Poll: How Will The Supreme Court Rule On Same Sex Marriage? (Reagan, impeachment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right OR privilege doesn't matter. Either way the state can not deny a citizen equal protection of the laws. If Bob can marry Jane and get all of those legal protections that come with marriage, but the state denies Sue the ability to marry Jane and have those same legal protections that is unconstitutional.
First, lets understand that equal protection actually means equal protection(IE police and court protections). It does not mean equal privilege. And that is why the 14th amendment never granted equal privileges, it only granted equal protection(at least for its first ~100 years). Basically, if the 14th amendment had always granted equal privileges. Then why would there even need to be a 15th amendment? Which gave blacks and other minorities a right to vote. Or a 19th amendment, which gave women a right to vote. You would think that the equal protection clause, as you imagine it, would have covered these "Rights".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
How long was slavery legal before the government decided that it was a no-no?
How long was interracial marriage banned before courts decided that the bans were unconstitutional?
How long were women denied the right to vote before the government decided that was bad?
First, slavery required an amendment to be abolished, the 13th amendment. Which made it very clear that slavery was abolished. Women were only granted the right to vote with the 19th amendment. America can certainly correct its past mistakes; The question is whether its appropriate to give unlimited power to interpret the Constitution to a small tribunal of unelected, life-termed men on the Supreme Court?
If WE as Americans want same-sex marriage, all that it requires is for us to simply change the law. And at worst, we could do what we used to do, pass an amendment.
To have the Supreme Court decide all these issues is a very dangerous precedent, and in many cases, doesn't really resolve anything. We are still arguing about Roe v. Wade, and Antonin Scalia effectively wants to retry the case and have it overturned(or liberals in the case of Citizens United).
I find one thing kind of ironic. People are so eager to have effectively a democratic/split-vote(IE 5-4 decision) decide this case. But if that is the case, then they are advocating effectively democracy of the courts, to overturn democracy of the people. If you follow such logic, what they are actually saying is that the Supreme Court, even if they disagree with each other as much as any body of men can disagree with each other; are still more capable, and have the right to decide how the rest of us should live our lives, even in spite of ourselves.
Now, I think most people, if they spent the time to think about it, would realize that the notion that the Supreme Court is infallible, is obviously itself a fallacy. Or for that matter, they would have a difficult time accepting the idea that the Supreme Court should be able to reinterpret the Constitution however they see fit, pretty much anytime they see fit(turning this country into a kind of oligarchy, where the judges could effectively create laws, and were completely unaccountable to the people).
So why would they possibly support such a ridiculous idea? Either A) Because they think they will get what they want out of it. Or B) Because they don't see an alternative.
As Thomas Jefferson said about the Supreme court(and Marbury v. Madison was during his term)...
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Exactly. Obviously some of the people here have never bothered to read Marbury v. Madison.
I've certainly read Marbury v. Madison. In fact, I've even watched a bunch of goofy youtube videos about it. Trying to understand the entire story behind it(it is far more fascinating than what is said in the decision itself).
Lets understand that Marbury v. Madison was effectively about Jefferson's anti-Federalists(Democratic-Republicans) vs Hamilton and John Adam's Federalists(Whigs). Right before Thomas Jefferson became president, John Adams decided to expand the Judiciary and appoint a bunch of new "Federalist" judges. Jefferson believed this was an abuse of power, and wanted to prevent as many of these justices from taking their seat as possible.
John Marshall, who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and who was a federalist. Wanted to maintain and expand the power of the judiciary and to limit the power of Jefferson's Democrats, so that the Federalists would maintain as much control in the Federal government as possible, while still appeasing Jefferson's democrats. So he devised a plan to make a ruling that was acceptable to both Hamilton's Whigs, and Jefferson's Democrats.
Thus, he effectively gave Jefferson and the Democrats what they wanted, so they would accept the court's decision as binding. But upon accepting the court's decision, it would therefore give the decisions of the court legitimacy in future cases.
Had the ruling in Marbury v. Madison favored the Federalists, Jefferson and the wave of populism that brought him to power, would have left the Supreme Court almost completely powerless.
The point is, if you accept that decision, and any other Supreme Court decision since, then that is your decision to make. But I have found no evidence that what we have now was ever intended by the framers of our Constitution.
Which was my entire point of posting to begin with. We all accept the decision, not because it is the right decision. Rather, we either accept it because we agree with it. Or because we see no other alternative.
As I said before, Conservatives should tattoo "obey" on their foreheads. Because they seem to have an obsession with simply following orders. While attacking anyone who doesn't as "radical", "dangerous", "anti-American", etc.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 04-29-2015 at 07:06 PM..
I don't see a clear-cut win for the LGBT community
The right-wing corrupted Court already gave a horrible ruling in Citizens United and made an assault on the Voting Rights Act to bring back Jim Crow. It stands to reason that their decision here is rooted in a Conservative interpretation of the Constitution, and more likely that what they ultimately rule will NOT be a clear victory for the LGBT community.
I frankly wish the LGBT community were as passionate in the fight against racial discrimination, racial discrimination by gentrification, and racial discrimination within the LGBT community, as they are about their own rights. The fight for civil rights along racial lines has gone on for decades, and is still not settled, or resolved, so I don't know what makes those in the LGBT community think that their civil rights are going to all be resolved in their favor within a few years.
First, lets understand that equal protection actually means equal protection(IE police and court protections). It does not mean equal privilege. And that is why the 14th amendment never granted equal privileges, it only granted equal protection(at least for its first ~100 years). Basically, if the 14th amendment had always granted equal privileges. Then why would there even need to be a 15th amendment? Which gave blacks and other minorities a right to vote. Or a 19th amendment, which gave women a right to vote. You would think that the equal protection clause, as you imagine it, would have covered these "Rights".
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes you would think that the 14th would have covered it, but seems like the legislators wanted to make sure that they were covered one way or another. If the 14th did not cover privileged, why does it SAY privileges?
I frankly wish the LGBT community were as passionate in the fight against racial discrimination, racial discrimination by gentrification, and racial discrimination within the LGBT community, as they are about their own rights. The fight for civil rights along racial lines has gone on for decades, and is still not settled, or resolved, so I don't know what makes those in the LGBT community think that their civil rights are going to all be resolved in their favor within a few years.
Same sex marriage won't end discrimination. Most LGBT people realize that.
Most people are uncomfortable with this so call life Style. The Gay Marriage is a Sin, and will change peoples view on this even though it may pass in the Supreme Court.
Roberts may just turn down this decision, fore reason which he has all ready stated.
Most people are uncomfortable with this so call life Style.
As has been pointed out to you before, this is simply not true. As poll after poll shows.
Why do you keep saying it?
Please note that I am *not* saying that SCOTUS should make its rulings based on a popularity poll. I think that they can reasonably take it into account as a factor in their decision, but I actually don't think it should be the fundamental factor in their decision. I am just saying that your assertion about "most people" is simply not true.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes you would think that the 14th would have covered it, but seems like the legislators wanted to make sure that they were covered one way or another. If the 14th did not cover privileged, why does it SAY privileges?
Look, not only are you completely taking the words out of context, but you are completely ignoring the fact that there were tons of privileges which were denied to a variety of different groups from the day the amendment was ratified. Including as I said before, the right of women and blacks to vote.
Lets understand that the same people who wrote the 14th amendment, wrote the 15th amendment. There was no "mix-up", no misunderstanding, no misinterpretation.
Lets also understand that the debate over same-sex marriage is based completely on the words "equal protection", and not the privileges and immunities clause. The reason is because privileges and immunities is only about the privileges and immunities within the United States Constitution(IE citizens of the United States). It has nothing to do with the privileges and immunities within the states themselves.
The equal protection clause is what is actually up for debate. So the question is, what exactly does equal protection mean?
If equal protection means what you think it means, then wouldn't equal protection extend to voting rights of women and blacks? Then why did the same people who wrote the 14th amendment, later create the 15th amendment for that specific purpose? While also not supporting a woman's right to vote for another 52 years?
The truth is, the equal protection clause was originally completely limited to only actual protections. A protection is not a privilege, a protection means to "protect". Such as laws regarding "life, liberty, and property". Basically, the Southern states were obligated to protect a black man(and everyone else) from assault, theft, or murder. That the Southern states would be forced to use the courts and the police to pursue those who broke those kinds of laws. It was originally not about providing any sort of privilege to absolutely anyone.
And it doesn't even take much logic to realize that that was the case. Being that the people who wrote the amendment, and all the people for a hundred years afterwards, believed that was what it meant.
Only in recent years have these amendments taken on such a radically different meaning. A meaning that both its creators, and those who ratified the amendment, would have obviously objected to. And there is absolutely no evidence to believe otherwise.
Who honestly believes that the 14th amendment was ever intended to provide gays a right to get married? It is utterly ridiculous.
As I said before, the people who support the actions of the Supreme Court, either A) Agree with the decision. Or B) See no alternative but to go along with it.
This debate has absolutely nothing to do with the actual Constitution.
Most people are uncomfortable with this so call life Style.
Roberts may just turn down this decision, fore reason which he has all ready stated.
Your first statement is complicated. And the word "support" and "comfortable" are certainly two different things.
It is certainly true that people are increasingly "supporting" same-sex marriage. That doesn't necessarily translate into being "comfortable" with it.
I mean, I'm not anti-gay by any stretch of the imagination. And one of my best friends is gay. But, I can't lie, I don't enjoy whatsoever seeing or hearing about anything "gay". I don't want to see two guys making-out. I do not want to even see them holding hands. I don't want them talking about their love-life near me. And I don't like the "flamers"(and neither do most gay guys for that matter).
And I would presume that almost every church in this country will not be performing same-sex marriages, and that is regardless of whether or not the majority of their congregation supports same-sex marriage as a "legal right".
I would personally rather government simply got out of the marriage business altogether(keep in mind, I'm an anarchist, so I want the government out of everything). And I certainly would rather the issue be agreed upon locally, instead of by a Supreme Court who should have never gotten involved to begin with.
Being a pragmatist, I would support a Civil Union which is exactly the same as a marriage, except in name. Which should be sufficient in appeasing all parties. But it looks like we will end up with same-sex marriage, pushed down from on-high by the Supreme Court.
Which I suppose I should be happy about. Such an action is increasingly pushing certain groups of people further and further into a corner. And thus, I can hope that one day these groups will eventually see that there is no future in this system, and seek to remove themselves from it.
A man can dream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
Please note that I am *not* saying that SCOTUS should make its rulings based on a popularity poll. I think that they can reasonably take it into account as a factor in their decision, but I actually don't think it should be the fundamental factor in their decision. I am just saying that your assertion about "most people" is simply not true.
If the Supreme Court actually was interpreting and enforcing the Constitution, then public opinion should have no weight whatsoever on their decisions. That would be like saying that public opinion should factor into a decision on freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
With that said, I think the Supreme Court does weigh public opinion and their legacy into their decisions. Which is exactly why the Supreme Court, and its decisions, are completely useless. I never understand why so many American sheep just accept their decisions without even thinking. This country is full of slaves and cowards. Where are our modern Thomas Jefferson's?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see a clear-cut win for the LGBT community
