Gay marriage ruling about to come down

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I fail to see how Kennedy bringing up dignity first makes any difference.

And Thomas said more than that. He said the government cannot strip you of your dignity and cannot give you dignity and used the institution of slavery to make that point. This is what made his statements controversial for many people.

The shallow public just saw the word "Slavery" and lost their minds. He also used the example of prisoners in internment camps and nobody gave 2 damns about that. 

If you do not see see why Kennedy using the word dignity in his majority opinion would cause (make any difference) Thomas to bring it up in his dissent, then I have to question if you understand the meaning of a dissent.

I have spent many hours on this very board with folks instructing me about how the  Constitution does not "give" you anything. Now when Thomas agrees in his dissent of Kennedy's love letter (aka Majority Opinion); folks execute a 180.

 What was your opinion of Kennedy's Majority Opinion?

[GMDino]

(06-26-2015, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I had a law professor once tell me if the ruling comes down in favor, then SCOTUS would be stating that the Constituion is unConstitutional. I really didn't/can't grasp the concept he was eluding to and he didn't say this in spite as he was pro SSM.

As to the ruling: si la vie

(06-26-2015, 11:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They pretty much knew which way he was going to vote and contributed it to his conservative record.

Nobody that I know attributed it to him trying to please the Master.

I answered the question; your turn and I'll ask again.

Why did the folks you talk to call him an Uncle Tom?

(06-27-2015, 02:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Still waiting on the link where Thomas said "slavery wasn't that bad".

I guess we will just leave it as you cannot understand the difference between being treated with dignity and having dignity in yourself (you claim you have to be given it).  Thomas used dignity as that was the central focus of the love story that was written in the majority view. Thomas acually explained the difference between dignity and liberty as he assumed some would try to draw the feeble coralation. 

Nowhere did he state slaves did not lose their liberty. He stated they did not lose their dignity or humanity. Pretty sure, contrary to the opinion of some around here, Thomas is not in favor of Slavery.

You also never told me who gave you your dignity or why you consider Thomas a White Apologist?

TommyC/Larry/bfine doesn't care about the ruling...he just wants to argue.

10 pages later he's still trolling about a single word and definition.  That's nothing new.

[CKwi88]

I wonder if Thomas considers his marriages to be government benefits.

[jmccracky]

My brother had cancer last year. His "partner" was not allowed to visit during "family hours". I am so happy that this was passed. He and his partner are getting married this Halloween. They have been together since 1999. I am 100% straight (women are so sexy! lol). But I think it's beautiful that they can have a ceremony. I think that they are role models for other couples. If someone does not like the idea of same sex marriage, that is ok. I won't look down upon you. But, you need to accept that people like me do not have a problem with it. Work on your own marriage. I know some f'd up people that were raised in a religious straight household. And let's face it....the problem is not with same sex couples. The problem is with guy on guy marriage. It is ok to think that is gross. But I don't want to see two fat ugly toothless rednecks get it on. But I think it is their right to be who they are. I figure that conservatives would get that. But for some reason, a lot of them don't. Not all. But a lot.

*drops mic* Boom!

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 10:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: TommyC/Larry/bfine doesn't care about the ruling...he just wants to argue.

10 pages later he's still trolling about a single word and definition.  That's nothing new.

Please try your very best not to make the thread about me.

Fred asked someone to look at a dictionary for the definition of a word. Everybody else (here and nationwide) has brought up the same word but somehow it is me that focuses on one word and definition.

I appreciate the attention, but after a while it gets redundant. 

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2015, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The shallow public just saw the word "Slavery" and lost their minds. He also used the example of prisoners in internment camps and nobody gave 2 damns about that. 

If you do not see see why Kennedy using the word dignity in his majority opinion would cause (make any difference) Thomas to bring it up in his dissent, then I have to question if you understand the meaning of a dissent.

I have spent many hours on this very board with folks instructing me about how the  Constitution does not "give" you anything. Now when Thomas agrees in his dissent of Kennedy's love letter (aka Majority Opinion); folks execute a 180.

 What was your opinion of Kennedy's Majority Opinion?

My guess would be that we spend more time remembering the immorality behind slavery and have developed a national guilt around it while we often do not even acknowledge the fact that we threw thousands of Americans into internment camps when we remember WWII. Slavery is also much worse. That and there are more people in this country whose ancestors were directly affected by slavery than there are people who were affected by internment.

Some thoughts. I'm not really outraged at what he said. I understand the philosophy behind it and, while I disagree, I don't think it was inflammatory.

As for the question posed to Matt, I thought Kennedy was dead on when he repeatedly said that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. He said that the "Court has long held that the right to marriage is protected by the Constitution". He then goes on to say that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, explaining that this promise that our rights won't be infringed upon means the government cannot deny this right of marriage to same sex couples.

Justice Thomas disagrees with the notion that a guarantee of due process means that the government has to protect the right for same sex couples marry the same way it has to protect it with opposite sex couples. He sees this use of due process as "creating" a right, something Kennedy does not say. Thomas has a philosophical issue with substantive due process versus procedural due process. So, people are not executing a 180, but rather agreeing with Kennedy that this right is protected and disagreeing with Thomas that this right is being created. The majority opinion didn't suggest that this right was just now created, only the dissenting opinions have.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 10:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: My guess would be that we spend more time remembering the immorality behind slavery and have developed a national guilt around it while we often do not even acknowledge the fact that we threw thousands of Americans into internment camps when we remember WWII. Slavery is also much worse. That and there are more people in this country whose ancestors were directly affected by slavery than there are people who were affected by internment.

Some thoughts. I'm not really outraged at what he said. I understand the philosophy behind it and, while I disagree, I don't think it was inflammatory.

As for the question posed to Matt, I thought Kennedy was dead on when he repeatedly said that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. He said that the "Court has long held that the right to marriage is protected by the Constitution". He then goes on to say that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, explaining that this promise that our rights won't be infringed upon means the government cannot deny this right of marriage to same sex couples.

Justice Thomas disagrees with the notion that a guarantee of due process means that the government has to protect the right for same sex couples marry the same way it has to protect it with opposite sex couples. He sees this use of due process as "creating" a right, something Kennedy does not say. Thomas has a philosophical issue with substantive due process versus procedural due process. So, people are not executing a 180, but rather agreeing with Kennedy that this right is protected and disagreeing with Thomas that this right is being created. The majority opinion didn't suggest that this right was just now created, only the dissenting opinions have.

Kenndey wrote a love story, not a judicial opinion. Color me surprised that you agree with his writings. 

Quote:"The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.…The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part."

Obviously Kennedy didn't attempt to introduce new things to the Constitution; it was Thomas and his bunch.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2015, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kenndey wrote a love story, not a judicial opinion. Color me surprised that you agree with his writings. 




Obviously Kennedy didn't attempt to introduce new things to the Constitution; it was Thomas and his bunch.

I'm certainly glad the decision didn't bother you.

[BmorePat87]

Quote:"The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.…The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part."

Thanks for quoting one of the many times that Kennedy said that the Constitution protects rights. I assumed my one quote was enough, but I guess it's always good to have even more quotes to show how Thomas was incorrect in suggesting that Kennedy is making rights.

The issue is Thomas doesn't believe in substantive due process and sees it as judges creating rights and giving them to people as opposed to the courts recognizing that a right inherently exists and that the government cannot deprive people from it.

[BmorePat87]

Kennedy seems to be drawing on the early notions that Madison had of ensuring that it be understood that the Constitution should protect rights that aren't mentioned in the Constitution rather than allowing the government to believe they can expand their power to deprive individuals of rights not mentioned in the Constitution. This concept was important enough to include in the Bill of Rights.

Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 11:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm certainly glad the decision didn't bother you.

If you would take the time to look back through the thread instead of directing your posts toward an individual, you would see the majority of the assertions here have been how wrong the "dissent" is. I would say very little (if any) is folks saying the opinion was "wrong".  I, just like many others, thought it was more of a "feelings" manifesto and that sells well. 

I have enjoyed the discussion(s) and learned a few things from Pat, Matt, and even (slightly) Fred. I have defended the dissent to incite discussion. However, it is quickly cheapened when the usual suspect(s) just log  in to point a finger and really add nothing further. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-28-2015, 11:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Thanks for quoting one of the many times that Kennedy said that the Constitution protects rights. I assumed my one quote was enough, but I guess it's always good to have even more quotes to show how Thomas was incorrect in suggesting that Kennedy is making rights.

The issue is Thomas doesn't believe in substantive due process and sees it as judges creating rights and giving them to people as opposed to the courts recognizing that a right inherently exists and that the government cannot deprive people from it.

If you think the Minority tried to "rewrite" the Constitution  more so than the Majority in this case; then we just disagree.

But those that wrote the Opinion and the dissents know more about this that I could ever pretend to. I just found it striking that every dissent pointed to this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution.  

[BmorePat87]

(06-28-2015, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you think the Minority tried to "rewrite" the Constitution  more so than the Majority in this case; then we just disagree.

But those that wrote the Opinion and the dissents know more about this that I could ever pretend to. I just found it striking that every dissent pointed to this decision had nothing to do with the Constitution.  

Neither rewrote the Constitution. It also should not be surprising that every dissent disagrees with the majority opinion that the 14th Amendment prevents states from discriminating against same sex couples when it comes to protecting their right to marriage. Otherwise they would not be dissenting.

You need to understand that Justice Thomas saying that the majority is making up rights does not equate to the majority saying that they are making up rights. He clearly has a beef with substantive due process and makes it clear that he only wants the due process amendments applied in cases of procedural due process. That's a personal philosophical view of his that conflicts with how the 14th amendment has been applied in the past.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2015, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The shallow public just saw the word "Slavery" and lost their minds. He also used the example of prisoners in internment camps and nobody gave 2 damns about that. 

If you do not see see why Kennedy using the word dignity in his majority opinion would cause (make any difference) Thomas to bring it up in his dissent, then I have to question if you understand the meaning of a dissent.

I have spent many hours on this very board with folks instructing me about how the  Constitution does not "give" you anything. Now when Thomas agrees in his dissent of Kennedy's love letter (aka Majority Opinion); folks execute a 180.

 What was your opinion of Kennedy's Majority Opinion?

Well, I dislike the part about the internment camps as well. But since the only person I know that is really tied to all of that is George Takei, and his opinion would be unabashedly biased in this instance, I'm not wading into that.

As for the part about Kennedy bringing it up, the reason I find it irrelevant is because Thomas bringing up dignity in and of itself is not the issue being discussed. That is why I fail to see why it makes a difference to this argument.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it lays a framework for the government and lists the rights the government must not infringe upon.

My opinion of Kennedy's opinion was that there was too much, for lack of a better word, fluff. I don't read enough opinions to know what the norm is but it strayed away from the legal side of things and into the realm of "I am writing this because it is going to make the history books and I need to make it good."