally the US Revolution for us to solve that. The Germans solved it with princely electorates. Best the Romans could do was get the Roman Pope or Patriarch of Constantinople involved as he was a authority figure of sorts.

What happened today, the consequences may stick with bus for millenia. Millions, conceivably billions, can die as the centuries go buy and populations freak out cause a new ideological clique got control of the courts by getting their ideologues accepted by the supreme courts as their clerks, working their influence up the ranks.

Before us lies the cause of countless wars. A million injustices, and our inevitable collapse. We have lost our constitution. We have gained a desponate instead. May it remain a smiley desponate till the passing of our days. I pray I don’t see the first shots fired in anger at its injustices. It is no longer a court of the people, but of the vogue and highest bidders. May God gave mercy on our souls, for we gave delivered future generations into damnation for this.

8

There isn’t even a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage. Fuck, we don’t even have a right to sleep, several cities pass laws banning the homeless from sleeping. We give that right only to prisoners of crimes, and prisoners of war.

Yes, this was deeply unconstitutional. The reason it is known to be in constitutional is 2 Factors… Plain Language of the constitution, and historical awareness of the actual usage of the law.

Without plain understanding of the constitution, or the law (though all constitutional arguments are within a legal context, the constitution itself is not a law, but above the law. Don’t get the US Constitutional tradition mixed up with that of other countries), court cases would lack any justification for having a defense… you got to defend yourself against set standards, in this case, written laws and common understandings of the law (hence our tradition of precedent, dating back to the 9th century, independent of the law of executives and parliaments, but based on procedures commonly understood to offer judicial predictability and stability).

Our juries need a predictable ability to judge what is law, and if such judgment on the parts of defendants is in accordance with what we expect right behavior to be, or at least excusable, where the jury can nullify a charge, aquit the defendent, or offer lenient sentences.

Now, there isn’t a single aspect of our laws, including the constitution itself, that isn’t amendable. We have several ways to amend the constitution itself… through states voting on constitutional amendments, through the ratification of bloc compacts between states (if enough states were tired of California doing something, enough could come together to derail particular legal mechanisms by forcing an end to them). The supreme court has also recognized the right of revolution, primarily for two reasons:

  1. The US was the result of a revolution
  2. The Supreme Court would like to survive said constitution, they are after all, usually just 9 justices and some clerks, and have a security force that works as reservists for the Maryland National Guard… best of luck enforcing the law if the legislative and judicial branches collapse, they have EVERY intention of going with the flow in that situation… they are geriatrics after all, not Judge Dress.

Which brings me to my point. They ceased in this act being the interpreters of the law. Traditionally, they could make a profound ruling, and give a list of court cases that offer a logic back to the Tudor era, involving laws, treaties, concepts of international courts that we’ve considered when constitutional relevant, ect. Our psychological understandings of our legal doctrines comes from use of excessive force, avoiding cruel & unusual punishments (we give cruel punishments all the time, such as life sentences in rough prisons, and unusual, such as the premise of the movie Doc Hollywood). The amendments adopted antebellum were designed to integrate a slave population denied political and human rights, and ensure we never have to have a civil war again.

As I pointed out, there is no “right” to heterosexual marriage. The only people who claim a legal right (and technically this is not a legal right either federally nor in most states until it is written as such by a legislature and signed off by a governor) are gays now, and in some states prisoners, and conjugal visitation doesn’t even follow. Likewise, polygamy is still outlaw, interspecies martiage, and marriage to material objects and abstract objects are outright shrugged off and denied. We give rights of personhood to corporations, but I have yet to see someone marry a corporation.

So technicalkt , in a pure legal sense, gay marriage only constitutionally exists in states that have legalized it. It continues not to exist on the federal level. What does exist are certificates validating a marriage ceremony, and state and federal bureaucracies that choose to comply.

As the certificates are legal documents, it comes to pass to question if they were legally approved in the first place. If the US realizes it unleashed Pandora’s box, and the Court increasingly brazenedly makes new laws pop up out of the blue, and cleans house in the supreme court, a future court might judge such documents as illegitimate (but unlikely to void legal, good faith contracts surrounding them, as it APPEARED legal in some justifiable sense if a apparent legal authority claimed they were legal then. No difference if it is a despotic court, or even a Confederate or British colonial court)

Right now, the Supreme Court isn’t technically supreme. Its the first time were aware that it gas intentionally chosen to violate its own authority which governs it. We are in a constitutional crisis right now, no different that in England if the Queen suspended Parliament and started ruling by decree, or in china if the Communist Party suspended the courts and announced another Long March, and everyone was coming along. Thus shit isn’t supposed to happen.

During the first term of Obama’s Presidency, we saw the legislative branch functionally collapse. The Senate was in complete and absolute control of the actual functions of state, and worked in complete lockstep with the executive. The elections, which was luckily still observed (we aren’t at the total banana republic stage where Obama could reasonably defraud the elections) forced a more equal balance. Legislation in both houses can now go forth. We also saw the constitutional rights of the house of representatives effectively stripped from them… all spending bills must originate in the house of representatives, as the represent to popular will… this was to avoid the “No Taxation Without Representation” issue we had with the English Parliament. For Bi-Camerialism to work, it requires a certain degree of administrative maturity, skill and wisdom, as well as a need to compromise for the greater good. This collapsed completely during this era. It was regained to a large degree since then, and both dominant parties in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have since started passing laws since.

However… the country just lost its supreme court. The supreme court was much more than just a case judging mechanism, it more or less cemented the moral integrity of our entire system. We expect politicians to do shady stuff, always a few bad apple charlatans. We expect an occasional overstep of power from a president. We have laws and constitutional constraints such as our idea of the balance of powers. The supreme court rulings are supposed to decisively put a end to debates on constitutional aspects of laws. It doesn’t mean it will remain forever that way… a future precedent may modify it, or “we the people” may choose to pass new laws or admendelments…

Right now… This isn’t possible. The collective state isn’t one of clarification and understanding, but of confusion and panic. What’s next? We didn’t elect these people, they were appointed, and they are now adding invisible amendments to the constitution only they can see. There is 100% certain no right to marriage in the constitution, much less gay marriage. The gays were not, and are not, included… even hinted, as a ethic or national group, or a oppressed group in the constitution, and even if they were, fuck… we honestly gave a list of abstractions that have higher priorities than homosexual recognition. What about the rights of people to sleep? Not loose their property? Not be imprisoned due to judicial snobbery? The rights of bald men to be provided hats so their heads don’t sunburn? A lot of people had rights more pressing than gays, especially considering they allready had equivalency in legal documentation.

As to the question if gays should or shouldn’t be married, that is a legal question. Legal questions should be decided by legislatures, operating upon the willvof the people, voting and electing representatives. Again, I doubt even the most hardcore anti-gay campaigner could honestly say in time more and more states weren’t going to pass the laws, and that gay marriage wouldn’t be legally valid across the country legitimately. That’s the way it should of been done.

Instead, were stuck in the same legal quagmire the Romans twice found themselves in. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Senators who killed him had the option to declare him a tyrant, and under the Roman Constitution, this would of nullified every law passed under his dictatorship… including their status as dictators. Marc Anthony had gotten out of town, Octavian was a mere penniless nephew who merely inherited Caesar’s political will and social clout (the clout of a man who was stabbed to death by the Senate, whatever that’s worth). The senators blinked, and decided they liked being Senators. Anthony and Octavius joined arms, and drove the Republican Faction out completely. SPQR existed only in name, a imperial monarchy from that point on (save for a brief period of time in the East Roman Empire when the Senate took over because the Emperor was too young to rule).

Rome never figured out how to legitimise the office of emperor, they even admitted to it in the sixth century, but from Augustus (Octavius) until the fall of Trebizond to the Turks (1459 or 1463, can’t recall), there was never a mechanism in any constitution that worked the emperor into the machinery of state. He was always understood to exist, but what that power was changed from emperor to emperor. Add 1500 years of mutation, and it turned into a feudal princely state.

Which brings me to the second state that the Supreme court can find its actions in precident with the Romans. The concept of “princely desponates”, the most famous (and which produced some interesting philosophers) was The Desponate of the Morea… Basically Roman Sparta. During the middle ages, post 4th crusade, the East Roman Empire was politically fragmented because it was geographically fragmented. The various parts were ruled by noble lines, but were not always able to be effectively under the control of a Emperor, or cared to be. The basic idea was, whoever was locally in charge, couldn’t be the actual emperor if there was a better claimant to the throne, but was none the less effectively in charge, and by that virtue, was the local ruler, even if not acknowledged by the emperor. This is like the king of Prussia saying he was merely the King IN Prussia, and not the King OF Prussia. We know where this leads, but if the imperial authority can’t immediately stamp this out, its going to protest, declare its rights of supremacy, and go along with it under a legal fiction. Hence the Byzantine Desponate, an illegal power, but a somewhat recognized power none the less.

The Supreme Court is no longer the Supreme Court. This is a fact. Yes, it can take court cases appealed to it, but already some judges are rejecting it. The court in Alabama I think it was, already rejected it’s supremacy to overturn its gay marriage laws a few months back (on the federal level). It causes issues, given the supreme court is supposed to be “supreme”.

We now live in a era where of a court that rules by whim and ideology, and not from a justifiable reading of the constitution. We actively exist in a Constitutional Crises, its default. Our supreme judicial authority now invents new kinds of constitutional laws. Do they qualify as enemies of the state, under the foreign and domestic oath? I don’t know. I’m simply not aware of a mechanism we can make to the constitution that stops a supreme court from making up constitutional rights, or suppressing them if it cared to do so. That’s up to every US citizen pissed off, polishing a gun at home over these next few decades who will be stunned to hear the supreme court invented a new law out of the fucking blue radically changing everything… political parties cgange , and presidencies too. With them, supreme courts. The party you favor isn’t always going to be in charge. In order to carry on from this point on, we are going to find some constitutional functions at times will be respected, while others will not. Some state judges who will refuse to recognize a supreme court ruling as utterly invalid as its not based on the courts piwer to interprete law, but rather violates it as it was making law… will sometimes be slammed by the mechanisms of state, or othertimes upheld by later courts. This causes panics in what ‘is law’ at all levels, as a state court might nullify a despotism if the supreme court, but a later supreme court might say, after that said state judged was removed or suppressed, was valid and the supreme court that made the system was wrong, lacked the authority to make such decisions, and thus was “NOT LAW”, upholding the legality of the imprisoned or debarred judge, but lacking the authority to institute pardons or reinstatements.

So we end up with a cutt throat, coat and dagger approach to dealing with judges. I completely and fully expect (but do not advocate) that supreme court justices will be increasingly targeted for assassination. I’m not merely talking about this court, or our generation… Were looking at serious political instability for the foreseeable future. The Romans never solved the paradox of the emperor… It took another civilization, the English with the Magna Carts, The English Civil War with the execution of the king and a brief English republic, a dutch invasion and occupation during "The Glorious Revolution, and finally the US Revolution for us to solve that. The Germans solved it with princely electorates. Best the Romans could do was get the Roman Pope or Patriarch of Constantinople involved as he was a authority figure of sorts.

What happened today, the consequences may stick with bus for millenia. Millions, conceivably billions, can die as the centuries go buy and populations freak out cause a new ideological clique got control of the courts by getting their ideologues accepted by the supreme courts as their clerks, working their influence up the ranks.

Before us lies the cause of countless wars. A million injustices, and our inevitable collapse. We have lost our constitution. We have gained a desponate instead. May it remain a smiley desponate till the passing of our days. I pray I don’t see the first shots fired in anger at its injustices. It is no longer a court of the people, but of the vogue and highest bidders. May God gave mercy on our souls, for we gave delivered future generations into damnation for this.

9

There isn’t even a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage. Fuck, we don’t even have a right to sleep, several cities pass laws banning the homeless from sleeping. We give that right only to prisoners of crimes, and prisoners of war.

Yes, this was deeply unconstitutional. The reason it is known to be in constitutional is 2 Factors… Plain Language of the constitution, and historical awareness of the actual usage of the law.

Without plain understanding of the constitution, or the law (though all constitutional arguments are within a legal context, the constitution itself is not a law, but above the law. Don’t get the US Constitutional tradition mixed up with that of other countries), court cases would lack any justification for having a defense… you got to defend yourself against set standards, in this case, written laws and common understandings of the law (hence our tradition of precedent, dating back to the 9th century, independent of the law of executives and parliaments, but based on procedures commonly understood to offer judicial predictability and stability).

Our juries need a predictable ability to judge what is law, and if such judgment on the parts of defendants is in accordance with what we expect right behavior to be, or at least excusable, where the jury can nullify a charge, aquit the defendent, or offer lenient sentences.

Now, there isn’t a single aspect of our laws, including the constitution itself, that isn’t amendable. We have several ways to amend the constitution itself… through states voting on constitutional amendments, through the ratification of bloc compacts between states (if enough states were tired of California doing something, enough could come together to derail particular legal mechanisms by forcing an end to them). The supreme court has also recognized the right of revolution, primarily for two reasons:

  1. The US was the result of a revolution
  2. The Supreme Court would like to survive said constitution, they are after all, usually just 9 justices and some clerks, and have a security force that works as reservists for the Maryland National Guard… best of luck enforcing the law if the legislative and judicial branches collapse, they have EVERY intention of going with the flow in that situation… they are geriatrics after all, not Judge Dress.

Which brings me to my point. They ceased in this act being the interpreters of the law. Traditionally, they could make a profound ruling, and give a list of court cases that offer a logic back to the Tudor era, involving laws, treaties, concepts of international courts that we’ve considered when constitutional relevant, ect. Our psychological understandings of our legal doctrines comes from use of excessive force, avoiding cruel & unusual punishments (we give cruel punishments all the time, such as life sentences in rough prisons, and unusual, such as the premise of the movie Doc Hollywood). The amendments adopted antebellum were designed to integrate a slave population denied political and human rights, and ensure we never have to have a civil war again.

As I pointed out, there is no “right” to heterosexual marriage. The only people who claim a legal right (and technically this is not a legal right either federally nor in most states until it is written as such by a legislature and signed off by a governor) are gays now, and in some states prisoners, and conjugal visitation doesn’t even follow. Likewise, polygamy is still outlaw, interspecies martiage, and marriage to material objects and abstract objects are outright shrugged off and denied. We give rights of personhood to corporations, but I have yet to see someone marry a corporation.

So technicalkt , in a pure legal sense, gay marriage only constitutionally exists in states that have legalized it. It continues not to exist on the federal level. What does exist are certificates validating a marriage ceremony, and state and federal bureaucracies that choose to comply.

As the certificates are legal documents, it comes to pass to question if they were legally approved in the first place. If the US realizes it unleashed Pandora’s box, and the Court increasingly brazenedly makes new laws pop up out of the blue, and cleans house in the supreme court, a future court might judge such documents as illegitimate (but unlikely to void legal, good faith contracts surrounding them, as it APPEARED legal in some justifiable sense if a apparent legal authority claimed they were legal then. No difference if it is a despotic court, or even a Confederate or British colonial court)

Right now, the Supreme Court isn’t technically supreme. Its the first time were aware that it gas intentionally chosen to violate its own authority which governs it. We are in a constitutional crisis right now, no different that in England if the Queen suspended Parliament and started ruling by decree, or in china if the Communist Party suspended the courts and announced another Long March, and everyone was coming along. Thus shit isn’t supposed to happen.

During the first term of Obama’s Presidency, we saw the legislative branch functionally collapse. The Senate was in complete and absolute control of the actual functions of state, and worked in complete lockstep with the executive. The elections, which was luckily still observed (we aren’t at the total banana republic stage where Obama could reasonably defraud the elections) forced a more equal balance. Legislation in both houses can now go forth. We also saw the constitutional rights of the house of representatives effectively stripped from them… all spending bills must originate in the house of representatives, as the represent to popular will… this was to avoid the “No Taxation Without Representation” issue we had with the English Parliament. For Bi-Camerialism to work, it requires a certain degree of administrative maturity, skill and wisdom, as well as a need to compromise for the greater good. This collapsed completely during this era. It was regained to a large degree since then, and both dominant parties in both the Senate and the House of Representatives have since started passing laws since.

However… the country just lost its supreme court. The supreme court was much more than just a case judging mechanism, it more or less cemented the moral integrity of our entire system. We expect politicians to do shady stuff, always a few bad apple charlatans. We expect an occasional overstep of power from a president. We have laws and constitutional constraints such as our idea of the balance of powers. The supreme court rulings are supposed to decisively put a end to debates on constitutional aspects of laws. It doesn’t mean it will remain forever that way… a future precedent may modify it, or “we the people” may choose to pass new laws or admendelments…

Right now… This isn’t possible. The collective state isn’t one of clarification and understanding, but of confusion and panic. What’s next? We didn’t elect these people, they were appointed, and they are now adding invisible amendments to the constitution only they can see. There is 100% certain no right to marriage in the constitution, much less gay marriage. The gays were not, and are not, included… even hinted, as a ethic or national group, or a oppressed group in the constitution, and even if they were, fuck… we honestly gave a list of abstractions that have higher priorities than homosexual recognition. What about the rights of people to sleep? Not loose their property? Not be imprisoned due to judicial snobbery? The rights of bald men to be provided hats so their heads don’t sunburn? A lot of people had rights more pressing than gays, especially considering they allready had equivalency in legal documentation.

As to the question if gays should or shouldn’t be married, that is a legal question. Legal questions should be decided by legislatures, operating upon the willvof the people, voting and electing representatives. Again, I doubt even the most hardcore anti-gay campaigner could honestly say in time more and more states weren’t going to pass the laws, and that gay marriage wouldn’t be legally valid across the country legitimately. That’s the way it should of been done.

Instead, were stuck in the same legal quagmire the Romans twice found themselves in. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Senators who killed him had the option to declare him a tyrant, and under the Roman Constitution, this would of nullified every law passed under his dictatorship… including their status as dictators. Marc Anthony had gotten out of town, Octavian was a mere penniless nephew who merely inherited Caesar’s political will and social clout (the clout of a man who was stabbed to death by the Senate, whatever that’s worth). The senators blinked, and decided they liked being Senators. Anthony and Octavius joined arms, and drove the Republican Faction out completely. SPQR existed only in name, a imperial monarchy from that point on (save for a brief period of time in the East Roman Empire when the Senate took over because the Emperor was too young to rule).

Rome never figured out how to legitimise the office of emperor, they even admitted to it in the sixth century, but from Augustus (Octavius) until the fall of Trebizond to the Turks (1459 or 1463, can’t recall), there was never a mechanism in any constitution that worked the emperor into the machinery of state. He was always understood to exist, but what that power was changed from emperor to emperor. Add 1500 years of mutation, and it turned into a feudal princely state.

Which brings me to the second state that the Supreme court can find its actions in precident with the Romans. The concept of “princely desponates”, the most famous (and which produced some interesting philosophers) was The Desponate of the Morea… Basically Roman Sparta. During the middle ages, post 4th crusade, the East Roman Empire was politically fragmented because it was geographically fragmented. The various parts were ruled by noble lines, but were not always able to be effectively under the control of a Emperor, or cared to be. The basic idea was, whoever was locally in charge, couldn’t be the actual emperor if there was a better claimant to the throne, but was none the less effectively in charge, and by that virtue, was the local ruler, even if not acknowledged by the emperor. This is like the king of Prussia saying he was merely the King IN Prussia, and not the King OF Prussia. We know where this leads, but if the imperial authority can’t immediately stamp this out, its going to protest, declare its rights of supremacy, and go along with it under a legal fiction. Hence the Byzantine Desponate, an illegal power, but a somewhat recognized power none the less.

The Supreme Court is no longer the Supreme Court. This is a fact. Yes, it can take court cases appealed to it, but already some judges are rejecting it. The court in Alabama I think it was, already rejected it’s supremacy to overturn its gay marriage laws a few months back (on the federal level). It causes issues, given the supreme court is supposed to be “supreme”.

We now live in a era where of a court that rules by whim and ideology, and not from a justifiable reading of the constitution. We actively exist in a Constitutional Crises, its default. Our supreme judicial authority now invents new kinds of constitutional laws. Do they qualify as enemies of the state, under the foreign and domestic oath? I don’t know. I’m simply not aware of a mechanism we can make to the constitution that stops a supreme court from making up constitutional rights, or suppressing them if it cared to do so. That’s up to every US citizen pissed off, polishing a gun at home over these next few decades who will be stunned to hear the supreme court invented a new law out of the fucking blue radically changing everything… political parties cgange , and presidencies too. With them, supreme courts. The party you favor isn’t always going to be in charge. In order to carry on from this point on, we are going to find some constitutional functions at times will be respected, while others will not. Some state judges who will refuse to recognize a supreme court ruling as utterly invalid as its not based on the courts piwer to interprete law, but rather violates it as it was making law… will sometimes be slammed by the mechanisms of state, or othertimes upheld by later courts. This causes panics in what ‘is law’ at all levels, as a state court might nullify a despotism if the supreme court, but a later supreme court might say, after that said state judged was removed or suppressed, was valid and the supreme court that made the system was wrong, lacked the authority to make such decisions, and thus was “NOT LAW”, upholding the legality of the imprisoned or debarred judge, but lacking the authority to institute pardons or reinstatements.

So we end up with a cutt throat, coat and dagger approach to dealing with judges. I completely and fully expect (but do not advocate) that supreme court justices will be increasingly targeted for assassination. I’m not merely talking about this court, or our generation… Were looking at serious political instability for the foreseeable future. The Romans never solved the paradox of the emperor… It took another civilization, the English with the Magna Carts, The English Civil War with the execution of the king and a brief English republic, a dutch invasion and occupation during "The Glorious Revolution, and finally the US Revolution for us to solve that. The Germans solved it with princely electorates. Best the Romans could do was get the Roman Pope or Patriarch of Constantinople involved as he was a authority figure of sorts.

What happened today, the consequences may stick with bus for millenia. Millions, conceivably billions, can die as the centuries go buy and populations freak out cause a new ideological clique got control of the courts by getting their ideologues accepted by the supreme courts as their clerks, working their influence up the ranks.

Before us lies the cause of countless wars. A million injustices, and our inevitable collapse. We have lost our constitution. We have gained a desponate instead. May it remain a smiley desponate till the passing of our days. I pray I don’t see the first shots fired in anger at its injustices. It is no longer a court of the people, but of the vogue and highest bidders. May God gave mercy on our souls, for we gave delivered future generations into damnation for this.

10

Best comment i’ve heard about this ruling so far, from that notorious, brilliant, snarky wiseass Mr. Stephen Colbert:

“History moves fast. It’s hard to believe that gay Americans achieved full Constitutional personhood just five years after corporations did”

11

Turd really doesn’t understand the 14th Amendment and its guarantee of equal treatment under the law, or Loving V. Virginia, which guaranteed marriage as being protected under that amendment. If the poor lad had only taken a decent high school civics course, he wouldn’t have written that homophobic rant.

12

I’m sorry, but calling Clarence Thomas, arguably the biggest joke to ever sit on the bench, a “most prestigious constitutional scholar” is comical. He barely speaks on the bench, and the few times he writes opinions, he embarrasses himself like with his laughable recent “the government cannot take dignity” decision. And Alito isn’t much better; nobody considers either of these two to be weighty legal scholars in any way. Scalia does have some brains and used to show his intellect, but he has become a rabid ideologue with his recent bizarre “jiggery-pokery” writings and fortune cookie references. Roberts, is a formidable legal mind, but the other three…nooooooooooooooooo.

So, Mechanic, what exactly is your view?.. because you’re doing an excellent job of defending the view you don’t claim to share. There is no deep legal divide, only an ideological divide. The 14th amendment makes it clear all are guaranteed equal protection under the law; the government licenses marriages and issues marriage benefits, so Gays are deserved of marriage as that equal protection…end of story. Just because some bigoted judges have a hard time with that doesn’t mean there is an equitable divide in legal stances.

13

Following your rationale, one would think that “marriage” has been clearly defined at the federal level already, in order to enact these “equally protected benefits” and applications of the law. Where is this definition of marriage? Perhaps you can point me to federal statute which LEGALLY defines this “marriage” you are talking about. Such a definition, already enacted in law (because remember the courts do not have the power to make laws, they may only interpret the laws that do exist) is required for the court to rule that “marriage” must be extended to X Y or Z group or class or situation. By your rationale, should not ANY limits to marriage be thrown out as “unconstitutional”? Or why not, if you disagree (such as with polygamy, for example)?

Remember, laws themselves come either from legislatures or from the Constitution. Not from a judge’s bench… right? Judges (are supposed to) offer interpretation, not “force or will”?

I would have preferred gay marriage to pass into law by popular vote, either by constitutional amendment such as with the ending of slavery, or by congress making it law.

For instance,

’ AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. ’

I think soon enough a similar Constitutional amendment requiring gay marriage be legally recognized by all states would have been able to pass with a 3/4 majority of states. The issue is: with the application of the equal protection clause and due process, what are the limits of such an application? Do you or anyone else know? After all, the same 14th amendment has been used to support racial and gender discrimination too. It seem awfully like the court created a law the other day, rather than interpreting a currently existing law (if you disagree, feel free to point me to the currently existing law which was misapplied and thus subject to Due Process and Equal Protection censure).

14

I’m guessing you will point to the individual states that enacted laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman, as the specific laws which were in violation of the 14th amendment. But note that the statement “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” applies to “fundamental rights” only (otherwise no state would be able to make any laws at all really, since almost anything could be a “privilege”). This is restricted to fundamental rights in order to avoid such conundrums (e.g. I do not have a “privilege” to walk into your house and take your money, because that violates your fundamental right to property).

And what are fundamental rights? They are rights spelled out in the Constitution. The recent tradition of the supreme court on its own creating rights “out of nothing” (such as a right to privacy, or now a right to marriage) is highly dubious. One would think we would want the inclusion of new rights to be ratified along with the others in the Bill of Rights. Or at least, since the courts are constitutionally prohibited from making law, one would think those same courts would be constitutionally prohibited from making rights?

15

Actually, Loving Vs. Virginia explicitly acknowledged marriage between two consenting adults that was guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s equal protection under the law. So, SCOTUS has defined it, and you can lose your red-herring slippery slope about polygamy. Also, the court’s can overrule unconstitutional laws and establish rules against prejudicial practices. That’s exactly what they did with Brown vs. Board of Education, apparently you disapprove of that ruling.

And you also seem to forget that both Thomas Jefferson and first Chief Justice Marshall saw the Constitution as a living document to be continually interpreted or re-interpreted to fit the changing times. So, there doesn’t have to be an explicit statement about marriage in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment allowed Scotus to interpret one. There are no rules in the Constitution about internet privacy or other internet issues either. According to your flawed legal logic, the Supreme Court should never rule on internet issues either.

I addressed this legal misconception above.

Why, most civil rights involving African Americans have come from the Supreme Court doing its job and striking down unconstitutional laws. Do you have a problem with those? And if you support Gay marriage as you claimed above, you should have no problem with that decision coming from the Supreme Court doing its job again.

This makes no sense. You expect Gays to wait for their Constitutional rights so you can be happy and have those rights come from a Constitutional Amendment, which hasn’t happened for a hundred years. And the Gays in Red States could wait forever. I’m sorry, civil rights don’t work that way. Again, the Supreme Court didn’t create any lawy. It simply ruled all laws barring Gays from marrying each other were Unconstitutional and struck them down. That’s a big difference, despite your misconception.

16

There is no ‘right to marry’ as construed by the court. ‘Civil rights’ are those that relate to the government (voting, etc.) and even those can be forfeited (convicts are not allowed to vote). Marriage is by its very nature between males and females and exists only for the sake of protecting wives and children from abandonment. Thus procreation by the married parties is presupposed, and thus a priori homosexuals have no basis for marriage. The whole thing is beyond absurd.

17

But they already have the right to marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that’s what marriage unalterably is.

18

The court is acting way beyond their legitimate powers. Revolution is justified.

19

Yes, those laws were ruled unconstitutional, so Scotus didn’t write new laws, just took down unconstitutional ones. And again, part of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. If Straights are allowed to marry each other, but gays are not, there is no equal protection…particularly since marriage affords rights and benefits. And part of the fundamental rights is the pursuit of happiness, and for most Americans that includes marriage.

No, fundamental rights aren’t just the rights spelled out in the Constitution, or else there would be no rights to not be segregated against, or not raped, or not prejudiced against by your employer. You really need to re-examine the Court’s powers. The Court has the power to apply the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to new historical and legal situations; that’s their job. Under your limited and inaccurate view, we never would have outlawed segregation because that wasn’t spelled out in the court. So, yes, marriage is a right, and the court wisely voted that way.

P.s. Why are you against Gay marriage, exactly?

20

Actually, Gays have the right to marriage other Gays now, so they don’t have to marry members of the opposite sex. I am, however, disappointed you would encourage such unhappy marriages. And marriage apparently isn’t unalterable, as it is now not just marriage between a man and a woman. And it never was unalterable, tell that to Solomon and his many wives in the bible of whom God approved.

And the Supreme Court did it’s job. And if you’re serious about your planned sedition and tradition–which is odd for a presumed conservative–what revolution are you exactly going to do? Are you going to take up arms against the government? Go ask all those Confederate flag owners just how well that worked out.