Skip to main content

Simply Stated: What’s Wrong with the Obergefell Ruling

 

The Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is required by the Constitution will surely produce a mountain of books and articles in the coming years (and has already produced a huge amount of online comment).  Catholics, of course, will say that it is wrong about the substantive question of the definition of marriage.  That debate certainly needs to be carried on.  Here, however, I would like to try to express, in the simplest terms, why I think it was wrong from the standpoint of the American regime–that is, from the standpoint of the kind of government we are supposed to have and preserve. 

 

I would put it this way:

 

The Obergefell ruling involves the biggest domestic policy decision of our lifetimes, and it was made not by the people of the United States but by the Supreme Court.  And while it was made in the name of the Constitution, it was not made on the basis of the Constitution. 

 

There are no explicit words in the Constitution that compelled the Court to do what it did, and it did what it did on the basis of an interpretation of certain passages (the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment) that nobody had ever entertained until the last 15 years, and that certainly would have been repudiated by the people who wrote and ratified those passages, as well as by almost everybody who lived under them for the last 150 years.

 

http://www.catholicvote.org/si...e-obergefell-ruling/

 

 

Last edited by Jack Flash
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is required by the Constitution 

--------------------

Is required??? It ain't requiring me to have a same sex marriage.

If you don't jt, you'll be required to pay the fine. obum doubled it this year.

 

And it wouldn't hurt you to reread the above to see how the SC has opened

the door to ignore the constitution all together for future rulings.

As does obum now.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

 


The Obergefell ruling involves the biggest domestic policy decision of our lifetimes, and it was made not by the people of the United States but by the Supreme Court.  And while it was made in the name of the Constitution, it was not made on the basis of the Constitution. 

 

There are no explicit words in the Constitution that compelled the Court to do what it did, and it did what it did on the basis of an interpretation of certain passages (the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment) that nobody had ever entertained until the last 15 years, and that certainly would have been repudiated by the people who wrote and ratified those passages, as well as by almost everybody who lived under them for the last 150 years.


 _________________

These two paragraphs are conflicting in nature. 

 

What the article ignores is that many states had passed laws permitting same sex marriage, and many people had filed federal lawsuits in states that had tried to ban same sex marriage.  The federal courts were in disagreement over the matter.  When that happens, it is proper for the matter to be taken up by the Supreme Court, under Article III of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court applied the 14th Amendment to the question, all proper under the Constitution. 

 

I bet these are the same people that claim that income taxes are not legal or constitutional. 

 

Bat-spit crazy.

 

Jack, you better run, the revenooers are acomin'!!!

 

 

Last edited by CrustyMac

If you don't jt, you'll be required to pay the fine. obum doubled it this year.

 

And it wouldn't hurt you to reread the above to see how the SC has opened

the door to ignore the constitution all together for future rulings.

As does obum now.

-----------------------

I read the article included in your post, I don't see where I have to have a same sex marriage. Where did the requirement to have a same sex marriage you mentioned come from?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

If you don't jt, you'll be required to pay the fine. obum doubled it this year.

 

And it wouldn't hurt you to reread the above to see how the SC has opened

the door to ignore the constitution all together for future rulings.

As does obum now.

-----------------------

I read the article included in your post, I don't see where I have to have a same sex marriage. Where did the requirement to have a same sex marriage you mentioned come from?

Actually it came from Crusty,,,he's found crap in the constitution never

before seen.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The Supreme Court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is required by the Constitution 

--------------------

Is required??? It ain't requiring me to have a same sex marriage.

_____

Pore ole Jack just had difficulty expressing his inarticulate self. He did not mean to say what he actually did say.  He actually meant to express the concept that the Court's opinion concerning same sex marriage is supported by the Constitution. You just have to bear with Jack, since he does have a lot of trouble at times actually putting his thoughts into correct verbal patterns. Sometimes his mutterings need translation.

 

crustydung,,,you two twin comic book liberals heard me the first time.

The constitution does Not support homosexual marriage. The spin the SC

put on the 14th Amendment is just that, pulled out of thin air. The 14th was

written at a time when homosexual marriage was a felony in every state in

the union. 

 

The constitution provides a very clear and fair way with a supermajority

of federal and state legislatures to amend the constitution. That’s the

very reason our constitution has an amendment process...

 

If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute

their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant

when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern

ourselves. Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike

down our laws and impose their own as they go? In fact, why have a

constitution at all..??

 

That is your concept of what I said. If you are going to have the SC changing the Constitution like they  want instead of letting the elected officials amend it, we are all in a sad situation. There are enough good people left and if they would stand up for what is right, then the mobs would not rule. We all need to stand up for what is right and quit letting the minority rule!

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

crustydung,,,you two twin comic book liberals heard me the first time.

The constitution does Not support homosexual marriage. The spin the SC

put on the 14th Amendment is just that, pulled out of thin air. The 14th was

written at a time when homosexual marriage was a felony in every state in

the union. 

 

The constitution provides a very clear and fair way with a supermajority

of federal and state legislatures to amend the constitution. That’s the

very reason our constitution has an amendment process...

 

If we fail to use the amendment process and permit judges to substitute

their own definitions and judgments for what the people actually meant

when they passed the law in the first place, then we no longer govern

ourselves. Why vote or use the political process if unelected justices strike

down our laws and impose their own as they go? In fact, why have a

constitution at all..??

 

_____________

Wow, Jack, start with name calling, then nonsense.  Well played.

 

Why have the Constitution?  To protect the ignorant populace from itself.  In this case, government working as intended, contrary to the bigots who think otherwise.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

crustydung,,,you two twin comic book liberals heard me the first time.

 

 

_______

Wow, Jack, start with name calling, then nonsense.  Well played.

 

Why have the Constitution?  To protect the ignorant populace from itself.  In this case, government working as intended, contrary to the bigots who think otherwise.

__________________

Jack is big on name-calling, but seems to have a severely limited imagination, since the sole method he uses is to add "dung"  to a member's name or to an abbreviation thereto.

 

Jack really ought to seek ways to broaden his creative horizon. However, given his performance to date, it is improbable that his mind is capable of such an effort. I suspect that he will remain in the scatological domain  he seems to prefer.  

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

crustydung,,,you two twin comic book liberals heard me the first time.

 

 

_______

Wow, Jack, start with name calling, then nonsense.  Well played.

 

Why have the Constitution?  To protect the ignorant populace from itself.  In this case, government working as intended, contrary to the bigots who think otherwise.

 

Nope, not even close, to protect the populace from government takeover

the way obum, SC and fools like you.

__________________

Jack is big on name-calling, but seems to have a severely limited imagination, since the sole method he uses is to add "dung"  to a member's name or to an abbreviation thereto.

 

You own dung, you are dung you think dung.

My imagination works just fine for nailing your gimp azz to the liberal

****house wall.

 

Jack really ought to seek ways to broaden his creative horizon. However, given his performance to date, it is improbable that his mind is capable of such an effort. I suspect that he will remain in the scatological domain  he seems to prefer.  

 

I can go with conScat if you had rather, or beter*****..

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

crustydung,,,you two twin comic book liberals heard me the first time.

 

 

_______

Wow, Jack, start with name calling, then nonsense.  Well played.

 

Why have the Constitution?  To protect the ignorant populace from itself.  In this case, government working as intended, contrary to the bigots who think otherwise.

 

Nope, not even close, to protect the populace from government takeover

the way obum, SC and fools like you.

__________________

Jack is big on name-calling, but seems to have a severely limited imagination, since the sole method he uses is to add "dung"  to a member's name or to an abbreviation thereto.

 

You own dung, you are dung you think dung.

My imagination works just fine for nailing your gimp azz to the liberal

****house wall.

 

Jack really ought to seek ways to broaden his creative horizon. However, given his performance to date, it is improbable that his mind is capable of such an effort. I suspect that he will remain in the scatological domain  he seems to prefer.  

 

I can go with conScat if you had rather, or beter*****..

_____

You can go with whatever you choose, Jack.  With each such variation, you show yourself to be ever more the noxious, incompetent wretch that you truly are! 

 

Originally Posted by Old American:

The SC has way too much power. It should be done away with and let the people have the say, not them!

________________

You wouldn't like what the people have to say, either: 

 

"In the latest CBS/New York Times poll, 57 percent of respondents favored legalizing same-sex unions, with 39 percent dissenting."

 

"Moreover, the trend line is clear. Seven of 10 young people under 30 — including 6 of 10 Republicans — approve of same-sex marriage."

Last edited by CrustyMac
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. 

----------------------

What you really mean is, when I agree with the SC, it's right, when I disagree, they are a bunch of no brain constitution trashers.

JT, how do you know what crusty means, how do you know when he

disagrees..??

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. 

----------------------

What you really mean is, when I agree with the SC, it's right, when I disagree, they are a bunch of no brain constitution trashers.

______________

Is that what I meant? 

 

I'm pretty sure that what I meant was that when the SCOTUS follows the Constitution it is right.  When it doesn't, it isn't.  Also, they provide a check to the balance, and are established in said Constitution. 

 

Don't worry yourself, though.  It's gonna be alright.

Last edited by CrustyMac
Originally Posted by Old American:

CBS, New York Times poll holds about as much credibility as asking our present leader what he thinks about It. Take a poll for all the U. S. and see what kind of results You get. Ask stupid people, what do you get, stupid results. How many times have their so called polls been wrong. I can tell you, many.

_______________

Is a Gallup Poll good enough?  LINK

Originally Posted by Old American:

Are Gallup polls "weighted". Yes they are, read their rules. What does weighted mean, it means they can change them to make them say what they want them to. Polls are useless. How polls are conducted makes a world of difference. They compensate for this and that and you never know what the real results are!

_____________

Fine.  I agree that proper polling is a science often misused and misinterpreted.  But they are more accurate than you just claiming to know what the "people say", unless you believe that a few of your cronies here in Alabama speak for the rest of the country.

Yes, the people in Alabama and the south are quiet more sensible in a lot of things than other parts of the country are. Since you don't seem to fit in, why don't you move to NYC or maybe get a job with CBS, or NBC or maybe the New York Times. I am sure glad there are some people left with common sense, if there was not we would be in a bigger mess than we already are! I don't know if you believe in God or not, but I do. If laws of the land are contrary to God's law I WILL NOT support any of them but I will oppose them.

Originally Posted by Old American:

Yes, the people in Alabama and the south are quiet more sensible in a lot of things than other parts of the country are. Since you don't seem to fit in, why don't you move to NYC or maybe get a job with CBS, or NBC or maybe the New York Times. I am sure glad there are some people left with common sense, if there was not we would be in a bigger mess than we already are! I don't know if you believe in God or not, but I do. If laws of the land are contrary to God's law I WILL NOT support any of them but I will oppose them.

____________________________________________________

Forget the NY Times, the old grey harlot is shedding employees like a sinking ship sheds rats. 

Originally Posted by Old American:

Yes, the people in Alabama and the south are quiet more sensible in a lot of things than other parts of the country are. Since you don't seem to fit in, why don't you move to NYC or maybe get a job with CBS, or NBC or maybe the New York Times. I am sure glad there are some people left with common sense, if there was not we would be in a bigger mess than we already are! I don't know if you believe in God or not, but I do. If laws of the land are contrary to God's law I WILL NOT support any of them but I will oppose them.

_____________

Just because I wouldn't fit in with your crowd, doesn't mean I don't fit in here in AL.  My first reporting job at CBS, NBC or the NYT will be to inform you that you don't speak for all of AL, or all of the South.  Your opinion isn't necessarily the opinion of everyone else.  The Bible was also used to stall and hinder equal rights for minorities, and interracial marriage.  So, just as you claim that all polls are wrong, I claim that the fundamentalist are misinterpreting the Bible.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×