BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[mrjarrell]

Oh Em Gee... I just said the same thing as mrjarrell...

You're doooomed! LOL.

 

[hornadylnl]

Regardless of the specific issue, is this how you think new rights should be recognized? Through judges without the people having any say?

When did congress sign your right to get married into law?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You're doooomed! LOL.

I've got to borrow GFGT's gif...

 

[Mark 1911]

To quote my grandfather, "it's all over, but the shouting".

That shouting tends to go on for decades, as has been the case with Roe v Wade, 1973. This will be no different.

It wasn't a new Right. It was an existing Right that was being denied.

Prior to recent years, I don't recall people confusing sodomy with marriage for one second, much less thinking of it as a right, or depending on arrogant men in black robes to explain the difference to the peasants, and as in our day, forcing upon them the concept that there is no difference. To me that is not equality, but yet another example of big intrusive government chipping away at your freedom.

 

[HoughMade]

It wasn't a new Right. It was an existing Right that was being denied.

It was not a right recognized as protected by the Constitution.

 

[HoughMade]

When did congress sign your right to get married into law?

To answer a question you didn't ask, but one that has more to do with the way the law works, traditional marriage was protected by the Constitution as it was recognized and contemplated when the Constitution was adopted. Try to find me some evidence that homosexual marriage was intended to be a liberty interest protected when the Constitution was adopted.

You like judicial end runs around the people? I would not have guessed that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Somewhat related question - Were gays very prevalent back in 1787?

 

[CathyInBlue]

It was not a right recognized as protected by the Constitution.

If that quote I made above was a part of the Constitution, and I believe it was, then I think it's fair to say that most rights in existence are not directly recognized or protected by the Constitution. Can you offer a cogent argument that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are now, or ever were intended to be, the be-all, end-all of recognized and protected rights?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Somewhat related question - Were gays very prevalent back in 1787?

Yes, but I believe we just called them Tories.

I could be wrong in that, however.

 

[hornadylnl]

To answer a question you didn't ask, but one that has more to do with the way the law works, traditional marriage was protected by the Constitution as it was recognized and contemplated when the Constitution was adopted. Try to find me some evidence that homosexual marriage was intended to be a liberty interest protected when the Constitution was adopted.

You like judicial end runs around the people? I would not have guessed that.

As Cathy so eloquently asked, are we only afforded the rights specifically granted in the constitution? Was a black man's right to be free God given or was it granted by a constitutional amendment?

 

[hornadylnl]

Somewhat related question - Were gays very prevalent back in 1787?

Probably no more or less as a percentage than now.

 

[miguel]

SCOTUS will not hear SSM cases from Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

So they've decided not to resolve gay marriage cases -- for now. This is basically a win for gay marriage supporters.

With SCOTUS declining to accept cert in SSM cases out of the 4th, 7th, 10th Circuits, SSM will shortly become lawful in majority of states.

If the SC refuses to hear cases, does't that mean it is up to the states?

Or are these decisions then being dictated by rulings in lower Federal courts?

 

[mrjarrell]

If the SC refuses to hear cases, does't that mean it is up to the states?

Or are these decisions then being dictated by rulings in lower Federal courts?

When the SC refuses to hear the cases it means that the lower court rulings stand. In this case the lower courts ruled that same sex couples were not to be denied their Right to marry. The SC found no compelling argument against that and let the cases stand on their merit.

 

[miguel]

When the SC refuses to hear the cases it means that the lower court rulings stand. In this case the lower courts ruled that same sex couples were not to be denied their Right to marry. The SC found no compelling argument against that and let the cases stand on their merit.

Thanks for the clarification.

In theory, what if two lower courts say, "No dice!" but two others say, "Good to go!"? I'm assuming those are the cases the SC takes and in this case, everyone has been in agreement?

 

[CathyInBlue]

If the SC refuses to hear cases, does't that mean it is up to the states?

Or are these decisions then being dictated by rulings in lower Federal courts?

It does seem that the lion's share of the butthurt in the Social Conservative circles is coming from that last clause of the 10th Amendment, "or to the people". They're fine with federal courts at all levels devolving these civil rights issues down and out of the federal sphere. They just want the authority stopping at the "to the States respectively" level and not continuing on to the people as individuals. So many people want the States to hold all the power, just not the United States. I say what's wrong with the federal government devolving all of this authority all the way back to the individual sovereignty level? Why do States need the authority from the individuals to regulate marriage? Why does it pose such a problem for individuals to have the authority to decide who does and does not constitute a marriable couple among themselves?

 

[mrjarrell]

Thanks for the clarification.

In theory, what if two lower courts say, "No dice!" but two others say, "Good to go!"? I'm assuming those are the cases the SC takes and in this case, everyone has been in agreement?

In a case like that, I would guess that the court would probably take up the case. They still might have to depending on how the case out of Louisiana goes at the higher level. So, that ball's still in play, but today's ruling gives us a solid glance at how they might well be ruling on any future cases.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Relevant.

New York Times Opinion Piece: Pedophilia - A disorder, not a crime.

 

[mrjarrell]

Relevant.

http://t.co/2xYijkQMea

No. It's not relevant. At least to rational minds.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No. It's not relevant. At least to rational minds.

Meh, I stand by my word choice.

50 years ago, homosexuality was "weird." These days, it's far more accepted.

There's been an effort to destigmatize pedophilia in the recent past, as well. I hate to see the day it's brought up at the SCOTUS level.

Why shouldn't a 13 year old girl be able to marry a 25 year old man, MrJarrel? Age is just a number.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Meh, I stand by my word choice.

50 years ago, homosexuality was "weird." These days, it's far more accepted.

There's been an effort to destigmatize pedophilia in the recent past, as well. I hate to see the day it's brought up at the SCOTUS level.

Why shouldn't a 13 year old girl be able to marry a 25 year old man, MrJarrel? Age is just a number.

Some people are so closed minded...forcing their view of right and wrong on to the rest of society and all.