New poll shows support for gay marriage down after SCOTUS ruling

[GFR7]

You keep mentioning this as though it means something.

It does. Some gay advocates were actually expecting a unanimous decision.

 

[Granite]

It does. Some gay advocates were actually expecting a unanimous decision.

Says who? I never once heard that kind of pie in the sky speculation and it's utterly deranged (who would ever in an eon think Scalia would've been in favor of this?) And it's also totally beside the point. The margin of a majority in the Court means absolutely zip. Makes you look real foolish trying to imply it's a less-than-legit decision because it happened to be close. The Court doesn't issue mandates or referendums. That ain't how it works.

 

[bybee]

It seems pretty obvious that the right believes marriage to be a basic human right. Why else would they be complaining about expanding that right to those who appear "different" yet are part of the same human species? If it is such a big deal it must be a basic human right. even more basic than healthcare, education, etc.

Mother nature might have something to say about that.
Civil rights are quite another thing than natures way of doing things.
Marriage, for many of us, is the basic unit of society.

 

[GFR7]

Says who? I never once heard that kind of pie in the sky speculation and it's utterly deranged (who would ever in an eon think Scalia would've been in favor of this?) And it's also totally beside the point. The margin of a majority in the Court means absolutely zip. Makes you look real foolish trying to imply it's a less-than-legit decision because it happened to be close. The Court doesn't issue mandates or referendums. That ain't how it works.

I saw it on forums in the weeks preceding the ruling: "Any chance this may be a unanimous decision, or 8-1?". I never said it was not legitimate.

 

[Granite]

I saw it on forums in the weeks preceding the ruling: "Any chance this may be a unanimous decision, or 8-1?". I never said it was not legitimate.

:rotfl:

I see, so you saw somebody on the Internet asking a silly question.:rotfl:

You've got a real child's literalism at work in your thinking.

 

[GFR7]

:rotfl:

I see, so you saw somebody on the Internet asking a silly question.:rotfl:

You've got a real child's literalism at work in your thinking.

Part of my Asperger syndrome. The child is father to the man, says Wordsworth; and Jesus says except we turn back and be like little children again........:AMR1:

How come even Towleroad, that illustrious advocate of gay marriage, is posting this? :think: Weren't they hyping polls which showed majority public approval? :jawdrop:

AP Poll Finds More Americans Disapprove of Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling Than Approve


http://www.towleroad.com/2015/07/ap...preme-court-gay-marriage-ruling-than-approve/

 

[PureX]

The Constitutional protections are there to protect the minority from a tyrrany of the majority, so the polls are irrelevent.

Not to mention that these "polls" presented a false dichotomy: freedom of religion OR equal rights. As though we can't have both.

As usual, the religionists don't understand that freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, for it to work.

 

[GFR7]

Not to mention that these "polls" presented a false dichotomy: freedom of religion OR equal rights. As though we can't have both.

As usual, the religionists don't understand that freedom of religion must include freedom from religion, for it to work.

Truth.

 

[oatmeal]

The Constitutional protections are there to protect the minority from a tyrrany of the majority, so the polls are irrelevent.

And vice versa.

We are to ruled by law not by majorities nor minorities

We are not to be ruled by tyrannical minorities either.

Homosexuals are but 1% of the population at worst.

 

[PureX]

And vice versa.

We are to ruled by law not by majorities nor minorities

We are not to be ruled by tyrannical minorities either.

Homosexuals are but 1% of the population at worst.

So are billionaires, and yet every legislator in this country is at their beck and call. So are presidents. If you want to fear a tyranny of the few, those would be the few you ought to be fearing.

 

[TracerBullet]

The idea that marriage was necessary for equality was cooked up by a few advocates.

 

[Town Heretic]

This was a very slim majority,

You know how many presidents were elected by a slim majority? You know how many SBs were won or lost by a fg?

Most people don't remember, but they remember who won.

with the dissenters writing things such as "By all means, celebrate; but it has nothing to do with the Constitution"

Isn't legal reasoning, it's philosophical complaint.

and "If I were part of a ruling like this, I'd hide my head in a bag." It gave a very strange, unsettling message

And that's an emotional response. I expect a vigorous and intellectually compelling challenge/dissent and dismiss the rhetoric of the personal/emotional because its mostly bad form from the bench.


There were two questions before the Court:

1. Did the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2. Did the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a samesex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right?

The Justices agreed the matter should be heard and these questions addressed. That establishes, prima facie, that there are arguments to be made on either side. It is then irrational or dishonest for any Justice to declare that because their view of the answer failed to prevail the majority is speaking outside of its purview and apart from the Constitution.

You can believe the better arguments lie elsewhere and they may, but the rest is horsefeathers. Else, read the beginning of section III or the majority opinion. That's rooted in the Court's precedent for addressing issues of this sort.

 

[GFR7]

You know how many presidents were elected by a slim majority? You know how many SBs were won or lost by a fg?

Most people don't remember, but they remember who won.


Isn't legal reasoning, it's philosophical complaint.


And that's an emotional response. I expect a vigorous and intellectually compelling challenge/dissent and dismiss the rhetoric of the personal/emotional because its mostly bad form from the bench.


There were two questions before the Court:

1. Did the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2. Did the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a samesex marriage licensed and performed in a State which does grant that right?

The Justices agreed the matter should be heard and these questions addressed. That establishes, prima facie, that there are arguments to be made on either side. It is then irrational or dishonest for any Justice to declare that because their view of the answer failed to prevail the majority is speaking outside of its purview and apart from the Constitution.

You can believe the better arguments lie elsewhere and they may, but the rest is horsefeathers.

While I have immense respect for your intelligence, and for your expertise as a legal scholar and expert, I still believe that this was a far from precise ruling.

Yes, too much passion on both sides; but Kennedy started it with his less than judicial opining. Even people who AGREE with JK find his "reasoning" appalling in this instance:

Justice Kennedy Was Right for the Wrong Reasons

Still, about the only good thing that can be said about Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the five-justice majority is that he (somehow) arrived at the correct result. I’ve reread the ruling several times and come to the conclusion that it’s simply not a judicial opinion. What should’ve been a very easy case about equality under the law became a purple disquisition on … I’m not sure what, really.

Kennedy clearly tried to write for the ages, but rather than making an epochal statement about the equality of gay and lesbian Americans, he produced a meditation on how the Constitution protects “a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.” He found this “liberty” in the Fourteenth Amendment, that much is clear, but in the form of a judicial recipe whereby you take a scoop of the Due Process Clause and a cup of the Equal Protection Clause, shake them together, sprinkle some “dignity” on top, and viola!

That’s not law.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/justice-kennedy-was-right-wrong-reasons

 

[Delmar]

It doesn't consume my every thought. Only when I'm here.
Many don't believe it's a done deal.

i am pretty sure it is. Until Christ returns that is.

 

[GFR7]

i am pretty sure it is. Until Christ returns that is.

Perhaps you're right. :think:

 

[Town Heretic]

While I have immense respect for your intelligence, and for your expertise as a legal scholar and expert, I still believe that this was a far from precise ruling.

How was it imprecise? In what particular? Your criticism, sans illustration, suffers a more demonstrable short fall on the point.

Yes, too much passion on both sides; but Kennedy started it with his less than judicial opining. Even people who AGREE with JK find his "reasoning" appalling in this instance:

I think its that rhetoric again, "appalling" that speaks to something other than a rational objection and difference. If anyone has a strong enough argument they shouldn't need to dress it in the rhetoric of incitement and emotionalism. Let the emotional response flow from the reasoned certainty, if it exists.

Justice Kennedy Was Right for the Wrong Reasons

I read the article and think he's being unfair to Kennedy, but agree that the equal protection clause would have been a far easier point of consideration. Of course, I've had my own pet approach in contract for some time and think at the root that's what we're talking about, the government interfering with the right to contract absent any legitimate government interest being served by it and an arguable interest being thwarted.

 

[GFR7]

How was it imprecise? In what particular? Your criticism, sans illustration, suffers a more demonstrable short fall on the point.

My points were the same as the author's; I felt it was not judicial and had something both sentimental and insincere about it (JK opinion). And that it was coming from the wrong venue.

I think its that rhetoric again, "appalling" that speaks to something other than a rational objection and difference. If anyone has a strong enough argument they shouldn't need to dress it in the rhetoric of incitement and emotionalism. Let the emotional response flow from the reasoned certainty, if it exists.

You're right. Conceded.

I read the article and think he's being unfair to Kennedy, but agree that the equal protection clause would have been a far easier point of consideration. Of course, I've had my own pet approach in contract for some time and think at the root that's what we're talking about, the government interfering with the right to contract absent any legitimate government interest being served by it and an arguable interest being thwarted.

You would have opined better than JK.

 

[Town Heretic]

My points were the same as the author's; I felt it was not judicial and had something both sentimental and insincere about it (JK opinion). And that it was coming from the wrong venue.

But that's not a precise criticism, it's a reflection of feeling, which is my problem in part with the author.

You're right. Conceded.

I am not...oh, thank you then.

You would have opined better than JK.

There were better arguments, I think, to be had...but I don't agree that he was by any real stretch without argument or foundation. I wonder if Roberts isn't secretly glad to have not wrestled with a equal protection argument and whether or not he would have remained in dissent had Kennedy issued it.