Gay Marriage Rights now signed into Law

[hntnhole]

A few moments ago, President Biden signed the bill making marriage rights, as well as others, into Federal Law. 

Alito, Thomas, that vacant long-haired bottle-blond woman, and the drunk can just kiss our collective asses.  In French.  

[Rillion]

A very good day for us gays politically. The law does what it can under our federal system (marriage has always been primarily controlled by the states). Achieving this through the legislative process shows the gains we are making.

[SouthernCumDump]

I wouldn’t gloat too much.  There are provisions of this law that usurp the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.  I expect those provisions to be challenged and likely tossed.  If you’ve ever actually read the full opinions of the justices you mock, you’d probably find yourself mostly agreeing with their reasoning, at least if you are intellectually honest.  
 

As a rule, so-called “conservative” judges generally apply the law as written and that includes application of the plain text of the Constitution as written.  They do not start with an outcome and then come up with some justification to support that decision.  They start with the law and arrive at the opinion.  Frankly, I much prefer legal documents doctrine that isn’t subject to the whim of the judge(s)’ political leanings.  Using to courts to make law rather than just make sure it is applied fairly and blindly (without regard to color, creed, or social status) and that laws are not unconstitutional is all the courts *should* be doing.  

While I’m somewhat in favor of the end result of Obergefell, the judicial reasoning is as deeply flawed as was that of Roe.  Marriage is not a right, it is a civic sanctioning of a religious ceremony.  It achieved this status because the family unit that produces children is one of, if not the, underpinning(s) of the civil society and is necessary for the survival of such.  I have long been an advocate/supporter of civil unions that recognize a legal status the same as marriage for same sex couples.  The rights of hospital visitation and inheritance, and health insurance, among others, should be absolutely protected and in line with those of married heterosexual couples.

Enough legal philosophy/discussion for the night.  I have some dick to suck and then get my pussy fucked and seeded deep.  
💦💦💦🤤🤤🤤

[hntnhole]

7 minutes ago, SouthernCumDump said:

you’d probably find yourself mostly agreeing with their reasoning

I'm not an attorney, yet I have read fairly substantially what you're referencing.  No, I do not agree with what passes for "reasoning".  More, if I don't have an intellectually honest contribution to make, I don't make one.  

 

10 minutes ago, SouthernCumDump said:

As a rule

There is no "rule" for the SCOTUS, which is why their own personal belief-systems are able to be translated into law. Fortunately however, Congress can override their politically-inspired errors. The traditions which restrained the Justices in the past have, in large part dissipated, leaving them to relieve themselves of the responsibilities formerly honored, in favor of their own personal beliefs.  The conservative Justices "mock" themselves as well as the institution.  They mock the traditions that formerly held the Court in check.  They mock century-old 'correctly decided, standing law'.  

I merely reference the obvious. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, SouthernCumDump said:

They do not start with an outcome and then come up with some justification to support that decision.

Clearly, today they do.  Former Courts did not come anywhere near as close to politically inspired decisions as the Roberts Court has.  

I quite agree that this is enough, since we'll probably not come to agreement.   More, I hope your pussy gets what it needs.

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, SouthernCumDump said:

There are provisions of this law that usurp the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment.

Please itemize those provisions, instead of merely making unsubstantiated allegations that they exist.

In fact, in relevant part, the act says "Nothing in this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or abrogate a religious liberty or conscience protection otherwise available to an individual or organization under the Constitution of the United States or Federal law."

It further states "Consistent with the First Amendment to the Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries, interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such an organization, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or cause of action."

That's about as iron-clad a protection for the "free exercise" clause I can imagine, unless you think that "free exercise" means that public officials can refuse to perform their job duties (for example, county clerks refusing to record same-sex marriages) on the grounds that it's against their religion to do so.

So please - do detail for us the "provisions of this law" that "usurp the 'free exercise' clause."

18 hours ago, SouthernCumDump said:

If you’ve ever actually read the full opinions of the justices you mock, you’d probably find yourself mostly agreeing with their reasoning, at least if you are intellectually honest. 

I am not sure why I should feel the need to be "intellectually honest" when several members of the current Supreme Court are anything but that, themselves, but even so: let's look at the central holding of the Dobbs decision you seem to think was correctly decided. The majority believes that for an unenumerated right to be recognized under the Constitution, it must have been "deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition;" intellectual honesty would require that interpretation of enumerated rights be viewed with the same lens. Indeed, the right wing of the Court specifically looks at the Eighth Amendment through that lens: if the founders' generation would not have considered a punishment cruel or unusual, in their view, we can't either.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment, despite its clear implication that it's meant to be viewed in the light of an official militia, and despite the fact that high-powered weapons (of the day) were most definitely NOT allowed to be in private hands, the so-called "conservative" majority on this Court ignores history, ignores the text, and carries out its goal of allowing people to possess almost any sort of weapon they want, under almost any circumstances.

18 hours ago, SouthernCumDump said:

Marriage is not a right, it is a civic sanctioning of a religious ceremony.

Marriage has been recognized as a right since at least 1923, when the Supreme Court held (in Meyer v. Nebraska) that the Due Process Clause protected an array of rights - among them, the right to marry, establish a home, raise children, and so forth that had long been recognized under the common law. Meyer wasn't even about marriage, itself; the Court merely noted that it was long-established that such rights were protected under common law, and as such protected by the Due Process Clause. And even at the time, not all marriages were religious in nature; non-religious, civil marriages (not some bullshit second-class "civil unions") were recognized under federal law since the early 20th century at a minimum, and in many states long before that. So for at least a century, your statement that marriage is only a religious ceremony has been false.

18 hours ago, SouthernCumDump said:

I have long been an advocate/supporter of civil unions that recognize a legal status the same as marriage for same sex couples.  The rights of hospital visitation and inheritance, and health insurance, among others, should be absolutely protected and in line with those of married heterosexual couples.

If there is no substantive difference under the law between how these "civil unions" would be treated compared with "married heterosexual couples", then there is also no reason to use different terms for the two. Calling one item a square and the other an equilateral rectangle - when they are, for definitive purposes, the exact same thing - serves no purpose whatsoever.

And if they need different names because they are not, in fact, under the law, identical, then you have an equal protection problem.

[Kayne]

18 hours ago, SouthernCumDump said:

 

As a rule, so-called “conservative” judges generally apply the law as written and that includes application of the plain text of the Constitution as written.  They do not start with an outcome and then come up with some justification to support that decision.  They start with the law and arrive at the opinion.  

 

Actually, their "Originalist" ideology, which only rears its head when  their conservative ideals are "threatened" by an overwhelming majority seeking progression and change - Or when they Wealthy/Corporate power structures may be forced to do better;  fly in the face that the law, like Language is a living, breathing thing. 

 

Since you brought up Roe, here is an example. 

The Decision on Roe is rooted in Actual application of the 13th and 14th amendment. Forced pregnancy and birth was something forced upon female slaves- people  treated as chattle- women in general were treated as chattle.  dissolving Roe sets the rights of Women back  whT 150-160 or so years . its another step in resurrecting old power structures that are on life support. 

if the Law -like Language cannot breathe and grow, its becomes useless .it dies 

If Laws didn't change grow etc. I would be another Farm working slave. no rights, no education, no free will . I couldn't be Gay because I'd have to breed whatever woman mynmaster saw fit and I could be sold or killed at someone else's whim . 

But Justices such as Thomas woul go back to those days under law. even though that stance wildly  opposes his own interests but he is t the first or only lying sleaze to e er sit on the bench

 

 

[ladyMacDeath]

Having the right to say my body my decision is not a much understood concept. Everybody feels that their specific opinions on a matter is as of fact and they feel that since the majority agree it's law. 

Judges are supposed to use the law as the bases behind their final rulings.. Supreme Court Justices rulings come from there interpretation of what the constitution means and if the meaning of what is written coincides with whatever case is under observation. 

Gay Marriage is still marriage nonetheless regardless. 

It's being denied your right to partnership and benefits that actually come with you guys entering that specific business agreement. 

While some marriages are  religious. It's not recognized under law unless the proper procedures are carried out. 

Marriage is the union between two people who agree to be companions and to support each other. 

But rules are needed in place because some people who are hired to a job will use religion to back up there actions. Some things intertwined with government should automatically have rules set in place for people who use religious practices to validate them not doing a job to do. 

such as it's your job to follow the law and process all marriages. Not pick and choose when to acknowledge your religious practices on a job description you legally acknowledged when signed the contract that hired you.  You have every right to follow your religion. But this marriage is not a union of God. This is a Civic Union therefore your bases behind your actions has no standings cuz it's not the same thing.
 

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, Kayne said:

its another step in resurrecting old power structures that are on life support. 

Thanks, Kayne, for your most interesting perspective.  

The way I see it, the above-referenced "resurrection" is indeed quite literally the case.  While the Civil War put an end to the actual depravity of slavery, Reconstruction eventually failed, and those who squatted on top of the cultural pile in the South at the time managed to preserve much of the old ways via the corruption worshipped as The Lost Cause.  There were a number of reasons; exhaustion from the bloodletting, Andrew Johnson, etc etc.  But the result is, the amelioration has never been sufficiently addressed, down to this day.  

I don't think there is anything these "white supremacists" will not do - accept - foment - in order to preserve this hideous heritage.  They have perverted their so-called religion to serve their own selfish needs, they are currently holding elected office almost everywhere, and gladly extending their perversions to the electoral processes. There is quite literally nothing they would shrink from doing to cling to these "old power structures".  

I wish I could agree that this hatemongering was indeed on "life support".  Unfortunately, I don't see that light at the end of the tunnel yet.  Never the less, hope springs eternal, right? 

[hntnhole]

15 minutes ago, ladyMacDeath said:

Some things intertwined with government should automatically have rules set in place

You're right, of course.  When rules/laws are slanted to favor one subset of the population, it follows that said rules/laws act unfavorably upon other subset(s) of the population.  No one could legitimately argue against this obvious injustice.  Progress may be slow, but - as a First-Class American once said: The moral arc may be excruciatingly long, but it does bend towards Justice ..... or something like that 😉

[Kayne]

3 hours ago, hntnhole said:

 

I wish I could agree that this hatemongering was indeed on "life support".  Unfortunately, I don't see that light at the end of the tunnel yet.  Never the less, hope springs eternal, right? 

Right

 I say life support because I live on hope that the generations to come will make the changes that the" flower children" abandoned after the "Summer of Love" Tbe same ones that Embraced Trickle Down Eccomonics and Greed is Good in the 80's. 

Maybe this generation doesn't get the same apathy earlier generations have contracted.  The worst attitude is "If I had to endure blah blah what makes you so special that you shouldn't  have to experience blah blah too" but it seems to be the norm when a generation makes it to a certain age as if wanting the same change 5heybwanted at that age is somehow offensive.

[11bi11guy]

As a constitutional lawyer, my general advice would be to not put too much trust in what SouthernCumdump has to say regarding legal interpretation.

[Kayne]

1 hour ago, 11bi11guy said:

As a constitutional lawyer, my general advice would be to not put too much trust in what SouthernCumdump has to say regarding legal interpretation.

It not so much "trust" as it is "fear" When we've seen Black Letter Law, Established by previous High Court pre ident "revisited"  and "undone" which members from that body making (paraphrased statement) "We're gonna do it right this time" 

Voting Rights, Roe, Double Jeopardy, Environmental issues.  Things have already changed and fallen into chaos.

[11bi11guy]

17 hours ago, Kayne said:

It not so much "trust" as it is "fear" When we've seen Black Letter Law, Established by previous High Court pre ident "revisited"  and "undone" which members from that body making (paraphrased statement) "We're gonna do it right this time" 

Voting Rights, Roe, Double Jeopardy, Environmental issues.  Things have already changed and fallen into chaos.

That's a fair point. But (and I'm splitting hairs here) the rationale behind those results is political, not legal. Chief Justice Roberts is a political animal, and his job is almost as political as a House whip. He's trying to chart as much of a path toward moderate conservatism as he can, trying to avoid the legacy of a Chief Justice Taney (Dred Scott) or Stone (Korematsu).

SCD makes authoritative declarations surrounding legal theory, but that's a load of bollocks. Conservative justices who for decades beat a steady drum of originalism and strict constructionism just blew that up for political gain in multiple cases (e.g., Dobbs, West Virginia), tossing stare decisis out the window. Upcoming Senate and presidential elections and the health of Clarence Thomas (74) and Samuel Alito (72) will have significantly greater impact--by orders of magnitude--than whatever legal theories the justices pick and choose between (or create out of thin air) to rationalize their preferred political outcomes.

It's easy to wax poetic about legal theory and ignore hypocrisy when your side has the votes. I'm just saying the philosophizing in this case comes with a large whiff of horseshit.

Edited December 15, 2022 by 11bi11guy

[harrysmith25]

Big whoop.

President Biden is a nasty piece of Scranton trailer trash who looks like he'd beat his son up if he was gay. Or try to, with that feeble body of his, lol.

Being pro-gay is not reflected in Democrats other policies or just their everyday way of operating.

They spend a lot more time sucking up to foreign countries who are violently anti-gay.

What piece of paper he signed doesn't reflect reality

[hntnhole]

Way to go, new guy ....