Polyamory is next

[AUDub 11,147]

Multiple wives? Multiple women in the same house competing for one man's affection?

ARE YOU MAD?

Nope. Just horny.

[japantiger 4,051]

Get ready...here's your test case.

http://www.krtv.com/...arriage-license

BILLINGS -

Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.

Just another reason for you to leave.

Not this...frankly I like the idea of gov't sanctioned group sex. Now, having to share the continent with a popcorn fart like you; that's reason to leave.

[homersapien 11,366]

Get ready...here's your test case.

http://www.krtv.com/...arriage-license

BILLINGS -

Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.

Just another reason for you to leave.

Not this...frankly I like the idea of gov't sanctioned group sex. Now, having to share the continent with a popcorn fart like you; that's reason to leave.

"popcorn fart"?

Well, at least it's original.

[Mims44 1,867]

Get ready...here's your test case.

http://www.krtv.com/...arriage-license

BILLINGS -

Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.

Just another reason for you to leave.

Not this...frankly I like the idea of gov't sanctioned group sex. Now, having to share the continent with a popcorn fart like you; that's reason to leave.

"popcorn fart"?

Well, at least it's original.

I enjoyed it as well, and will now partake in the joke.

Homer. You Sir, are a flatulent waffle.

[alexava 6,973]

Get ready...here's your test case.

http://www.krtv.com/...arriage-license

BILLINGS -

Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.

We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.

On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

"We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family," said Nathan.

Just another reason for you to leave.

Not this...frankly I like the idea of gov't sanctioned group sex. Now, having to share the continent with a popcorn fart like you; that's reason to leave.

"popcorn fart"?

Well, at least it's original. ;D/>

I enjoyed it as well, and will now partake in the joke.

Homer. You Sir, are a flatulent waffle.

a shart would have been worse.

[cooltigger21 0]

These are things that have no business being decided by a court. Their job is not to make decisions based on changing morals or societal whims. That is s the job of elected representatives. This is a nation now ruled by nine black robed judge's. That was not what the founders had in mind.

[quietfan 233]

These are things that have no business being decided by a court. Their job is not to make decisions based on changing morals or societal whims. That is s the job of elected representatives. This is a nation now ruled by nine black robed judge's. That was not what the founders had in mind.

Was Brown vs. Board of Education something to be decided by a court? How about Loving vs. Virginia? Gideon vs. Wainright? The founders endorsed Jefferson's belief that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, not "People only have those rights their elected officials get around to granting them". As one third of the system of checks and balances written into our constitutional system by those founders, the Supreme Court protects rights and defends the ideal of equality before the law when legislators or the Executive won't. It is co-equal in power and constitutional authority with the other two branches of government. It is not a tyranny of nine persons, but can be checked itself by Congress and the People through the process of constitutional amendment.

My personal feeling is that those upset by the Court's ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges should stop bitching and get busy working to amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman, or better yet in my view, get government out of the marriage business entirely. I don't think they'll be successful in getting 3/4ths of the states to go along with them, but that's the proper (constitutionally provided and SCOTUS endorsed) approach to addressing their grievances, not disrespecting the Court and by association the Constitution that created it.

_____________

And as I've often said:

Beyond the literal words they wrote (which are in turn subject to many interpretations), I put no stock in claims about the founders' "intentions". I don't think any of us are mind readers. I also don't believe the founders were omniscient or free of error, as demonstrated by the fifteen amendments that have been ratified long after the founders' deaths. And they themselves recognized the need to allow the document to evolve over time (Article 5).

The intentions of the founders mean nothing constitutionally. They could have been complete morons or divinely sent supernatural agents of God (angels): Outside of the written words of the Constitution, it's irrelevant. (And in fact some of them were smugglers, womanizers, moonshiners, slave owners, and slave bedders.) I see no reason to assume their "intentions" were necessarily more noble, more correct, or more immutable that more recent political ideas. This isn't the Vatican, and the founders were not "infallible" in matters of political doctrine.

[japantiger 4,051]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

[homersapien 11,366]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

[AUtiger98 24]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

[homersapien 11,366]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

Contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law?

Gee no wonder you don't like it here.

[AUtiger98 24]

These are things that have no business being decided by a court. Their job is not to make decisions based on changing morals or societal whims. That is s the job of elected representatives. This is a nation now ruled by nine black robed judge's. That was not what the founders had in mind.

Was Brown vs. Board of Education something to be decided by a court? How about Loving vs. Virginia? Gideon vs. Wainright? The founders endorsed Jefferson's belief that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, not "People only have those rights their elected officials get around to granting them". As one third of the system of checks and balances written into our constitutional system by those founders, the Supreme Court protects rights and defends the ideal of equality before the law when legislators or the Executive won't. It is co-equal in power and constitutional authority with the other two branches of government. It is not a tyranny of nine persons, but can be checked itself by Congress and the People through the process of constitutional amendment.

My personal feeling is that those upset by the Court's ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges should stop bitching and get busy working to amend the Constitution to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman, or better yet in my view, get government out of the marriage business entirely. I don't think they'll be successful in getting 3/4ths of the states to go along with them, but that's the proper (constitutionally provided and SCOTUS endorsed) approach to addressing their grievances, not disrespecting the Court and by association the Constitution that created it.

_____________

And as I've often said:

Beyond the literal words they wrote (which are in turn subject to many interpretations), I put no stock in claims about the founders' "intentions". I don't think any of us are mind readers. I also don't believe the founders were omniscient or free of error, as demonstrated by the fifteen amendments that have been ratified long after the founders' deaths. And they themselves recognized the need to allow the document to evolve over time (Article 5).

The intentions of the founders mean nothing constitutionally. They could have been complete morons or divinely sent supernatural agents of God (angels): Outside of the written words of the Constitution, it's irrelevant. (And in fact some of them were smugglers, womanizers, moonshiners, slave owners, and slave bedders.) I see no reason to assume their "intentions" were necessarily more noble, more correct, or more immutable that more recent political ideas. This isn't the Vatican, and the founders were not "infallible" in matters of political doctrine.

When we examine other inalienable rights, freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly ..., were they conferred upon us by our elected officials or were they amendments passed by the states? Why shouldn't marriage go through the same process?

If one subscribes to the belief that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights", which creator said gay marriage was a right?

should stop bitching and get busy working to amend the Constitution

If 5 judges can define marriage, then it is possible that 5 judges in the future can overturn this ruling. However, a constitutional amendment might be easier.

(And in fact some of them were smugglers, womanizers, moonshiners, slave owners, and slave bedders.)

Until I read the slave part, I thought you may have been referring to our current politicians.

[AUtiger98 24]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

Contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law?

Gee no wonder you don't like it here.

Japantiger, it appears you have something in common with those who ran the "Underground Railroad". Contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law?

[homersapien 11,366]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

Contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law?

Gee no wonder you don't like it here.

Japantiger, it appears you have something in common with those who ran the "Underground Railroad". Contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law?

Well perhaps he should set up an "underground railroad" to smuggle people who reject said law out of the country.

Oh wait, that's not really necessary is it? They are free to leave on their own accord.

I suppose that's at least one thing about the country he - and you - can appreciate.

.

[quietfan 233]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

The Judges are the rule of law, fully empowered and sanctioned by the Constitution, legally and constitutionally nominated and approved by our elected Presidents and Senators. Contempt for the Supreme Court's authority, to me, implies contempt for the law, contempt for the Constitution and our democratic system, and disrespect the writers of the Constitution. The Obergefell vs. Hodges decision was a direct extension of the 14th Amendment and deserves as much respect as any other ruling in the history of SCOTUS.

I'm not saying everyone has to like that ruling. Myself, I didn't particular like the Hobby Lobby or Citizens United rulings. But I respected Court's right to make those rulings, I respect that those rulings are now legally binding interpretations of the law, and I don't consider the judges to be tyrants or somehow usurping our democratic process because they didn't ask my opinion before hand. If put to a vote--even if the disenfranchised black minority had been allowed to vote--I have real doubts that the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that "separate is inherently unequal" would have passed in much of the South at the time. But it was the legally correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the constitutionally correct exercise of judicial power. (Also the morally correct ruling, of course, but SCOTUS decisions are based on interpretation of law, not someone's definition of morality.)

I have every right to campaign for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . Others have every right to campaign for an amendment overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges. That's democracy in action, not tyranny! Tyrants--whether they bear the title "Justice", "President", "Senator", "Governor", "General", "Reverend" or "Ayatollah"--would not tolerate such campaigns to undo their orders.

[AUtiger98 24]

For the record, I don't think we currently have a law to reject. Only the opinion of 5 judges. Which is my biggest problem with this decision.

If we started a government from scratch, and I suggested we have 9 unelected officials with lifetime appointments, who could override the votes of 68 percent of the people, I don't think anyone would think this is a good idea. In chaos of my side won/my side lost, most people missed this precedent which was set with Obergefell vs. Hodges. This precedent may not be exploited in my lifetime, but if its never exploited it would be the first time is history of governments that men/women didn't exploit powers that benefit themselves and their agenda. This is a power I don't want a Conservative or Liberal Courts to have.

[AUtiger98 24]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

The Judges are the rule of law, fully empowered and sanctioned by the Constitution, legally and constitutionally nominated and approved by our elected Presidents and Senators. Contempt for the Supreme Court's authority, to me, implies contempt for the law, contempt for the Constitution and our democratic system, and disrespect the writers of the Constitution. The Obergefell vs. Hodges decision was a direct extension of the 14th Amendment and deserves as much respect as any other ruling in the history of SCOTUS.

I'm not saying everyone has to like that ruling. Myself, I didn't particular like the Hobby Lobby or Citizens United rulings. But I respected Court's right to make those rulings, I respect that those rulings are now legally binding interpretations of the law, and I don't consider the judges to be tyrants or somehow usurping our democratic process because they didn't ask my opinion before hand. If put to a vote--even if the disenfranchised black minority had been allowed to vote--I have real doubts that the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that "separate is inherently unequal" would have passed in much of the South at the time. But it was the legally correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the constitutionally correct exercise of judicial power. (Also the morally correct ruling, of course, but SCOTUS decisions are based on interpretation of law, not someone's definition of morality.)

I have every right to campaign for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . Others have every right to campaign for an amendment overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges. That's democracy in action, not tyranny! Tyrants--whether they bear the title "Justice", "President", "Senator", "Governor", "General", "Reverend" or "Ayatollah"--would not tolerate such campaigns to undo their orders.

So getting back to the topic of this thread, should the SCOTUS allow polygamy in every state? Should the SCOTUS set the age of consent for marriage? I view both as a state's definition of morality.

[homersapien 11,366]

For the record, I don't think we currently have a law to reject. Only the opinion of 5 judges. Which is my biggest problem with this decision.

It's fine to have your own opinion, but the Constitution says otherwise.

[quietfan 233]

When we examine other inalienable rights, freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly ..., were they conferred upon us by our elected officials or were they amendments passed by the states? Why shouldn't marriage go through the same process?

Well, Jefferson went on to say that "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Those are some pretty vague terms, and is not even an all inclusive list ...just three among our inalienable rights. I think the Bill of Rights represents Congress's attempt to pin down and list/describe those inalienable rights more precisely, and to enshrine in law their "inalienable" nature.

As for marriage, or rather the definition of marriage in the sight of the law/state, nothing has changed. An injustice or oversight has merely been corrected. The 14th Amendment assures to all persons equal protection/rights under the law. It doesn't bother to list every such right or protection individually. Once that amendment passed in 1868, it wasn't legal to deny any person equal rights before the law, marital rights or otherwise. The recent ruling merely corrected something states & federal government had been ignoring since 1868. (Actually, I consider the 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments redundant, because those voting rights/protections were covered by the 14th, in my opinion. But those later amendments made the voting protections that should have been acknowledged with the passage of the 14th Amendment crystal-clear to everyone.)

If one subscribes to the belief that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights", which creator said gay marriage was a right?

Personally, I wish Jefferson had left out the "Creator" part and simple said "All persons are born with inalienable rights". Invoking the idea of a creator in the Declaration of Independence does seem at odds with the later 1st Amendment prohibition on respecting an establishment of religion. But nevertheless:

Again, Jefferson's list--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is neither definitive nor all inclusive, and I don't think he was intending to speak for a Creator. But IF marriage is a civil/legal right, that right cannot be withheld or limited based on the gender or sexual orientation of the persons wishing to marry.

If 5 judges can define marriage, then it is possible that 5 judges in the future can overturn this ruling. However, a constitutional amendment might be easier.

Certainly a court can overrule an earlier court ruling. But I'm no authority on constitutional law, so I don't know which takes priority: The vote count or simply chronology. I.e., Can/does a later 5-4 ruling overturn an earlier unanimous ruling simply because of timing/order? I'll leave that question to the barristers among us.

Obviously a constitutional amendment would be more definitive in every sense. In the one case of the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th, I don't think margin of victory by which each of those Amendments passed was ever an issue, just chronological order.

[quietfan 233]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

The Judges are the rule of law, fully empowered and sanctioned by the Constitution, legally and constitutionally nominated and approved by our elected Presidents and Senators. Contempt for the Supreme Court's authority, to me, implies contempt for the law, contempt for the Constitution and our democratic system, and disrespect the writers of the Constitution. The Obergefell vs. Hodges decision was a direct extension of the 14th Amendment and deserves as much respect as any other ruling in the history of SCOTUS.

I'm not saying everyone has to like that ruling. Myself, I didn't particular like the Hobby Lobby or Citizens United rulings. But I respected Court's right to make those rulings, I respect that those rulings are now legally binding interpretations of the law, and I don't consider the judges to be tyrants or somehow usurping our democratic process because they didn't ask my opinion before hand. If put to a vote--even if the disenfranchised black minority had been allowed to vote--I have real doubts that the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that "separate is inherently unequal" would have passed in much of the South at the time. But it was the legally correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the constitutionally correct exercise of judicial power. (Also the morally correct ruling, of course, but SCOTUS decisions are based on interpretation of law, not someone's definition of morality.)

I have every right to campaign for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . Others have every right to campaign for an amendment overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges. That's democracy in action, not tyranny! Tyrants--whether they bear the title "Justice", "President", "Senator", "Governor", "General", "Reverend" or "Ayatollah"--would not tolerate such campaigns to undo their orders.

So getting back to the topic of this thread, should the SCOTUS allow polygamy in every state? Should the SCOTUS set the age of consent for marriage? I view both as a state's definition of morality.

I think SCOTUS should determine how the 14th Amendment applies in all states. I don't think any government should be defining "morality", I'll leave that to religions. I think government (federal, state, or local) should simply work to accomplish those goals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution, one of which is to "establish justice"...which I take to include equality before the law for all races, genders, sexual orientations, etc.

[AUtiger98 24]

For the record, I don't think we currently have a law to reject. Only the opinion of 5 judges. Which is my biggest problem with this decision.

It's fine to have your own opinion, but the Constitution says otherwise.

Most textbooks describe the Constitution as the framework of our government. In simple terms it list the powers of the 3 branches of govt. and the amendments were added to define power not available to the 3 branches of govt. The amendments clearly define the rights of individuals; freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, voting, taxes, ect. Basicly what the government can't do.

Laws usually refer to legislation passed through the Legislative process. So we do have laws on marriage, but nothing in the constitution itself.

So the dangerous part is allowing a small group of people the ability to change the framework of our government. History shows other governments fail the people when this is allowed, and its why the framers of the Constitution created a process to amend the constitution.

[AUtiger98 24]

How about we just do this...we just ignore the Supreme Court on gay marriage. We just tell them no thanks...appreciate their POV...but we have no interest in enforcing it. That is basically what the Libs do, right. Look at sanctuary cities...don't like immigration policies...so they don't enforce them. Obama doesn't like immigration laws, so he just decided to make new law. If it works one way, it also is perfectly logical that we can do the same. And, no one will die if we don't enforce gay marriage; unlike our immigration policies where because we don't enforce them, US citizens die.

As to the framers intent; I could care less...I simply care about the plain language of the document we, the people, agreed to be governed by. And, according to that document; the Supreme's have gone way beyond anything in that document...so, **** them. I appreciate they want to have influence in that realm, but we didn't grant them that authority..in fact, our contract says if it's not in the document; then that right is reserved to the people and the states.

Contempt for the rule of law 5 unelected judges?

Gee, no wonder you don't like it here.

FTFY

The Judges are the rule of law, fully empowered and sanctioned by the Constitution, legally and constitutionally nominated and approved by our elected Presidents and Senators. Contempt for the Supreme Court's authority, to me, implies contempt for the law, contempt for the Constitution and our democratic system, and disrespect the writers of the Constitution. The Obergefell vs. Hodges decision was a direct extension of the 14th Amendment and deserves as much respect as any other ruling in the history of SCOTUS.

I'm not saying everyone has to like that ruling. Myself, I didn't particular like the Hobby Lobby or Citizens United rulings. But I respected Court's right to make those rulings, I respect that those rulings are now legally binding interpretations of the law, and I don't consider the judges to be tyrants or somehow usurping our democratic process because they didn't ask my opinion before hand. If put to a vote--even if the disenfranchised black minority had been allowed to vote--I have real doubts that the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling that "separate is inherently unequal" would have passed in much of the South at the time. But it was the legally correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and the constitutionally correct exercise of judicial power. (Also the morally correct ruling, of course, but SCOTUS decisions are based on interpretation of law, not someone's definition of morality.)

I have every right to campaign for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . Others have every right to campaign for an amendment overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges. That's democracy in action, not tyranny! Tyrants--whether they bear the title "Justice", "President", "Senator", "Governor", "General", "Reverend" or "Ayatollah"--would not tolerate such campaigns to undo their orders.

So getting back to the topic of this thread, should the SCOTUS allow polygamy in every state? Should the SCOTUS set the age of consent for marriage? I view both as a state's definition of morality.

I think SCOTUS should determine how the 14th Amendment applies in all states. I don't think any government should be defining "morality", I'll leave that to religions. I think government (federal, state, or local) should simply work to accomplish those goals set forth in the preamble of the Constitution, one of which is to "establish justice"...which I take to include equality before the law for all races, genders, sexual orientations, etc.

Should the SCOTUS determine age of consent? Does a 35 year old man have the right to marry a 14 year old girl? Currently every state says no.

[AUtiger98 24]

When we examine other inalienable rights, freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly ..., were they conferred upon us by our elected officials or were they amendments passed by the states? Why shouldn't marriage go through the same process?

Well, Jefferson went on to say that "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Those are some pretty vague terms, and is not even an all inclusive list ...just three among our inalienable rights. I think the Bill of Rights represents Congress's attempt to pin down and list/describe those inalienable rights more precisely, and to enshrine in law their "inalienable" nature.

As for marriage, or rather the definition of marriage in the sight of the law/state, nothing has changed. An injustice or oversight has merely been corrected. The 14th Amendment assures to all persons equal protection/rights under the law. It doesn't bother to list every such right or protection individually. Once that amendment passed in 1868, it wasn't legal to deny any person equal rights before the law, marital rights or otherwise. The recent ruling merely corrected something states & federal government had been ignoring since 1868. (Actually, I consider the 15th, 19th, and 24th Amendments redundant, because those voting rights/protections were covered by the 14th, in my opinion. But those later amendments made the voting protections that should have been acknowledged with the passage of the 14th Amendment crystal-clear to everyone.)

If one subscribes to the belief that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights", which creator said gay marriage was a right?

Personally, I wish Jefferson had left out the "Creator" part and simple said "All persons are born with inalienable rights". Invoking the idea of a creator in the Declaration of Independence does seem at odds with the later 1st Amendment prohibition on respecting an establishment of religion. But nevertheless:

Again, Jefferson's list--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is neither definitive nor all inclusive, and I don't think he was intending to speak for a Creator. But IF marriage is a civil/legal right, that right cannot be withheld or limited based on the gender or sexual orientation of the persons wishing to marry.

If 5 judges can define marriage, then it is possible that 5 judges in the future can overturn this ruling. However, a constitutional amendment might be easier.

Certainly a court can overrule an earlier court ruling. But I'm no authority on constitutional law, so I don't know which takes priority: The vote count or simply chronology. I.e., Can/does a later 5-4 ruling overturn an earlier unanimous ruling simply because of timing/order? I'll leave that question to the barristers among us.

Obviously a constitutional amendment would be more definitive in every sense. In the one case of the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th, I don't think margin of victory by which each of those Amendments passed was ever an issue, just chronological order.

If our inalienable rights did not come from the Creator, then they must have come from man, right? If man can give rights to people they can certainly take rights away as well.

[homersapien 11,366]

For the record, I don't think we currently have a law to reject. Only the opinion of 5 judges. Which is my biggest problem with this decision.

It's fine to have your own opinion, but the Constitution says otherwise.

Most textbooks describe the Constitution as the framework of our government. In simple terms it list the powers of the 3 branches of govt. and the amendments were added to define power not available to the 3 branches of govt. The amendments clearly define the rights of individuals; freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, voting, taxes, ect. Basicly what the government can't do.

Laws usually refer to legislation passed through the Legislative process. So we do have laws on marriage, but nothing in the constitution itself.

So the dangerous part is allowing a small group of people the ability to change the framework of our government. History shows other governments fail the people when this is allowed, and its why the framers of the Constitution created a process to amend the constitution.

Blah blah blah..... Nevertheless, a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land until the legislative and political process determines otherwise.

[AUtiger98 24]

For the record, I don't think we currently have a law to reject. Only the opinion of 5 judges. Which is my biggest problem with this decision.

It's fine to have your own opinion, but the Constitution says otherwise.

Most textbooks describe the Constitution as the framework of our government. In simple terms it list the powers of the 3 branches of govt. and the amendments were added to define power not available to the 3 branches of govt. The amendments clearly define the rights of individuals; freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, voting, taxes, ect. Basicly what the government can't do.

Laws usually refer to legislation passed through the Legislative process. So we do have laws on marriage, but nothing in the constitution itself.

So the dangerous part is allowing a small group of people the ability to change the framework of our government. History shows other governments fail the people when this is allowed, and its why the framers of the Constitution created a process to amend the constitution.

Blah blah blah..... Nevertheless, a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land until the legislative and political process determines otherwise.

In reality, its up to the DOJ to enforce this ruling since we have no law on it, and the SCOTUS has no enforcement powers. Do you think a president like Mike Huckabee would enforce this the same as Bernie Sanders?