I find the dissent compelling

I don't really want this to become a fight. In fact, I'm not really even that interested in a conversation on the subject...

But I find the dissenting view in the recent Supreme court decision on gay marriage to be quite interesting.

I'm putting it here because I doubt most have heard it through the noise and the hooplah.

It offers no opinion on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the subject, but calls into serious question the court's right to make a ruling at all, and accuses them of completely undermining the American democratic process.

If you just like the sound bites, here are a few good quotes:

11 devasting quotes from John Roberts' dissent

And for those of you who prefer it in context, here is the full 108 page ruling:

Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

SVreX wrote: It offers no opinion on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the subject, but calls into serious question the court's right to make a ruling at all, and accuses them of completely undermining the American democratic process.

nothing new.... Citizens United......

... so you're just going to put this out there and don't really want a rebuke?

Yeah, there's a problem there. I agree with the decision, just not crazy about how it came to be. In historical context, Roe v. Wade was passed 7-2 in 1973 and to this day there are people working to have that decision overturned. Had Roe and this been arrived at via the legislative process, there wouldn't be such a threat that they could be overturned by a future Supreme Court.

After reading the first link, I was convinced that although the end result is the correct one, that it was arrived at in the wrong way. But, after skimming through the second link, it seems like if you believe that a state can prohibit gay marriage then they could also prohibit inter-racial marriages. I always find it irritating that the Supreme Court seems to rely on previous cases and decisions more so than the actual words in the Constitution, especially since many of the past court decisions don't seem to follow the Constitution as I see it. To me, gay marriage seems to follow under the equal protection clause and that is that.

pres589 wrote: ... so you're just going to put this out there and don't really want a rebuke?

No, you can say whatever you like.

I just don't intend to participate.

I posted the facts. If the thread gets locked, it's on you.

I clicked on this thread thinking I was clicking on the Battle Bots thread. I was confused for a second.
That is all.

Well this is bizarre, and rather wimp-ish ... throw something extremely controversial out there and step back to see what happens.

Gary wrote: Well this is bizarre, and rather wimp-ish ... throw something extremely controversial out there and step back to see what happens.

Or did he link to an interesting point of view that otherwise wouldn't have gotten your mental gears turning?

Let's not forget that governments globally often have say over things that should be none of their business.... Same sex marriage is but one of those.

Just think, not to long ago in many place and still currently in others, engaging in a homosexual act is illegal, let alone getting married.

Overstretch of power is rife, and the so called democratic process has never been what it appears. There's always an agenda, a vested interest....

calteg wrote:

Gary wrote: Well this is bizarre, and rather wimp-ish ... throw something extremely controversial out there and step back to see what happens.

Or did he link to an interesting point of view that otherwise wouldn't have gotten your mental gears turning?

That's my interpretation. It didn't occur to me this is just the shiny side of the coin regarding the power of SCOTUS, dirty side being things like Citizens United. Also how this can be overturned at any time.

Yes. This is bizarre. I ain't gonna bite at this bait.

Gary wrote: Well this is bizarre, and rather wimp-ish ... throw something extremely controversial out there and step back to see what happens.

So you consider it wimpish because I made it clear that I was not interested in partaking in a juvenile E36 M3fest?

I consider it the high road, and a great deal more difficult.

Are you really so jaded that you can't comprehend that I am honestly interested in sharing something interesting, perhaps significant, that you would not otherwise see.

If you'd like to have a debate, that's great. I will listen, and learn. If you'd like to have a childish argument, I will still listen (for a short while).

My motivation is education. What's yours?

I just taught my 4 year old to yell 'Murcia when he sees a nascar. That's all I got

Is it gay marriage...or same-sex marriage? Technically, they are not necessarily the same, right?

If you don't participate, why start it?

You may discuss my assessment, but i won't participate and i'll take the high road.

In reply to pinchvalve:

Well I suppose if you want to be PC about it it should be marriage equality. Gay marriage could be construed to mean only 2 men may marry whilst 2 women, or a relationship involving a trangender may not. Same sex marraige still leaves transgendered people out of the equation. Two consenting adults should be allowed to wed regardless of their genetic or assumed gender.. The core of the issue is equality.

The article and quotes miss the point entirely.

This isn't about gay marriage, or even marriage at all. The question is whether the government can deny access for something that is recognized by the government.

If they can pick and choose a group of people access, that means they can restrict at will.

This for any situation- schools, military, voting, etc.

In reply to alfadriver:

Wait...

The quotes directly from the transcript of the ruling miss the point of the ruling?

That makes no sense.

The point of this thread was (like the title says) to point out the content of the dissent.

The point of the dissent was that the Supreme Court is not the legislature.

Your point... not so sure.

I bring stuff here because sometimes you guys are fairly brilliant thinkers, and help me understand stuff, whether it is a Megasquirt, a strange piece of legislation, or an oddball uncle.

This time, not so much.

In reply to SVreX:

While this dissent is significantly more cogent than the bus to crazy town that is th Scalia dissent, I find some tortured logic here. Either way, it is a dissent because 5 other judges didn't agree with his logic. If he could sway the other justices with the power of his argument he would not be writing the dissent.

We're all a bit burnt out after the Trump thread...

In reply to Ian F:

Thank you.

That's a bit of wisdom which I appreciate.

Your telling my my timing was bad. I can accept that.

mattm wrote: In reply to SVreX: While this dissent is significantly more cogent than the bus to crazy town that is th Scalia dissent, I find some tortured logic here. Either way, it is a dissent because 5 other judges didn't agree with his logic. If he could sway the other justices with the power of his argument he would not be writing the dissent.

I think that was the point of his dissent.

Logic and the power of his argument were irrelevant if 5 other judges were inclined to vote their personal opinions of what they think should be right instead of framing the case against the existing laws and the Constitution.

T.J. wrote: After reading the first link, I was convinced that although the end result is the correct one, that it was arrived at in the wrong way. But, after skimming through the second link, it seems like if you believe that a state can prohibit gay marriage then they could also prohibit inter-racial marriages. I always find it irritating that the Supreme Court seems to rely on previous cases and decisions more so than the actual words in the Constitution, especially since many of the past court decisions don't seem to follow the Constitution as I see it. To me, gay marriage seems to follow under the equal protection clause and that is that.

NC is at this point now … bill passed, vetoed, and overridden … one of the "protecting religious freedom type bills"

it will allow any court magistrate to refuse to marry a couple if they have "strong" religious feelings/beliefs against the union … aimed at SS marriage … but as it's been pointed out in letters to the editors this opens the can of worms that COULD easily include inter-racial marriages …

and there is zero in the way of "testing" the "strong religious" beliefs … all a magistrates got to do is just say "thats against my religion" and in some of our really small counties, they might be the only magistrate in the county