Trump nominee; Legalized Same-Sex marriage could lead to legalized pedophillia

[Badger]

I have been with my boyfriend since college. We love each other very much. He could not love me more if I were a woman and I could not love him more if he were a woman. I'm uninterested in your meaningless take or vote on whether or not I can marry the person I love. Thank you, judges.

Progressive, if you think I am trying to attack your feelings of love and/or your right to live with your love for the rest of your life, you still do not grasp what I have been talking about. I am not the slightest bit happy with you dismissing my beliefs about what the judiciary is, properly, supposed to do with the legal disputes it hears as being a "meaningless take." That is infuriating and ignorant for you to say that about my beliefs.

Your avatar is for the state of New York. Do you live there now, have you lived there for long, or is that avatar your choice because it was where you were originally from? If you have lived in New York for the last five years or so, then you have no reason whatsoever to "thank" any judges for the fact that you "can marry the person I love." Maybe you should thank the Supreme Court for striking down the federal DOMA in the case of U.S. v. Windsor, if your personal circumstances have been, in any way, similar to that of Edith Windsor's -- i.e., you needed to have the federal government recognize your NY-granted marriage in terms of filing joint income tax or something like that. But in terms of who granted any New York same-sex couple the right to get married, it was not any judges at all, that was done by the Governor and the state legislature.

~~~

Virginia, my goal and my strategy for how to adopt a constitutional amendment that rewrites Section 1 of the Fourteenth is to draft and to campaign for a bi-partisan proposal, an ideological compromise. Believe me, I fully understand the difficulties of getting an amendment proposed and ratified if only conservatives love it or if only liberals love it. I've been brooding about that difficulty for many, many years. My original idea was to propose something that merely returned the meaning of Section 1 of the Fourteenth to its mid-Nineteenth Century meaning. But that idea would only be pleasing to conservatives; liberals would hate it; it would be all about "going backwards." Then about 3 and a half years ago I brainstormed an idea for how to draft the proposal in such a way as it mixes together some ideas for both sides to root for. I realized I could include some of the Twentieth-Century "progress" that has been made with the Fourteenth, as well as make even one more "advance" that the Fourteenth has not yet been used to accomplish. I realized I could create a compromise that would give both sides about half of what they want.

~~~~

Badger, I absolutely, completely agree with the dissenting opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut. If you want to cling to a decision like that, be my guest.

We need judicial review in order to arrive at an accurate understanding of what our Constitution means.

1. Born, "bread and buttered," and living in New York. That doesn't mean that my rights to marry were full since simply because NYS passed marriage equality on that beautiful summer day in July 2011, when across the country, the marriage would not have been legally the same.

2. You can say you are not attacking my relationship all you want. But if you think you should have a say in a ballot box over my civil right to marry then yes you are indeed attacking it. As my law professor said during my 1L year several years ago, "too bad, so sad."

When anyone, including Supreme Court Justices, claim that marriage is any kind of constitutionally-protected "right," they are making an inaccurate statement about the meaning of the Constitution. The Court was wrong, in Loving v. Virginia, Section 2, to say that marriage is a "fundamental right," it was wrong to repeat that mistake in decisions such as Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Substituting the adjective "civil" in front of the noun "right," instead of calling it a "fundamental right," or a "constitutional right," does not impress me. It is still just melodramatic rhetoric masquerading as a legal argument. I am attacking those masquerades.

Nonetheless, as Dwarven said about me a little while ago, ...

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

There are more important issues than trying to overturn what you, Progressive, are so thankful for. The proposal I was talking about with Virginia in my preceding post is more important. Here are things that are more important:

1) States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot pass
2) Federal court should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down
3) Rights not enumerated in the Constitution should not be treated as "Fourteenth Amendment rights," and that includes marriage, as well as countless other "rights"
4) We can and should adopt an amendment that will preserve the precedents of Loving, Windsor, and Obergefell, by basing the legal rationale for those decisions on much more narrowly-defined egalitarian principles -- no government discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation. In so doing, we can ensure equality for the LGBT community by writing it explicitly into the Constitution.

Those are more important things for us to discuss. I hope we can discuss them.

Wow. Unwilling to accept the Constitution protects interracial marriage either. I genuinely don't think you are racist, but you are the first person a third-rate racist law school would hire to teach con law.

[Brittain33]

This is not an unusual mental leap if your starting place is the "gay culture" of 30-40 years ago.

What in the "gay culture" of 30-40 years ago had anything to do with pedophilia? 30 years ago was the height of AIDS.

This argument was very fashionable among social conservatives in the 1990s, and it was embarrassing to the average American under 50 even then. Now, it makes this Clovis guy sound like he's been trapped in a coma for 20 year.

[MarkD]

When anyone, including Supreme Court Justices, claim that marriage is any kind of constitutionally-protected "right," they are making an inaccurate statement about the meaning of the Constitution. The Court was wrong, in Loving v. Virginia, Section 2, to say that marriage is a "fundamental right," it was wrong to repeat that mistake in decisions such as Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Substituting the adjective "civil" in front of the noun "right," instead of calling it a "fundamental right," or a "constitutional right," does not impress me. It is still just melodramatic rhetoric masquerading as a legal argument. I am attacking those masquerades.

Wow. Unwilling to accept the Constitution protects interracial marriage either. I genuinely don't think you are racist, but you are the first person a third-rate racist law school would hire to teach con law.

SMH .......

Badger, please comprehend what I said and do not make straw-man fallacies out of what I said. Did I say that the Court's conclusion in Loving v. Virginia was wrong? Do I have to belabor the point now that I agree with the Court's unanimous conclusion in Loving v. Virginia because of what the opinion said in Section 1 of it's opinion?

Section 1 of the Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia explained why miscegenation laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Internal citations omitted.)

I do not disagree with that reasoning whatsoever. Again, that came from Section 1 of the opinion, not from Section 2. This is the passage in Section 2 of the Court's opinion that I was explicitly saying above that I disagree with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not say that I disagreed with the Court's conclusion, nor that I disagreed with Section 1 of the opinion. I said, explicitly, that I disagreed with Section 2 of the Court's opinion.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brothers-child-porn-seattle_us_598c7a22e4b0d793738d2a9d?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

These three alleged perverts (and that is the only word I can use to describe those creeps) messed with little girls, and their collection of child porn began long before the legalization of same-sex marriage. Child sexual abuse happens when a pervert gets the opportunity and the impression of the ability to get away with it.

I can think of nothing more to say of this situation. There's nothing tasteful that I can say about child sexual abuse and those who do it, no matter whether it is 'straight' or 'same-sex', betray the right of children to be children. Sex is not an appropriate part of a child's life.

[Badger]

When anyone, including Supreme Court Justices, claim that marriage is any kind of constitutionally-protected "right," they are making an inaccurate statement about the meaning of the Constitution. The Court was wrong, in Loving v. Virginia, Section 2, to say that marriage is a "fundamental right," it was wrong to repeat that mistake in decisions such as Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley, and Obergefell v. Hodges. Substituting the adjective "civil" in front of the noun "right," instead of calling it a "fundamental right," or a "constitutional right," does not impress me. It is still just melodramatic rhetoric masquerading as a legal argument. I am attacking those masquerades.

Wow. Unwilling to accept the Constitution protects interracial marriage either. I genuinely don't think you are racist, but you are the first person a third-rate racist law school would hire to teach con law.

SMH .......

Badger, please comprehend what I said and do not make straw-man fallacies out of what I said. Did I say that the Court's conclusion in Loving v. Virginia was wrong? Do I have to belabor the point now that I agree with the Court's unanimous conclusion in Loving v. Virginia because of what the opinion said in Section 1 of it's opinion?

Section 1 of the Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia explained why miscegenation laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(Internal citations omitted.)

I do not disagree with that reasoning whatsoever. Again, that came from Section 1 of the opinion, not from Section 2. This is the passage in Section 2 of the Court's opinion that I was explicitly saying above that I disagree with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not say that I disagreed with the Court's conclusion, nor that I disagreed with Section 1 of the opinion. I said, explicitly, that I disagreed with Section 2 of the Court's opinion.

A profoundly silly notion that has rightly found itself on the scrap heap of History

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Legalized opposite sex marriage could lead to legalized pedophillia.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Another deplorable in the basket.