BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[rw496]

[h=3]Amendment IX[/h]The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[KittySlayer]

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.

Well I am not so sure about the SC finding no compelling argument against overruling. My gut feeling is they probably found a compelling argument not to allow SSM and by refusing to hear the case they allow SSM to continue.

 

[Denny347]

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.

I think you will find the group of people trying to normalize pedophelia rather miniscule. So you cannot see the difference between two consenting adults marrying and juveniles? Why do we not let 13 yr olds vote, drive, hold a full time job, sign contracts, hold office, be police and fire fighters, play professional sports, skip school?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think you will find the group of people trying to normalize pedophelia rather miniscule.

As was the group of people 50 years ago trying to normalize homosexuality. I'm a modern guy, I was born in the 80s, and homosexuality simply doesn't bother me. Like most things - Keep it to yourself and we'll all get along.

So you cannot see the difference between two consenting adults marrying and juveniles?

Never said that. Quite the opposite - I very much see the difference today. I'm guessing that difference will be much harder to see 50 years from now.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think you will find the group of people trying to normalize pedophelia rather miniscule. So you cannot see the difference between two consenting adults marrying and juveniles? Why do we not let 13 yr olds vote, drive, hold a full time job, sign contracts, hold office, be police and fire fighters, play professional sports, skip school?

Old fashioned morality-based paradighms?

 

[HoughMade]

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?

I guess the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were unnecessary. C'mon. You want to talk about rights that exist in theory, but the government and society does not exist in theory. We have to have a way of deciding IN REALITY what is a Constitutional right (a right protected by the Constitution) and what is not. One group wants the Constitution to protect whatever a few judges decide it protects today. That seems to be where you stand. This is classic judicial activism: "I think this should be a right, so I'm a judge and I get to decide what the Constitution protects and what it doesn't, so it's a right." You almost act as though every person on earth agrees what rights should exist and be should be protected and which should not. You know that's not the case. Who gets to decide, you?

I never said anything about the Constitution granting rights and you know it. The Constitution protects rights, but does not create them. However, it does not protect what every person decides is a right based upon their own personal belief system. You could believe you have a right of some kind, but that does not mean that the Constitution was intended to protect that right.

The question is, what rights does the Constitution protect? How could the Constitution protect "rights" that were not deemed to be rights when the Constitution was enacted? How could the Constitution be deemed to protect a "right" to homosexual marriage when no such right was recognized....anywhere in English or American law when it was adopted?

We needed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments because the Constitution, as adopted, did not protect the rights of African Americans. That does not mean the rights didn't exist from a human rights standpoint, but no American court, before those Amendments, would have been so daft as to say the Constitution protected those rights...because it didn't.

If you think there are additional rights the Constitution should protect that were not recognized when it was adopted, great! Mount a campaign and have amendments passed that recognize rights that were not recognized then. Why are SSM proponents so afraid of the legislative process that they turn to the activist judiciary for comfort?

BTW- the 9th and 10th Amendments use terms like "retained" and "reserved", respectively. This means that rights RECOGNIZED AS RIGHTS AT THAT TIME which were not specifically mentioned were retained or reserved by the people. How do you "retain" something that was not recognized to exist? How do you "reserve" a power that no one believed existed? These amendments do not mean that anything we can dream up in the future as a right is automatically deemed a right. That has never been recognized in American jurisprudence. Even the judicial activists try to base their inventions in some notion of historical precedent. Show me historical evidence that homosexual marriage was recognized as a right before the Constitution.

You believe that right exists in the ether, fine. Want the Constitution to protect it? Add it, explicitly, as a right protected by the Constitution. Let the people decide. Why do we have an amendment process if all these rights always existed out there somewhere just waiting for a few special people in robes to find them and recognize them.

This worship of the judicial oligarchy when it suits us, is just scary.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

Do you disagree with this article?

By definition, pedophilia is nothing more than an attraction. A desire. Sinful desires are part of human nature, even if they vary from person to person.

As a society, I don't think that forcing these people into the shadows is beneficial to us. The groups referenced in your article are groups of these people who are struggling and supporting each other in not acting on those desires.

Should we similarly stigmatize a person who struggles with alcoholism, but succeeds in staying sober? I certainly wouldn't say that we should glorify it or 'normalize' it or pretend that acting on it is in any way acceptable (and neither did that article) but I think it is beneficial to us as a society to allow these people to safely seek help in fighting against these desires.

ETA: From the article

Part of this failure stems from the misconception that pedophilia is the same as child molestation. One can live with pedophilia and not act on it. Sites like Virtuous Pedophiles provide support for pedophiles who do not molest children and believe that sex with children is wrong.
...
The Virtuous Pedophiles website is full of testimonials of people who vow never to touch a child and yet live in terror. They must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence. Many feel isolated; some contemplate suicide. The psychologist Jesse Bering, author of “Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us,” writes that people with pedophilia “aren’t living their lives in the closet; they’re eternally hunkered down in a panic room.”

 

[steveh_131]

Although as to the OP, I agree with a few people here who think that the feds have no business in this and that it should be left up to the states.

 

[Denny347]

As was the group of people 50 years ago trying to normalize homosexuality.



Never said that. Quite the opposite - I very much see the difference today. I'm guessing that difference will be much harder to see 50 years from now.

I cannot see the future, its not likely but I'll get back with you in 50 years and let you know. Of course "norms" change over generations...always have...always will. I still don't see this as openening the door to legalizing pedophelia, that's a huge jump.

 

[IndyGunworks]

isn't this what checks and balances is all about? The check was the legislative process, and the balance was how it turned out from the judicial branch?

 

[Denny347]

isn't this what checks and balances is all about? The check was the legislative process, and the balance was how it turned out from the judicial branch?

Yes. However, "justice" is defined by many based on their agreement with the outcome.

 

[HoughMade]

isn't this what checks and balances is all about? The check was the legislative process, and the balance was how it turned out from the judicial branch?

By that analysis, whatever the judiciary does is always right. Is it?

 

[IndyGunworks]

By that analysis, whatever the judiciary does is always right. Is it?

Until the legislative process overturns that by passing a new/more specific law right?

 

[HoughMade]

You are combining procedure and substance. That is the way the procedure works, but it does not mean that the judiciary is interpreting the law properly (substance) according to precedent. Changes in the law, that is, deciding that something should be a protected right, should come through the legislature, from the people. The proper role of the judiciary is to interpret the law at it is and has been applied, not to make new law.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Anytime the judiciary rules such that power shifts away from the federal sphere to the states or from the states to the people, it is a good thing. Anytime a ruling sees power flowing in the opposite direction, it is a bad thing. I thought this sort of thing was clear.

 

[IndyGunworks]

You are combining procedure and substance. That is the way the procedure works, but it does not mean that the judiciary is interpreting the law properly (substance) according to precedent. Changes in the law, that is, deciding that something should be a protected right, should come through the legislature, from the people. The proper role of the judiciary is to interpret the law at it is and has been applied, not to make new law.

I don't disagree.

 

[Expat]

I guess we should celebrate tyranny as long as it comes from people in black robes.

 

[HoughMade]

Anytime the judiciary rules such that power shifts away from the federal sphere to the states or from the states to the people, it is a good thing. Anytime a ruling sees power flowing in the opposite direction, it is a bad thing. I thought this sort of thing was clear.

It's not clear, nor is it good judicial policy. Essentially, it makes opinions and whims the standard to measure the Constitutionality of a law rather than historical precedent. Again, it's not like the law can't be changed.

I'll ask it again because no one has answered. Why not use the amendatory or legislative process like was done for civil rights based on race?​ If these issues are equivalent....why are SSM advocates so afraid of the citizens? I guess if the citizens of a state...the people do not want gay marriage, that's not a viewpoint worth being "reserved" to the people or "retained" by the people. Some people's opinions are worth protecting, and others, not.....whoever gets the judicial sympathy, they're the special ones. Nice.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I find it slightly ironic that gay marriage is now legal in Indiana, only because the Republicans here fought so hard to renew a ban on it.

Otherwise, we could have been left out of this entire ordeal.

Am I wrong, or would it have not changed anything for us?

 

[HoughMade]

Made no difference. Gay marriage was not legal here (had never been legal here) and a couple sued to get married here. Simple as that. New push had nothing to do with it.