Ted Cruz and the Incredibly Shrinking Supreme Court

[Calfredd]

What was the primary definition?

I'm throwing my vote in to a lord or king selling his daughter off to another lord or king to increase his investments and wealth as well as expanding his influence.

[Anevers]

Seems Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas thinks this obstruction is BS.

“I don’t think [obstruction]’s going to work in a republic or a civil society. At some point, we have got to recognize that we’re destroying our institutions and undermining our institutions.”

http://news.groopspeak.com/clarence-...ruction-video/
http://usuncut.com/politics/clarence...rrick-garland/

[Flutterguy]

I just want Democrats and Republicans to just come out and be honest about the Judicial branch. It's a political branch of the government. Justices aren't monolithic completely neutral entities that only interpret the law as written. They were never this even if that was the intention. They are just another part of the political machine and should be treated as such. We need term limits on justices. They don't have to be short. Make it 20 years, but the lifers got to go.

[Machismo]

What was the primary definition?

You seem to not want to answer the question I asked, so I'll ask it again. Do you think it justified to ban interracial marriage, or ban people from marrying Christians? After all, in your eyes, that would still be equal.

The original government definition did not exist. The first defining of marriage began in 1973, when Maryland banned same-sex marriages.

[Chrysia]

What was the primary definition?

"A social or religious contract recognizing the union between two (or more, depending on area) approved individuals as a lawful couple." The man and woman part was implied for most of western history, but the important part was the social or religious contract.

[satimy]

You seem to not want to answer the question I asked, so I'll ask it again. Do you think it justified to ban interracial marriage, or ban people from marrying Christians? After all, in your eyes, that would still be equal.

The original government definition did not exist. The first defining of marriage began in 1973, when Maryland banned same-sex marriages.

No they aren't even comparable situations.

Marriage was never defined with respect to race

- - - Updated - - -

"A social or religious contract recognizing the union between two (or more, depending on area) approved individuals as a lawful couple." The man and woman part was implied for most of western history, but the important part was the social or religious contract.

Then explain why there were no gay marriages in Rome or Greece? Those people did more gay shit that today's fraternity

[Machismo]

No they aren't even comparable situations.

Marriage was never defined with respect to race

Yes, yes it was. Interracial marriage was banned in many states. It took a Supreme Court case to rule it unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia). So, I'll ask you again, were states justified in banning interracial marriage? If so, then can't a state just as easily ban people from marrying Christians? After all, it's "equal."

Interestingly enough, you can see a very strong correlation between the states in regards to both bans on gay and interracial marriages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

[unbound]

No they aren't even comparable situations.

Marriage was never defined with respect to race

Are you being serious?

Anti-miscegenation laws were a part of American law before the US was even established. Do you even understand why there was a "Loving v Virginia" court decision at all?

[satimy]

Yes, yes it was. Interracial marriage was banned in many states. It took a Supreme Court case to rule it unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia). So, I'll ask you again, were states justified in banning interracial marriage? If so, then can't a state just as easily ban people from marrying Christians? After all, it's "equal."

Interestingly enough, you can see a very strong correlation between the states in regards to both bans on gay and interracial marriages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

That didn't change the definition of marriage, it was simply a racist law that rightly got struck down. Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage.

[Stormdash]

Yes, yes it was. Interracial marriage was banned in many states. It took a Supreme Court case to rule it unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia). So, I'll ask you again, were states justified in banning interracial marriage? If so, then can't a state just as easily ban people from marrying Christians? After all, it's "equal."

Interestingly enough, you can see a very strong correlation between the states in regards to both bans on gay and interracial marriages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Think his point was about the concept of marriage in the western legal and cultural tradition. Anti-miscegenation laws like those were actually latter day inventions, something a few generations old at most. The history of marriage in even the English legal tradition from which American law almost exclusively derives never had those prohibitions; ask Pocahontas. By contrast, that same tradition never even contemplated that the term itself would ever apply to a construct that didn't represent man and woman. And that distinction is relevant to the 14th Amendment analysis of what the 'fundamental liberty interest' of marriage is... or well, would have been had you asked before the court actually came down on the subject.

[Machismo]

That didn't change the definition of marriage, it was simply a racist law that rightly got struck down. Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage.

No, it struck down a homophobic law.

According to Virginia before the SC decision, a marriage was between two people, so long as they were not of mixed race. Is that the definition of marriage you are talking about? Their definition was bigoted, just like the laws banning gay marriage are bigoted. The analogy is perfect, and you are collapsing.

- - - Updated - - -

Think his point was about the concept of marriage in the western legal and cultural tradition. Anti-miscegenation laws like those were actually latter day inventions, something a few generations old at most. The history of marriage in even the English legal tradition from which American law almost exclusively derives never had those prohibitions; ask Pocahontas. By contrast, that same tradition never even contemplated that the term itself would ever apply to a construct that didn't represent man and woman. And that distinction is relevant to the 14th Amendment analysis of what the 'fundamental liberty interest' of marriage is... or well, would have been had you asked before the court actually came down on the subject.

But just because something is "implied" doesn't make it so. The first time marriage was defined as a man and woman in this country, was 1973. The laws were bigoted, just like the laws banning interracial marriage were bigoted. They were also discriminatory, and made it so people were not equal under the law. That's why the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was so similar to the ruling on interracial marriage 4 decades prior. Freedom is fucking awesome.

The danger arises when people think that their culture justifies the taking away of someone else's freedoms. That's why so many Christians don't understand that their support of a ban on gay marriage is inherently bigoted. They think it's nothing mroe than religion and tradition, but never stop to wonder if their religious beliefs and traditions may actually be bigoted.

[xChurch]

Well if they win the Senate they should just fully go nuclear and just push all her nominee's through with a simple up or down vote. Thankfully advertising their gridlock plans is a great way to get out the democrat vote.

[Stormdash]

No, it struck down a homophobic law.

According to Virginia before the SC decision, a marriage was between two people, so long as they were not of mixed race. Is that the definition of marriage you are talking about? Their definition was bigoted, just like the laws banning gay marriage are bigoted. The analogy is perfect, and you are collapsing.

- - - Updated - - -



But just because something is "implied" doesn't make it so. The first time marriage was defined as a man and woman in this country, was 1973. The laws were bigoted, just like the laws banning interracial marriage were bigoted. They were also discriminatory, and made it so people were not equal under the law. That's why the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage was so similar to the ruling on interracial marriage 4 decades prior. Freedom is fucking awesome.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest all 9 justices on the Loving Court would look at you like you had three heads if you told them that their case was the original assertion that marriage was a thing between a man and a woman. Indeed, they'd probably point to the decision and say that it is premised almost entirely on the notion that it has been defined that way for centuries, with no racial qualifier or restriction.

[Machismo]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest all 9 justices on the Loving Court would look at you like you had three heads if you told them that their case was the original assertion that marriage was a thing between a man and a woman. Indeed, they'd probably point to the decision and say that it is premised almost entirely on the notion that it has been defined that way for centuries, with no racial qualifier or restriction.

And there was a time when justices though that the idea of ruling slavery to be unconstitutional was ludicrous. There was a time when men felt it acceptable to beat their wives. The more recent SCOTUS decision showed just how powerful Loving v. Virginia and the 14th Amendment are. That is a good thing.

At the end of the day, we are a more free society because of that ruling. I find it odd that conservatives are so determined to argue against freedom in this country.

I also think that they would think you had three heads, if you told them that we have access to the entirety of human knowledge on a wireless telephone device. Times change, people change, even the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution changes. It was wise of those in the recent ruling to directly link it to Loving v. Virginia.

[Chrysia]

Then explain why there were no gay marriages in Rome or Greece? Those people did more gay shit that today's fraternity

At least two Roman Emperors married men.

[Stormdash]

And there was a time when justices though that the idea of ruling slavery to be unconstitutional was ludicrous. There was a time when men felt it acceptable to beat their wives. The more recent SCOTUS decision showed just how powerful Loving v. Virginia and the 14th Amendment are. That is a good thing.

At the end of the day, we are a more free society because of that ruling. I find it odd that conservatives are so determined to argue against freedom in this country.

I also think that they would think you had three heads, if you told them that we have access to the entirety of human knowledge on a wireless telephone device. Times change, people change, even the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution changes. It was wise of those in the recent ruling to directly link it to Loving v. Virginia.

It might be counter-intuitive, but if you are familiar with the nature of the 14th Amendment due process analysis for determining if something is a "fundamental right", you might consider that if the justices perceived marriage as this very amorphous and undefined thing with no tie to all those old notions, that they would have ended up upholding the anti-miscegenation law because marriage would not have qualified as ingrained in the history and tradition of the society, i.e. not a right so fundamental that interfering or limiting it is itself contrary to the due process of law.

[satimy]

At least two Roman Emperors married men.

Nero did, to my knowledge gay marriage was basically an older man fucking a 12 year old boy until he came of age. Outside of Nero I can't remember any same sex marriages being considered marriage in Roman culture or law

[Chrysia]

Nero did, to my knowledge gay marriage was basically an older man fucking a 12 year old boy until he came of age. Outside of Nero I can't remember any same sex marriages being considered marriage in Roman culture or law

That was Greece, and it wasn't considered marriage in Greek culture.

It's not like we have widespread Roman marriage contracts. There's zero evidence Nero's marriage was considered uncouth in any way.

[Machismo]

It might be counter-intuitive, but if you are familiar with the nature of the 14th Amendment due process analysis for determining if something is a "fundamental right", you might consider that if the justices perceived marriage as this very amorphous and undefined thing with no tie to all those old notions, that they would have ended up upholding the anti-miscegenation law because marriage would not have qualified as ingrained in the history and tradition of the society, i.e. not a right so fundamental that interfering or limiting it is itself contrary to the due process of law.

It's not even about if marriage is a fundamental right, even though that was stated in Loving v. Virginia. It's about the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage, as it pertained to the United States government was undefined. Organized religion sought to place it into the government, so as to provide financial benefits for Christians. However, they never thought to specifically define what it meant in the eyes of the government. Since they were the strong majority, they must have assumed that it would always simply be what they wanted it to be. All that changed in the 1970's, and they had to react. They then pushed laws to ban gay marriage. In the end, you have one group of people whining because they are no longer allowed to oppress another group of people.

In the end, people will use any reason they want to justify their bigotry. And make no mistake, that is exactly what this is about. The end goal, is to get the government out of marriage entirely. The first step to getting there, is to make everyone equal under the laws you wish to eliminate. If wee are to say that laws banning gay marriage are justified, then we can just as easily say that laws banning athiests or Jews from being married are justified.

[Cyberowl]

Ahh Ted Cruz.. I'll never forget the video he put out showing the poor disenfranchised victims of gay marriage being legalized.

I almost forgot how disgusting Ted Cruz is...almost. Such a hideous scumbag.