Started By
Message
re: TN judge refuses to grant divorce - refers to USSC gay marriage ruling as reason
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:15 pm to bbvdd
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:15 pm to bbvdd
quote:
The supreme court said states don't have the right to define what is or isn't a marriage so how do they now have the right to dissolve something they can't define?
What?
The function of marriage legally is definable and defined. You combine property, insurance, taxes, hospital visitation, ect.
All the court said is you can't extend those rights to just for a certain group over others based on the genitals of those who want to enter into the contract.
If it said the state can't define marriage, then no marriages could legally happen. I see how this judge is spinning it, but it's a willful misreading of the decision.
1
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:21 pm to Duke
quote:
The function of marriage legally is definable and defined
Actually, the USSC redefined the legal definition of marriage and Federalized it, taking away the State's rights under a misrepresentation of the 14th and ignoring the 10th Amendment, imho of course.
Gov't not being in the marrying business altogether would end all problems though and create jobs for lawyers. Maybe even decreasing the injury and tort business, with all the new contract business they'd get.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:29 pm to Alahunter
They federalized the definition (and didn't say it couldn't be defined) to reflect the 14th amendment and due process ruling. They didn't claim it was undefinable.
Reasonable people can disagree over the application of the equal protection and due process overriding the 10th. The two of us do. That's not the same as the state can't define marriage.
Reasonable people can disagree over the application of the equal protection and due process overriding the 10th. The two of us do. That's not the same as the state can't define marriage.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:30 pm to Alahunter
quote:
sidelined with a broken ankle as well.
Not trying to be nosey, but did you break it skydiving?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:31 pm to Duke
quote:
That's not the same as the state can't define marriage.
That's basically what they did with the ruling though. Granted, they defined what the Federal Gov't is saying what States should recognize now. It's ticky tacky. But it's still entertaining and kinda makes a point of Federal intervention on States Rights.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:32 pm to Cobrasize
quote:
Not trying to be nosey, but did you break it skydiving?
Yes sir.
Well.. not technically.. it was the landing that did it. The sky part was pretty awesome.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:34 pm to Alahunter
The state not a state.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:36 pm to Alahunter
It is truly hilarious the way the anti-gays are just totally losing their shite over this, and not just the normal wackos either. County clerks, judges, governors, even a state supreme court chief justice. They are all just going batshit insane. I think we can now dispense with the ridiculous line of bullshite that they weren't homophobes but just had a legitimate difference of opinion. The USSC has made many controversial decisions and many unpopular ones, but usually the losing side accepts that the court has ruled and the debate is over. Only when it's an issue so dearly important to them that literally nothing else matters (i.e. punishing women for getting pregnant, hating on gays, etc.) do they throw this kind of tantrum.
It is a sight to behold.
It is a sight to behold.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:36 pm to Alahunter
I've heard those landings can be tricky lol. I'm sure it's pretty easy to come in a little hot. Get well soon, so you can get back at it.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:37 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
It is a sight to behold.
It's fricking fabulous.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:37 pm to Nuts4LSU
Has the USSC ever reversed itself on an opinion in later yrs? Or is one decision (one singular swing vote) always left to stand as the absolute right and truth for all time?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:38 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
The USSC has made many controversial decisions and many unpopular ones, but usually the losing side accepts that the court has ruled and the debate is over
Hilarious
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:39 pm to Cobrasize
quote:
I've heard those landings can be tricky lol. I'm sure it's pretty easy to come in a little hot. Get well soon, so you can get back at it.
Thanks.. yeah.. I misjudged my speed and height at the last second. I'll be doing it again, maybe spring or after football season.. but definitely not discouraged yet.
And not being nosey, but do you skydive or are you familiar with me offsite?
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:40 pm to Nuts4LSU
quote:
County clerks, judges, governors, even a state supreme court chief justice. They are all just going batshit insane
quote:
Nuts4LSU
Irony
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:41 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Has the USSC ever reversed itself on an opinion in later yrs? Or is one decision (one singular swing vote) always left to stand as the absolute right and truth for all time?
They do occasionally, but it almost always has to do with criminal procedure and such.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:42 pm to Alahunter
Nah, I talked to you about it on here. I think we were both drunk it was over the winter. We also talked about the ABC store and Villa Spirits
it was over the winter. We also talked about the ABC store and Villa Spirits Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:45 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Has the USSC ever reversed itself on an opinion in later yrs? Or is one decision (one singular swing vote) always left to stand as the absolute right and truth for all time?
They don't really overturn so much as jump through ridiculous logical hoops to get around previous rulings that contradict what they vote to do.
Segregation is ok if it's s per ate by equal.
Nearly a century later: There can't be separate and equal. See we didn't overrule Plessy, just said it's an impossible standard.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:51 pm to Cobrasize
quote:
Cobrasize
Gotcha. I probably was.
And to Duke... while overrule may have been an incorrect term, they have made rulings that conflicted with previous ones, essentially rendering them obsolete.
It was a 5-4 vote. It's possible that it was an incorrect ruling that will be nullified in the future at some point.
Until then, it's the law of the land and as far as the Probate judges and others defying the orders... while I agree with their stance.. they're incorrect in doing what they're doing. They should resign or issue marriage licenses. As one of faith (not always on par), I would think.. "render unto Caesar" would fall into this category. If they are unable to do so due to their convictions, then they need to resign. I don't fault them for their beliefs, but they should be willing to give up their jobs if it's in conflict.. again.. imho.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:54 pm to Vols&Shaft83
I'm so glad you're back. :nohomo: Even though it's legal.
Posted on 9/3/15 at 1:54 pm to Alahunter
Most USSC cases that are "overruled" are done so through Congress. Best example off the top of my head is the Dred Scott decision being nullified by the Civil Rights Act in the 1880's.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News