Polyamory is next

[homersapien 11,352]

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?

The question is whether or not a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land. An executive's refusal to enforce it doesn't make the law invalid.

If you want to pick and choose what SCOTUS rulings we should observe, the Constitution is no longer relevant and the rule of law no longer exists, by definition.

I can't believe you are actually arguing this.

[japantiger 4,051]

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?

The question is whether or not a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land. An executive's refusal to enforce it doesn't make the law invalid.

If you want to pick and choose what SCOTUS rulings we should observe, the Constitution is no longer relevant and the rule of law no longer exists, by definition.

I can't believe you are actually arguing this.

This is hilarious...isn't that what the Supreme's have done? They've made up a right and by definition a law out of "nothing"..there is no constitutional construct that allows the court to weigh in on this matter..they just decided to do it because they wanted to; not because there is anything in our Contract that says they can....in the same week, they even contorted the language to the point that "the states" doesn't even mean "the states" anymore. So, if they can do it; so can the people...the people and the states would actually be acting consistent with the constitution....in this case that would be called civil disobedience (which is normally a big thing for Lib's). When a branch of the Gov't overreaches; it has to be checked by either the other branches or the States...it seems the Libs here are only for civil disobedience or ignoring laws when it's Libs doing the ignoring...

[homersapien 11,352]

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?

The question is whether or not a SCOTUS ruling is the law of the land. An executive's refusal to enforce it doesn't make the law invalid.

If you want to pick and choose what SCOTUS rulings we should observe, the Constitution is no longer relevant and the rule of law no longer exists, by definition.

I can't believe you are actually arguing this.

This is hilarious...isn't that what the Supreme's have done? They've made up a right and by definition a law out of "nothing"..there is no constitutional construct that allows the court to weigh in on this matter..they just decided to do it because they wanted to; not because there is anything in our Contract that says they can....in the same week, they even contorted the language to the point that "the states" doesn't even mean "the states" anymore. So, if they can do it; so can the people...the people and the states would actually be acting consistent with the constitution....in this case that would be called civil disobedience (which is normally a big thing for Lib's). When a branch of the Gov't overreaches; it has to be checked by either the other branches or the States...it seems the Libs here are only for civil disobedience or ignoring laws when it's Libs doing the ignoring...

The justification for their decision has been argued from both sides and I don't really care to re-hash that.

The question on the table is whether or not it represents the law of the land, like it or not.

Now if you don't like it, then you are perfectly free to exercise civil disobedience to your heart's content. Have at it.

Not sure I understand the highlighted sentence, but if you are suggesting liberals support civil disobedience or ignoring laws only when they disagree with the laws, well duuuuuuuh! :-\ That's obviously true for any group, conservative, liberal or whatever...

[homersapien 11,352]

Curious though. What's that "civil disobedience" going to consist of? Refusal to marry someone of your own sex?

[quietfan 233]

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.

Does anyone currently have a legal right to rape a minor incapable of giving consent? I don't know. I certainly don't think so. And I certainly hope not! But if such a legal right existed for one person, then the 14th Amendment grants equal such rights before the law to all persons.

As for what particular age of consent is appropriate? Ask psychologists, medical doctors, teachers, legal experts (or theologians if you choose), I don't pretend to have that expertise in human psychology, growth, and development. I do know that "age of consent" has meant different things in different cultures at different points in history. I remember when one of the running jokes on "The Beverly Hillbillies" was that Ellie May was an "old maid"...because she was in her mid/late teens and still wasn't married! I don't recall any public outrage or panic. I don't recall any worries about "slippery slopes". And I don't recall it creating a mass conversion to pedophilia or a mass migration to the hills by pedophiles in search of child brides.

SCOTUS did not invent any new rights, no matter how much folks want to scream about "redefining marriage!" It simply said that any and all marital rights currently granted to heterosexual individuals under the law--tax status, survivor's rights, and any other spousal rights, including the title "marriage" rather than a "separate but [un]equal" label like "domestic partnership", etc--must, under the 14th Amendment, be extended to ALL persons.

If States (or Congress) passed or had pre-existing laws giving exclusive legal rights to only heterosexuals, it's those laws that were/are invalid under the Constitution (specifically the 14th Amendment), not the other way around.

[quietfan 233]

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.

https://en.wikipedia...i/False_dilemma :

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary,black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

----

If I give away my blood or a kidney, I can't take it back once it's in someone else. If I give away my property under a legally binding contract, I can't take it back or take property from others. If I give my life to others (by saying falling on a grenade), I certainly can't take it back. If I give a candidate my vote on Tuesday, I can't take away that vote on Thursday. If I give someone respect, I can't forcibly extract respect from them. Giving does not establish a right to take.

[quietfan 233]

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.

The advantage of having one leg of the tripod of checks and balances necessary for democracy being presumably free of election pressures, campaign promises or campaign finances, party loyalties, and therefore presumably less subject to special interests, seems sound to me. The appointment process which incorporates both Executive and Legislative input seems a logical way to select persons to such an independent, hopefully more objective and more knowledgeable, body.

It is only one third of the checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny. It is necessary as protection against a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the special interests, or a tyranny of the other two branches. It is limited in that SCOTUS cannot initiate action, but must be requested to act. In some cases, such as the ACA ruling, Congress can check its actions by a simple rewriting/rewording of statutes. And the ultimate check of course is the process of constitutional amendment.

To again cite precedent: I don't know what the election results might have been had there been a national referendum on Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, or Gideon v. Wainwright, but I don't think a majority of 99.99999% has the right to take away those protections. (Although I concede 2/3rds of Congress + 3/4ths of the states have the authority to do so via amendment under our system.)

[quietfan 233]

Re: Civil Disobedience

Persons may have a moral right, perhaps a moral obligation, to commit acts of civil disobedience in defense of freedom or justice as they understand it. Persons do have a legal responsibility to accept the legal repercussions of such acts.

[AUtiger98 24]

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.

Does anyone currently have a legal right to rape a minor incapable of giving consent? I don't know. I certainly don't think so. And I certainly hope not! But if such a legal right existed for one person, then the 14th Amendment grants equal such rights before the law to all persons.

As for what particular age of consent is appropriate? Ask psychologists, medical doctors, teachers, legal experts (or theologians if you choose), I don't pretend to have that expertise in human psychology, growth, and development. I do know that "age of consent" has meant different things in different cultures at different points in history. I remember when one of the running jokes on "The Beverly Hillbillies" was that Ellie May was an "old maid"...because she was in her mid/late teens and still wasn't married! I don't recall any public outrage or panic. I don't recall any worries about "slippery slopes". And I don't recall it creating a mass conversion to pedophilia or a mass migration to the hills by pedophiles in search of child brides.

SCOTUS did not invent any new rights, no matter how much folks want to scream about "redefining marriage!" It simply said that any and all marital rights currently granted to heterosexual individuals under the law--tax status, survivor's rights, and any other spousal rights, including the title "marriage" rather than a "separate but [un]equal" label like "domestic partnership", etc--must, under the 14th Amendment, be extended to ALL persons.

If States (or Congress) passed or had pre-existing laws giving exclusive legal rights to only heterosexuals, it's those laws that were/are invalid under the Constitution (specifically the 14th Amendment), not the other way around.

First, I'd like to thank you for the conversation without junk.

In numerous Latin American countries the age of consent is 14. Was that age set by a council of 9 people while 69% of the people disagreed or is it because it is acceptable in their culture? I'm fairly certain, the age of consent in many states was previously lower than it is now. I know Ben stated in another thread New Mexico was 14 at one time. (Sorry I'm to busy/lazy to go verify all this as 100% accurate.) So historically, we have set this standard at the local/state level because the Constitution says powers not granted to the Federal govt. are reserved to the states. And historically a civil society sets its cultural standards by the views of the majority. When minority views are forced on the majority the civil society begins to break down.

As mentioned before, the Constitution is the framework of our govt. and defines the power of each branch, while the amendments mostly define powers not granted to the govt. Now that the court has granted a right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, what is the limit to rights they can grant?

If the answer is none, I would argue that any branch of govt. who has a specific power with no limits is very dangerous.

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

The advantage of having one leg of the tripod of checks and balances necessary for democracy being presumably free of election pressures, campaign promises or campaign finances, party loyalties, and therefore presumably less subject to special interests, seems sound to me. The appointment process which incorporates both Executive and Legislative input seems a logical way to select persons to such an independent, hopefully more objective and more knowledgeable, body.

It is only one third of the checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny. It is necessary as protection against a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the special interests, or a tyranny of the other two branches. It is limited in that SCOTUS cannot initiate action, but must be requested to act. In some cases, such as the ACA ruling, Congress can check its actions by a simple rewriting/rewording of statutes. And the ultimate check of course is the process of constitutional amendment.

To again cite precedent: I don't know what the election results might have been had there been a national referendum on Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, or Gideon v. Wainwright, but I don't think a majority of 99.99999% has the right to take away those protections. (Although I concede 2/3rds of Congress + 3/4ths of the states have the authority to do so via amendment under our system.)

Just as an aside, one historical example of tyranny that resulted from the executive (Jackson) and congress simply ignoring the courts was the "ethnic cleansing" of the Cherokee from their homeland, even though they were perfectly willing to become citizens.

Don't recall the court's ruling on the "resettlement" of the Japanese Americans in WWII.

[AUtiger98 24]

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.

https://en.wikipedia...i/False_dilemma :

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary,black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

----

If I give away my blood or a kidney, I can't take it back once it's in someone else. If I give away my property under a legally binding contract, I can't take it back or take property from others. If I give my life to others (by saying falling on a grenade), I certainly can't take it back. If I give a candidate my vote on Tuesday, I can't take away that vote on Thursday. If I give someone respect, I can't forcibly extract respect from them. Giving does not establish a right to take.

We have a long list of over turned court decisions, including decisions on the 14th Amendment.

[AUtiger98 24]

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.

The advantage of having one leg of the tripod of checks and balances necessary for democracy being presumably free of election pressures, campaign promises or campaign finances, party loyalties, and therefore presumably less subject to special interests, seems sound to me. The appointment process which incorporates both Executive and Legislative input seems a logical way to select persons to such an independent, hopefully more objective and more knowledgeable, body.

It is only one third of the checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny. It is necessary as protection against a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the special interests, or a tyranny of the other two branches. It is limited in that SCOTUS cannot initiate action, but must be requested to act. In some cases, such as the ACA ruling, Congress can check its actions by a simple rewriting/rewording of statutes. And the ultimate check of course is the process of constitutional amendment.

To again cite precedent: I don't know what the election results might have been had there been a national referendum on Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, or Gideon v. Wainwright, but I don't think a majority of 99.99999% has the right to take away those protections. (Although I concede 2/3rds of Congress + 3/4ths of the states have the authority to do so via amendment under our system.)

Just as an aside, one historical example of tyranny that resulted from the executive (Jackson) and congress simply ignoring the courts was the "ethnic cleansing" of the Cherokee from their homeland, even though they were perfectly willing to become citizens.

Don't recall the court's ruling on the "resettlement" of the Japanese Americans in WWII.

Good point. Since the Judicial Branch does not have enforcement powers, it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce the law. I image a president like Mike Huckabee would enforce the gay marriage ruling much differently than Bernie Sanders since we don't have a specific law on gay marriage.

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

The advantage of having one leg of the tripod of checks and balances necessary for democracy being presumably free of election pressures, campaign promises or campaign finances, party loyalties, and therefore presumably less subject to special interests, seems sound to me. The appointment process which incorporates both Executive and Legislative input seems a logical way to select persons to such an independent, hopefully more objective and more knowledgeable, body.

It is only one third of the checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny. It is necessary as protection against a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the special interests, or a tyranny of the other two branches. It is limited in that SCOTUS cannot initiate action, but must be requested to act. In some cases, such as the ACA ruling, Congress can check its actions by a simple rewriting/rewording of statutes. And the ultimate check of course is the process of constitutional amendment.

To again cite precedent: I don't know what the election results might have been had there been a national referendum on Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, or Gideon v. Wainwright, but I don't think a majority of 99.99999% has the right to take away those protections. (Although I concede 2/3rds of Congress + 3/4ths of the states have the authority to do so via amendment under our system.)

Just as an aside, one historical example of tyranny that resulted from the executive (Jackson) and congress simply ignoring the courts was the "ethnic cleansing" of the Cherokee from their homeland, even though they were perfectly willing to become citizens.

Don't recall the court's ruling on the "resettlement" of the Japanese Americans in WWII.

Good point. Since the Judicial Branch does not have enforcement powers, it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce the law. I image a president like Mike Huckabee would enforce the gay marriage ruling much differently than Bernie Sanders since we don't have a specific law on gay marriage.

If so, he would be subject to impeachment. Unlike the Cherokees, gay marriage enjoys popular support.

[japantiger 4,051]

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.

The advantage of having one leg of the tripod of checks and balances necessary for democracy being presumably free of election pressures, campaign promises or campaign finances, party loyalties, and therefore presumably less subject to special interests, seems sound to me. The appointment process which incorporates both Executive and Legislative input seems a logical way to select persons to such an independent, hopefully more objective and more knowledgeable, body.

It is only one third of the checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny. It is necessary as protection against a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the special interests, or a tyranny of the other two branches. It is limited in that SCOTUS cannot initiate action, but must be requested to act. In some cases, such as the ACA ruling, Congress can check its actions by a simple rewriting/rewording of statutes. And the ultimate check of course is the process of constitutional amendment.

To again cite precedent: I don't know what the election results might have been had there been a national referendum on Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, or Gideon v. Wainwright, but I don't think a majority of 99.99999% has the right to take away those protections. (Although I concede 2/3rds of Congress + 3/4ths of the states have the authority to do so via amendment under our system.)

Just as an aside, one historical example of tyranny that resulted from the executive (Jackson) and congress simply ignoring the courts was the "ethnic cleansing" of the Cherokee from their homeland, even though they were perfectly willing to become citizens.

Don't recall the court's ruling on the "resettlement" of the Japanese Americans in WWII.

Good point. Since the Judicial Branch does not have enforcement powers, it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce the law. I image a president like Mike Huckabee would enforce the gay marriage ruling much differently than Bernie Sanders since we don't have a specific law on gay marriage.

If so, he would be subject to impeachment. Unlike the Cherokees, gay marriage enjoys popular support.

Like Obama for not enforcing immigration laws?

[homersapien 11,352]

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.

The advantage of having one leg of the tripod of checks and balances necessary for democracy being presumably free of election pressures, campaign promises or campaign finances, party loyalties, and therefore presumably less subject to special interests, seems sound to me. The appointment process which incorporates both Executive and Legislative input seems a logical way to select persons to such an independent, hopefully more objective and more knowledgeable, body.

It is only one third of the checks and balances necessary to prevent tyranny. It is necessary as protection against a tyranny of the majority, a tyranny of the special interests, or a tyranny of the other two branches. It is limited in that SCOTUS cannot initiate action, but must be requested to act. In some cases, such as the ACA ruling, Congress can check its actions by a simple rewriting/rewording of statutes. And the ultimate check of course is the process of constitutional amendment.

To again cite precedent: I don't know what the election results might have been had there been a national referendum on Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, or Gideon v. Wainwright, but I don't think a majority of 99.99999% has the right to take away those protections. (Although I concede 2/3rds of Congress + 3/4ths of the states have the authority to do so via amendment under our system.)

Just as an aside, one historical example of tyranny that resulted from the executive (Jackson) and congress simply ignoring the courts was the "ethnic cleansing" of the Cherokee from their homeland, even though they were perfectly willing to become citizens.

Don't recall the court's ruling on the "resettlement" of the Japanese Americans in WWII.

Good point. Since the Judicial Branch does not have enforcement powers, it is up to the Executive Branch to enforce the law. I image a president like Mike Huckabee would enforce the gay marriage ruling much differently than Bernie Sanders since we don't have a specific law on gay marriage.

If so, he would be subject to impeachment. Unlike the Cherokees, gay marriage enjoys popular support.

Like Obama for not enforcing immigration laws?

Apparently there is popular support for Obama's policies on immigration. I am not aware of any motion in congress to impeach Obama over this.

But has a lawsuit regarding this made it to the supreme court?

[AUtiger98 24]

If there is no law specifying how to enforce gay marriage it is up the the executive branch to enforce the ruling. I would think Huckabee would lean toward protecting the First Amendment and religious freedoms too, but would not defy the ruling as much as his base thinks he would. Bernie Sanders would most likely extend marriage rights further to the left (don't even want to hypothesize on this one). My guess is that Sander's implementation would create another court case on religious freedoms.

When 69% of the states (including California) voted that marriage is between a man and a woman, does this classify as popular support?

[homersapien 11,352]

If there is no law specifying how to enforce gay marriage it is up the the executive branch to enforce the ruling. I would think Huckabee would lean toward protecting the First Amendment and religious freedoms too, but would not defy the ruling as much as his base thinks he would. Bernie Sanders would most likely extend marriage rights further to the left (don't even want to hypothesize on this one). My guess is that Sander's implementation would create another court case on religious freedoms.

When 69% of the states (including California) voted that marriage is between a man and a woman, does this classify as popular support?

That's a bizarre thing to say. Can you explain?

Also, what sort of additional law is required to "enforce" gay marriage? I didn't quite get that either.

[homersapien 11,352]

If there is no law specifying how to enforce gay marriage it is up the the executive branch to enforce the ruling. I would think Huckabee would lean toward protecting the First Amendment and religious freedoms too, but would not defy the ruling as much as his base thinks he would. Bernie Sanders would most likely extend marriage rights further to the left (don't even want to hypothesize on this one). My guess is that Sander's implementation would create another court case on religious freedoms.

When 69% of the states (including California) voted that marriage is between a man and a woman, does this classify as popular support?

I was referring to the popular support (expressed through the congress) required to impeach a president.

Matters of civil rights are not subject to popular support, but nevertheless, the more recent polls I have seen suggest that gay marriage enjoys popular support. This support will increase as the older generation continues to die off.

[quietfan 233]

First, I'd like to thank you for the conversation without junk.

Ditto. I enjoy a good discussion. I'm glad you haven't felt personally attacked by any of my comments when no such attack was ever my intention. And glad you haven't felt a need to insult my person, my views, or my intelligence either!

In numerous Latin American countries the age of consent is 14. Was that age set by a council of 9 people while 69% of the people disagreed or is it because it is acceptable in their culture? I'm fairly certain, the age of consent in many states was previously lower than it is now. I know Ben stated in another thread New Mexico was 14 at one time. (Sorry I'm to busy/lazy to go verify all this as 100% accurate.) So historically, we have set this standard at the local/state level because the Constitution says powers not granted to the Federal govt. are reserved to the states. And historically a civil society sets its cultural standards by the views of the majority. When minority views are forced on the majority the civil society begins to break down.

I might not be complete clear on your point(s) here, but my opinions:

I really know nothing about the legislative or judicial processes in Latin American countries, but they are irrelevant to American law and jurisprudence.

I'm not sure where you're getting these percentages (68% or 69%), but most polls I'm aware of showed the majority of Americans favoring equal marital rights for same sex couples. (Not that it matters constitutionally) Here is one source/summary: http://www.freedomto...rriage-polling.

I don't know that age of consent law has ever been challenged in federal court. But if it were to be, and if equality of rights or protections were the issue, I think a pretty sound argument exists for a uniformity of rights under the 14th Amendment.

Cultural standards are not the same as legal standards. And I hate to keep harping on Brown vs. Board of Education as precedent, but I'm not at all sure it was the viewpoint of the majority when that ruling was rendered, certainly not in the southern states at least. However, eliminating "separate but equal" as constitutionally valid and overturning Jim Crow laws did not cause a breakdown in our society. Rather, I would argue, it strengthened and improved our society. A similar case was the federal district court ruling in Standing Bear vs. Crook of 1879 which ruled native Americans were "persons" under the law and entitled to its rights and protections. I'm not sure that was the opinion of the majority of society at that time either.

As mentioned before, the Constitution is the framework of our govt. and defines the power of each branch, while the amendments mostly define powers not granted to the govt. Now that the court has granted a right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, what is the limit to rights they can grant?

Well, as I've said, I don't see Obergefell v. Hodges as granting or creating any new rights. I see it as the Court enforcing 14th Amendment rights for same-sex couples that already existed from the moment that Amendment was ratified, but which were being ignored or violated by the states.

I would argue that any branch of govt. who has a specific power with no limits is very dangerous.

I agree that power without limits is dangerous. But the Supreme Court has lots of limits, two very important ones being the inability to initiate action unless asked to act, and of course the amendment process of Article 5.

[AUtiger98 24]

I might not be complete clear on your point(s) here, but my opinions:

I really know nothing about the legislative or judicial processes in Latin American countries, but they are irrelevant to American law and jurisprudence.

My point is that age of consent in our country and others are typically a cultural issue. In most states 18 is the standard and 16 with parental consent. If 5 judges think the age of consent should be a lower age they can change it, and since out neighbors in Latin America have a lower age than ours, it not out of the realm of possibility that this age of consent is challenged with the influx of immigrants from there. Do you see any limit that would not allow them to change it even if only 5% of the population want it? Justice Ginsburg has said in the past that she did not see a problem with considering International law in US cases, so clearly she see laws outside our system as relevant. I doubt she said this in her confirmation hearing.

Well, as I've said, I don't see Obergefell v. Hodges as granting or creating any new rights. I see it as the Court enforcing 14th Amendment rights for same-sex couples that already existed from the moment that Amendment was ratified, but which were being ignored or violated by the states.

I would argue since gay marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution it will always be fair game for future courts to reverse. (Unless we have an Amendment covering the topic.)

I agree that power without limits is dangerous. But the Supreme Court has lots of limits, two very important ones being the inability to initiate action unless asked to act, and of course the amendment process of Article 5.

So the key is what is the limit in cases where we have moral laws.

Examples:

1. Public nudity. Do I have the right to go out in public naked? I would argue these laws are based on religious beliefs or moral beliefs.

2. Blue Laws on Alcohol sales. Religious Law, check.

3. Gun laws. The Pope recently said something about gun manufactures not being Christian. I'm sure we can find a quote where some one on the left has call guns immoral. Or maybe I should have the right to carry hallow points, but New Jersey says its against the law, however Alabama allow me to have them.

So legally, under the Constitution, what is the courts limit on deciding a person's right vs. laws of a civil society? (On cases brought to the court of course)

[quietfan 233]

We have a long list of over turned court decisions, including decisions on the 14th Amendment.

You're certainly correct on this. I've never been to law school, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't courses or textbooks dedicated specifically to overturned decisions.

I was of course speaking more abstractly or philosophically. In the context of God, man, and the abstract concepts of giving/taking, the act of giving does not automatically create a right to take. The jurisprudence context of giving/taking, as you say, is a different story.

[AUtiger98 24]

We have a long list of over turned court decisions, including decisions on the 14th Amendment.

You're certainly correct on this. I've never been to law school, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't courses or textbooks dedicated specifically to overturned decisions.

I was of course speaking more abstractly or philosophically. In the context of God, man, and the abstract concepts of giving/taking, the act of giving does not automatically create a right to take. The jurisprudence context of giving/taking, as you say, is a different story.

This is why I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative. When we don't lock down the limits of powers in the Constitution it can be abused. Maybe not next year or next decade, but at some point those seeking to test the limit will do so in a way which is not beneficial to our society as a whole.

I don't believe the founders wanted a situation where the Courts could allow Gay Marriage and then 10 years later another court abolishes it. This leads in instability, but this is completely possible under the current system. This is why the Amendment process was created so we can truly say Gay Marriage has popular support if 3/5th of the states agree. I also don't think the founders indented for the us to hang on every 5 to 4 decision handed down by the supreme court and then bitch and complain about it on Facebook, LOL.

[quietfan 233]

We have a long list of over turned court decisions, including decisions on the 14th Amendment.

You're certainly correct on this. I've never been to law school, but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't courses or textbooks dedicated specifically to overturned decisions.

I was of course speaking more abstractly or philosophically. In the context of God, man, and the abstract concepts of giving/taking, the act of giving does not automatically create a right to take. The jurisprudence context of giving/taking, as you say, is a different story.

This is why I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative. When we don't lock down the limits of powers in the Constitution it can be abused. Maybe not next year or next decade, but at some point those seeking to test the limit will do so in a way which is not beneficial to our society as a whole.

I don't believe the founders wanted a situation where the Courts could allow Gay Marriage and then 10 years later another court abolishes it. This leads in instability, but this is completely possible under the current system. This is why the Amendment process was created so we can truly say Gay Marriage has popular support if 3/5th of the states agree. I also don't think the founders indented for the us to hang on every 5 to 4 decision handed down by the supreme court and then bitch and complain about it on Facebook, LOL.

My view:

Three-fourths of the States ratified the 14th Amendment, and that 75% of the country endorsed the idea that all persons deserve equal rights/protections under law...which includes any marital rights granted by law. Every state admitted to the Union since that ratification has also accepted the Constitution (including its amendments) as the supreme law of the land. In that Constitution there are ZERO qualifiers on the definition of "person" in the 14th Amendment: "personhood" is not defined or limited by race, religious faith, ethnicity, country of origin, age, citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. If any two persons have a legal right to something, then two persons of the same sex have a legal right to it. I don't see it as an abuse of power on anyone's part to acknowledge that homosexuals are persons under the 14th Amendment.

As I have said on several occasions, I think the intent of the founders is completely irrelevant to the debate. I see no reason to assume their intentions were superior to, more inerrant than, or take precedent over, the intentions of judges/legislators/executives/people today. Government operates under the words of the Constitution and interpretation of those words, not the internal thoughts of Washington, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, et al. or our interpretations of those thoughts.

I understand there are dangers inherent in unlimited power or abuse of power. But there are also dangers in having too rigid of a system, or having so many restrictions that the system cannot function, grow, evolve, or adapt. The only reason the Constitution was even written was that the Articles of Confederation put so many restrictions on the powers of the federal government that they rendered the federal government effectively impotent. But I acknowledge it's a fine balancing act between too much power or flexibility and too little power or flexibility.

[WarTim 3,456]

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.

homey is served. Quite well too!!