I find the dissent compelling

SVreX wrote: 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.

and yet courts in general have been "making law" for just about ever … all they have to do is make a ruling that doesn't fit with established legislatured law, and then that decision will be used in future cases … doesn't even have to be SCOTUS

You should read some of the quotes by Scalia. He is pissed about it (and rightly so, given the points made).

Quotes from Scalia's dissent

Justice Scalia said: [I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create ‘liberties’ that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

SVreX wrote: 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.

What is wrong with my point?

The government is allowed to sanction stuff within their powers, and set some reasonable requirements with them.

But are they allowed to limit who can do this sanctions stuff? As long as they are adults and not criminals, no they can't.

States manage many things and all of them need to be inclusive. The heart of the ruling is not legislating but reminding the states of that Constitutional requirement when they make legislation.

That article claims that government can be restrictive. The rest is excuses why gay marriage should be restricted.

On a side note, I'm sick of the procreation argument. By that thinking, I should not be married. Nor should couples past menopause. My lesbian neighbor has two kids to our zero. Total bs.

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

It is wimpish to start something you know will degrade, and not be willing to put your voice on the line to defend a position, or at least offer to act as a moderator.

To answer the original question...

I favor same sex marriage. I'm happy that's legal now. I was bothered hearing the opinions of the justices, because the opinions on both sides struck me as based more on opinion and emotion than law. Roberts' opinion seems somewhat based in law, but the arguments seem weak. To me this seemed like this should be pretty clear cut over equal protection and a state not being able to ban marriage in such a way that they don't have to recognize a legal document from another state that is recognized by the Federal Government.

So, I actually bothered to read much of the Supreme Court Ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The arguments in the brief are based on logic and the law. They reference the constitution, and primarily use the 14th amendment as the reason for the decision. This argument is explained in full on pages 10-27.

To summarize a lot of things: it's really easy to talk about making decisions by strictly following the constitution, but the constitution is intentionally vague. It was written to provide the framework, not specifics. Those specifics are defined by laws and the ruling of the judiciary on those laws.

Keep in mind why this case came to the Supreme Court. This was not because states didn't want to make same-sex marriage legal, but because they had enacted legislation that actively denied it, even when performed outside of their state and recognized by the originating state and the Federal government. In this case, one plaintiff was a couple that married in New York before one of them was deployed in Afghanistan for over a year. They later settled in Tennessee and he remains an active member of the Army Reserve. Their marriage and the benefits and protections provided by his status as a veteran and active serviceman do not extend to his spouse when they reside in their home state. They appear and disappear as they cross state lines.

If this were just about states' rights, it would be perfectly legitimate to say, "Tennessee gets to decide how it will issue marriage licenses." That could be left up to the legislature to debate and eventually extend those rights to all couples. But that isn't what they did. The legislature chose to strip rights and protections from citizens that they were afforded in other states and by the Federal government.

In reply to Beer Baron:

I knew when stated actively banned people from doing something how this was going to turn out.

In reply to daeman:

Okay, i'll bite. Why limit it to 2? That's an arbitrary limit on the definition of "marriage".

To me, the previous day's ruling on Obamacare was more disturbing. They actually changed the meaning of the law to make it work, for a second time. I don't care if you think that was good or not, to have the court change anything in a law is dangerous. What if the SCOTUS did this under Bush, how would you feel? This is NOT one of their powers and it is scary to see no one pushing back on this. The abuse of power from all branches lately is disturbing.

In reply to racerdave600:

I agree with your abuse of power point.

A sort of related question: How does this dissent compare to previous ones? Honestly I can't say that I have read too many dissenting opinions. This one is getting a lot of attention, but how does it play compared to the rest?

racerdave600 wrote: To me, the previous day's ruling on Obamacare was more disturbing. They actually changed the meaning of the law to make it work, for a second time. I don't care if you think that was good or not, to have the court change anything in a law is dangerous. What if the SCOTUS did this under Bush, how would you feel? This is NOT one of their powers and it is scary to see no one pushing back on this. The abuse of power from all branches lately is disturbing.

If Bush did it, candidate Obama would be screaming about it on TV, and rightfully so. I was actually in his corner with stuff like that until he got elected and started doing the same stuff to an even greater degree.

So, +1 for you, friend.

David S. Wallens wrote: A sort of related question: How does this dissent compare to previous ones? Honestly I can't say that I have read too many dissenting opinions. This one is getting a lot of attention, but how does it play compared to the rest?

The SCOTUS don't often tear into the very fabric of the ruling. Usually it's a "I disagree and here is why", not a "Why are we even looking at this, it's not our call" complete with insults and awesomely brazen language.

Similar to the Obamacare ruling dissent. That one was even better.

T.J. wrote: In reply to racerdave600: I agree with your abuse of power point.

Most people hate corruption. Sort of.

GSmith wrote: In reply to daeman: Okay, i'll bite. Why limit it to 2? That's an arbitrary limit on the definition of "marriage".

It can be called arbitrary, sure. But it's also constitutional since its applied to all, equally. (Considering the 14th application )

racerdave600 wrote: To me, the previous day's ruling on Obamacare was more disturbing. They actually changed the meaning of the law to make it work, for a second time. I don't care if you think that was good or not, to have the court change anything in a law is dangerous. What if the SCOTUS did this under Bush, how would you feel? This is NOT one of their powers and it is scary to see no one pushing back on this. The abuse of power from all branches lately is disturbing.

they also look at the intent - which with the ACA was pretty clear in many parts of the text for the intent of the subsidies. At this point I would have hated to see the Cluster F it would have caused to not uphold the subsidies.

Pretty much all branches of govt are abusing the crap out of their powers and none of them seem particularly effective at the check/balance thing. Complaints of politically motivated or activist judges goes back to the beginning. Seem to recall some SCOTUS intervention at the GWB election.

In reply to oldtin:

You have to read the ACA dissent more carefully. That lack-of-subsidies was absolutely in there on purpose to punish states who didn't set up their own exchanges.

For better or worse, agree or disagree, you can't just change the law from the bench.

Well, you're not supposed to be able to, anyway.

They didn't change the language in the law - but they do "interpret" the language and "interpret" how it relates to the constitution and intent of the document. That's the essence of the job. How they interpret - that's what all the grilling is about to get the gig in the first place. If we don't like it, we should fire them - oh, yeah, nevermind.

oldtin wrote: They didn't change the language in the law - but they do "interpret" the language and "interpret" how it relates to the constitution and intent of the document. That's the essence of the job. How they interpret - that's what all the grilling is about to get the gig in the first place. If we don't like it, we should fire them - oh, yeah, nevermind.

They interpreted it to mean something other than what it said. The same as they did the last time it came up when they changed "fee" to "tax".

They changed it.

In reply to alfadriver:

GSmith dosnt have to wait long, the UK already has a guy married to a locomotive.....

I'm sorry, but John Roberts lost all credibility to talk about Constitutionality with the ruling he helped write the majority opinion for on the ACA less than 2 days before this ruling.

madmallard wrote: I'm sorry, but John Roberts lost all credibility to talk about Constitutionality with the ruling he helped write the majority opinion for on the ACA less than 2 days before this ruling.

hear hear!

Again, to those thinking this is a flounder fest, we are not arguing against ACA or gay marriage. The process by which these things were arrived at it is a mockery of checks and balances.

i'm really glad i'm not the only one that thinks the reading of these rulings are tortured and rusty logic gates...

madmallard wrote: i'm really glad i'm not the only one that thinks the reading of these rulings are tortured and rusty logic gates...

At this point, it's:

"Hey, I like law XYZ, what do I have to do with this pile of E36 M3 language to make it fit?"

yamaha wrote: In reply to alfadriver: GSmith dosnt have to wait long, the UK already has a guy married to a locomotive.....

Smart man.

In response to the Obamacare ruling, they did absolutely change the interpretation of the law. From the beginning, if you actually read the law, they had intended for the states to do this and pick up the tab. What SCOTUS did was to say "no, state in the case means the US govt." It does not matter in the least what the repercussions of striking down a law means, that is not their job. Maybe it would have been better to have sent people back to the drawing board to create a damn bill that works. The Ds and Rs need to learn to work together for the good of the country instead of being the party that funnels money to their friends. Can you tell I'm ticked about all of this?

As to the gay marriage ruling, it was only a couple of years ago that the very same judges struck down the defense of marriage act saying marriage was a states rights issue, now they say it is a federal issue when it suits their political party agenda. I don't care which way they go as I don't have a dog in this fight, but lets be impartial about our rulings.

racerdave600 wrote: In response to the Obamacare ruling, they did absolutely change the interpretation of the law. From the beginning, if you actually read the law, they had intended for the states to do this and pick up the tab. What SCOTUS did was to say "no, state in the case means the US govt." It does not matter in the least what the repercussions of striking down a law means, that is not their job. Maybe it would have been better to have sent people back to the drawing board to create a damn bill that works. The Ds and Rs need to learn to work together for the good of the country instead of being the party that funnels money to their friends. Can you tell I'm ticked about all of this? As to the gay marriage ruling, it was only a couple of years ago that the very same judges struck down the defense of marriage act saying marriage was a states rights issue, now they say it is a federal issue when it suits their political party agenda. I don't care which way they go as I don't have a dog in this fight, but lets be impartial about our rulings.

Dude, are you married? I like the way you think.

Wait...