Was the Supreme Court decision on marriage laws illegal and unconstitutional?

This is not a debate on gay marriage. This is not a question for you to voice your support/disapproval of gays or gay marriage. This is something different.

Was the decision by the Supreme Court for gay marriage to be legal nationwide illegal and unconstitutional?

Allow me to explain:
The United States Constitution describes and protects many rights, like the Bill of Rights for people. States within the US also have rights reserved for them that the US government cannot impede on, for example, education. Marriage laws are considered a "state right", as in the federal government (executive, judicial, and legislative branches) cannot force or change marriage laws in individual states without first having passed an amendment to the Constitution allowing them to do so.

Here is the problem with the Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court can only interpret laws and determine their constitutionality, they cannot write laws (legislative) nor enforce them (executive). The Supreme Court literally wrote a law, defying the constitution, and enforced the law. There was no amendment. Whether you agree with their decision or not, this is not okay. The US Constitution is the Supreme law of the land; it governs hundreds of millions of people and the world's most powerful nation. You cannot just ignore it or go against it whenever you want. It's already been established the US government has been breaking the law and doing unconstitutional things for many decades, especially trampling on the rights of the US citizens. Why does nobody care about this? Everyone was so busy rejoicing/despising in the decision they forgot to even check if it was allowed (looking at the trees instead of the whole forest). What must it take for citizens to not be okay with the Constitution being violated and their rights swept under the rug?

Please discuss your opinion below. Remember, there are no wrong opinions, and remember this is not about gay marriage itself but the way it was legalized.


2|0
23|49

Most Helpful Girl

  • No, it wasn't illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's decision was to say that it is unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry. That's their job; to interpret the constitution and decide what's legal and illegal. They didn't create a law, and it's not up to them to enforce it, but they did say any laws preventing gay marriage are unconstitutional. So it's illegal in this country to deny gay couples the right to marry.

    It's not different from many other cases and issues in the past. Brown v. Board of Education for example, way back. When it was ruled that separate schools for black and white students are unconstitutional. The court didn't create a law saying you must stop segregating schools, but by deeming that practice unconstitutional, states weren't allowed to have those types of segregated schools anymore. Doesn't matter what individual states wanted, it's not in line with our Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, and so it's out.

    I believe they were both decisions made based in part on the 14th amendment, which reads in section 1:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Marriage equality ensures that this amendment is upheld.

    7|9
    3|3
    • As you can see, decisions on education and marriage aren't exclusively the concern of states.

    • Show All
    • Wow, there are a bunch of commenters here who need to go back to Elementary School Social Studies.

    • Yeah... I was a little surprised myself that many people seem completely unaware of how the Supreme Court functions and what it did in this case. I mean, it's not like I'm extremely knowledgeable about our court system and judicial review (it's not my field), but even I know this much.

What Girls Said 22

  • They didn't make new laws, they enforced the fourteenth amendment. Banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, because it deprived homosexuals of basic rights that heterosexuals have, simply because of prejudices.

    Fourteenth Amendment
    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    7|5
    0|1
    • Actually a gay man or women was still able to marry a person of the opposite gender. Straight or gay were not allowed to marry the same sex. There was no discrimination.

    • Show All
    • @cipher no thats not equality. I think gays were fighting over a definition. They were already granted civil union so honestly it was very petty on the gays part.

    • @dudeman: Have you ever taken a history course? Remember that whole "separate but equal" thing. Remember how it did not actually work out that way in practice? Yeah.

  • They didn't write a law: they determined whether state laws banning same-sex couples marriage equality were a violation of the 14th Amendment.
    I fully believe that all we had to do was look at Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that establishes marriage as a fundamental right thus banning laws that prevent interracial marriage, to see that banning same sex marriages was a violation of the 14th Amendment. This became a given once the Windsor ruling came out in 2013 making sexual orientation a protected class. We made Utah ban polygamy as a condition to join the union, we told the south they couldn't arrest people for marrying outside their race, now we've told states they can't freak out because two people with the same genitals would like to sign a paper saying they share financial and legal responsibilities as one entity. It isn't a stretch of the Constitution or out-of-precedent restriction on states' powers by any means.

    6|2
    1|1
  • I truly think that the whole shabang over the new gay marriage law & the confederates flag is just to take everyone's attention away from the OTHER new laws that they have been passing. everyone's so excited about gay marriage but when they get all upset bc they found out what the government has really been doing, I hope no one gets butthurt about it

    2|4
    1|0
    • Yeah I agree lol. Plus we re worried about all this and a Marine Recruiting station in Chattanooga got all shot up in a possible terrorist attack and MSNBC is more worried about the Confederate Flag. I swear some of the media is a fourth branch of government. Also what about our nuclear deal with Iran with lax regulations and lax inspections. Yeah let them have nuclear weapons, no problem, the Confederate flag is a bigger threat to America! This world is messed up. The hipocracy is astounding.

  • "A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy." - Justice Antonin Sealia

    The people saying "so what it was going to happen eventually" need to realize that slowly but surely our rights are being taken away. Its not going to happen over night but one day you'll wake up and find that your right to vote is no longer available, unelected government officials will make all the rules. You know what that sounds like?

    The people who claim it's legal based on separation of church and STATE, how is the government not controlling what happens in a church more separated than the government forcing churches to do something (allowing gay marriage). Because to me, the government forcing the church to do something doesn't sound like separation of church and state.

    Yes it is a basic human right to love whoever you choose and no one should be able to stop you from that. However, it is also a basic human right to disagree with differing viewpoints and forcing all states to allow gay marriage is wrong, and the way the country went about it was completely illegal.

    2|2
    2|2
    • Correct me if I am wrong but "forcing churches to do something (allowing gay marriage)" is not what they said, what they said is, the state can't make it illegal for churches to choose to allowing gay marriage or for gay marriage to take place outside the domain of churches. A church can refuse to marry a gay coups, but they can't prevent the couple for getting married elsewhere.

    • First off, Scalia is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a conservative strict constructionist who lets his personal views influence his politics far too much.

      But anyhow, no one is forcing the churches to do shit. You pretty clearly have no idea how our government works. By your logic, half of Supreme Court cases could be considered illegal because their forcing states to abide by the constitution. And that is actually what they're doing. It's not the Supreme Court simply making up stuff, it's them saying my what the constitution says on this matter and forcing the states to abide by that.

  • The decision was constitutional because denying couples the right to a legal marriage just based of sexual orientation (and religious values, let's be real here) was unconstitutional. Just like how back in the 60's denying black people the right to marry white people was unconstitutional.

    7|4
    1|4
    • You're also missing the point of this question. THIS IS NOT A GAY MARRIAGE DEBATE. It's a debate on whether or not the Supreme Court has a right to go against all 50 states to pass something legal or not.

    • Show All
    • @cipher42 Because we're not talking about gay marriage, we're talking about the Supreme Court and their legal rights. So, yes, she did miss the point of the question.

    • Actually no I didn't, if you look back you can see that I answered your question in my second response :). But I'll say it again. What the supreme court did WAS CONSTITUTIONAL because it is their job to rule over all the states in matters relating to the constitution and marriage is one of them. Your question is multi faceted yet you're expecting only one answer.

  • It was ridiculously illegal and unconstitutional. Especially considering some states had already voted on it. I fear for our republic with actions like this and endless executive orders. The legislative branch is all but useless.

    7|6
    9|5
    • You're exactly right. The problem is, people can't separate their views from the supreme court.

      Regardless whether someone supports gay marriage or not (I support the freedom for gays to marry), it was illegal and unconstitutional to do so.

    • So then do you think the supreme court's ruling against banning interracial marriage almost 50 years ago was unconstitutional too? Do you even know anything about the constitution and about Supreme Court precedent? My guess is no, as if you did I'd think you'd be aware that whether the states already voted on it doesn't matter because the constitution does apply to the states, at least the parts of it relevant here.

  • I wish this could be a poll.

    I think the decision was constitutional and legal.

    10|5
    4|13
    • Can you explain to us why?

    • Show All
    • One of the job duties of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. They were within their rights to come to the decision.

    • @Cincinnatiredsfan: the Supreme Court absolutely does have a say in marriage. That has been the case for a very, very long time. No new jurisdiction was established in this case.

      @ellbell8ls: no, there was not. Equality does not mean treating everyone exactly the same, but rather attending differently to everyone's different needs.

  • I feel this ruling on gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom.

    Not arguing either standpoint, just saying.

    8|6
    11|7
    • It's not like the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in defiance of your religious freedom.

    • Show All
    • Elaborate more about how its not threatening religious freedom?

      exministries. tv/millionaire-gay-couple-sues-to-force-church-wedding/

    • I am not sure if I should cry a river of blood just because the overly religious people no longer get the right to hate and discriminate against others just because they think discrimination is totally okay and justified by their beliefs. By that mote, we are threatening the religious freedom of ISIS by telling them not to cut off the hands of people with swords. Who are we to tell them that their God and beliefs are "less right"?

  • No matter what you do nobody is going to be happy and your just going to have people throw huge hissy fits over things not being right. Well it's either you make one group happy or you make another one. you can't make both happy in this situation.

    Well the southern states wanted to keep slavery in the 1800's. look at how that turned out. The south seceding from the north. We had a huge bloody war that put families against each other, and the north won. Getting rid of slavery.

    So unless the churches want to start another civil war. Nothing anyone can do about it.

    0|2
    0|0
  • I'm not an advocate of gay marriage by any means but isn't there something called "equal protection under the law" in the constitution, which says that laws must be applied equally? This clause, as I understand it, would apply to the states and was used to expand voting rights. I'm no expert but I think there is a constitutional basis for such a decision.

    2|1
    0|1
  • There is such a thing as separation between the church and the state. The south would have never legalized gay marriage if they were left to make their own decision.

    5|1
    1|1
    • But other states would've and gay couples would've been free to live there.

    • Show All
    • @bellegirl21 I think it is crazy to assume that in order to get something done that should be a basic right, you have to move to a new state. It is like saying all oppressed Islamic women have to do is move to another country.

    • spot on response @mesonfielde

  • I think it was uncostitutional and illegal to do it.

    I don't believe in LGTB rights, even when I'm a bisexual myself.

    People like me (bisexual) and similars, do not need special rights, we only need the ones everyone have, we are fucking humans, human rights are enough.

    2|3
    5|3
    • They werent special rights. Just giving you the same rights as anyone else.

    • Exactly. The government has no business dictating marriage in the first place.

  • It was illegal and unconstitutional!

    3|7
    5|3
  • Honestly, who cares if its unconstitutional? It doesn't hurt anyone even if they did 'write a law', I would think that equality amongst ALL people is just a little more important than some overly religious, out of date document that we don't really look at or appreciate in the way we should anyway...

    2|1
    3|4
    • It matters very much if they pass something that is unconstitutional. Government officials can not be allowed to be placed above the law. Government officials being bound by the constitution is what protects the American people from the whims of their government.

    • The government officials are gonna do pretty much whatever the fuck they want anyway so at this point it doesn't really matter unless we decide to protest or something

  • I say it was illegal and unconstitutional. I dont understand why it was done anyway if leaders before wanted this country to be include God. This law made is going against God and many other religions. It is going to cause a lot more problems then people think. This country is about to hit rock bottom. I believe that we have way too much freedom in some ways.

    2|3
    11|4
    • You're 15 so I'll excuse your ignorance, but the U. S. isn't a theocracy. God isn't a part of our country's ideals.

    • Show All
    • I've read those out of context quotes of Thomas Jefferson, as well as the treaty, and they are extremely weak arguments and at best just a distraction.

      The Declaration of Independence clearly states that rights come from the creator, not from the government. They wouldn't be talking about rights from a creator if they didn't believe there was one. That makes no sense. Obviously they believe in a creator.

    • @Ratiocinative: so what? The Declaration of Independence has literally no influence in how we interpret our laws. It most certainly does not overrule the constitution. If you had any idea what you were talking about at all, I think you'd know that.

      Also, you do realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with you about the authority of Thomas Jefferson's words as well? They ruled a long time ago that his words about the first amendment establishing separation of church and state can be held to be an authoriatative declaration of the intent of the first amendment. So excuse me if I somehow don't trust your authority (well, flimsy excuses really) on the matter.

  • Your absolutely correct!! There are many other similar issues which have been conducted and pushed through without following proper protocol.
    Ex. 1. Gay marriage
    2. Illegal immigrants can get drivers liscense
    3. Illegal immigrants can vote

    There are many many more!!

    I'm not saying I dislike the laws however I hate how they have come to be. It's not the way of a democracy in MY opinion.

    0|1
    4|2
    • Illegal immigrants can't vote.

      The SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with illegal immigrants or their perceived rights, it only barred states from adding additional identification requirements and registrations beyond the federal registration process that is already in place. Legal immigrants and naturalized citizens were being hindered and prohibited from registering to vote as a result of those laws.

      That was a big deal because there's been a history of abusive voting registration laws designed to impede minorities from voting. Lots of citizens don't have passports, we're not required to have them. Voting is an inalienable right, so prohibiting people from voting because they don't have non-required ID is a gross violation of that right.

      If an illegal immigrant gets caught trying to vote they can still either get sent to prison or deported.

    • He has made it where they are eligible to receive social security. This has given them a social security number. They can get a drivers license which is a photo identification. There is a list released by democrats showing the blue states which they can vote in. Obama has stated many times that that he can and plans on using "executive decision" to allow this in the upcoming presidential election. I'm aware that it is illegal for them to vote. However, it's shady of the democrats to release that list and allow them to obtain the proper identification to do so. This question was about shady (unconstitutional) behavior. I was agreeing and stating examples as to why I agree with the question asker.

    • How on earth was gay marriage pushed through without proper protocol? The issue went through the lower courts, then ended up picked up by the Supreme Court, which did hear the case fully and properly and made its ruling. That is absolutely proper protocol.

  • Suddenly GAG became law school. PFFT.

    1|0
    0|0
  • i agree with Justice Roberts dissent

    0|0
    0|0
  • I don't know if it was legal but I do think gay marriage should be.

    1|1
    0|2
  • Yeah it was. Obama had no right to rewrite an amendment.

    0|0
    1|3
    • Oooooh boy. First off, Obama didn't do shit. He's the executive branch, the Supreme Court is the judicial branch. The judicial branch is what ruled here. Secondly, what amendment? Their decision was literally based upon the constitution, no rewriting involved.

    • @cipher42 you finished? Damn libtard.

    • I'm only stating facts here. You know pretty clearly have no idea how our government actually works, so I really don't think you're justified in calling me childish names for pointing that out.

  • There's always a loop hole around these kind of things. Who really cares if they broke a law..

    1|0
    1|1
  • Good post. i think you hit it right on. To bad its nearly impossible to have a serious discussion about it without being called "phobic". The courts are clearly out of control.

    7|3
    3|1

What Guys Said 49

  • There are many areas that are left to states to set their own laws. However, those laws cannot violate the constitutional rights of the people. Long ago there were laws that regulated marriage of blacks and forbade mixed marriages. Those laws were found to be unconstitutional. Finding those laws unconstitutional was not enacting new laws, but finding that the old laws violated the constitution and were therefore unconstitutional and void. Most of us agree that that decision was good and proper.

    The current situation is similar. It is a case of finding that people's rights were being violated by those laws, and the laws therefore were unconstitutional and void. No new laws were enacted. The decision of the Supreme Court was legal and constitutional.

    11|3
    0|1
    • I'm not an American, I'm a supporter of gay marriage, and I was actually close to wondering if the Asker's point made sense. But what you've explained here makes total sense. This should be MH, regardless of one's position on gay marriage, as this really explains it perfectly.

    • Show All
    • @Northeast106 - The Constitution is basically a living, growing document, with the built in power to adjust as deemed necessary (through all the requirements of creating and including amendments). The
      Tenth Amendment states that the powers of the federal government include only those given to it by the Constitution. The Constitution allows the federal government to step in in matters addressed by the Constitution. And the Fourteenth Amendment on Equal Protection brings unequal treatment under the protection of the Constitution. So the Tenth Amendment states that the federal government his the control only on matters addressed in the Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment brings this issue under coverage of the Constitution.

    • @Northeast106: The 10th amendment is honestly pretty weak. Considering the existence of the fourteenth amendment, it's pretty clear that same sex marriage absolutely is something that can be regulated by the Federal government. Plus, there is a huge amount of precedent in terms of marriage being something that the constitution does regulate. Do you also disagree with the supreme court's legalization of interracial marriage in Loving v Virginia?

  • Two constitutional issues were in play:

    1) The right of citizens to be treated equally before the law regardless of which state they reside in. This principle is known by the name "equal protection".

    2) The obligation of each state to recognize the duly enacted laws of other states.

    Consider a gay couple that married in Minnesota and subsequently moved to Texas. Just because other gay couples could not marry in Texas, does not mean that THIS couple is no longer married.

    All the rights of marriage are possessed by this couple -- Texas can't deny it. The US Constitution obligates Texas to observe the duly enacted laws of Minnesota. Texas can't pick and choose which of Minnesota's laws are worthy of being honored by the State of Texas.

    This sets up an intractable situation in Texas. Presumably, every gay couple in Texas COULD go to Minnesota and obtain a marriage that Texas was obligated to observe. Then every gay couple in Texas would be married. Yet the same couples COULD NOT claim such a right to marriage in Texas. So we would have two classes of gay couples in Texas -- those that could afford the time and money to travel to marry & those who could not afford it. This is not a rational distinction by the state of Texas. Rather, it is a clear violation of constitutional principle of equal protection.

    No church is impacted.
    No heterosexual marriages are impacted.

    Instead, Texas (as well as all other states) are obligated to treat their resident US citizens equally before the law.

    4|0
    0|0
  • http://i.imgur.com/yXyerzM.jpg

    Your opinion is, quite simply, completely uninformed and ignorant. You clearly don't know what the actual decision was, nor do you know the content of the 14th amendment.

    The SCOTUS decision didn't write a law. The plaintiffs held that bans against same sex marriage were a violation of the 14th amendment, in short, they challenged the constitutionality of the laws in question, which as you said is the job of the SCOTUS to determine.

    The majority decision found such laws WERE a clear violation of that amendment and deemed them unconstitutional. It also found that the laws violated both the due process clause.

    Marriage laws are not a state right, marriage is an individual right, and the decision cited extensive legal precedent from previous decisions to support it. The constitution implicitly grants rights to states when they are not explicitly reserved in the constitution, but the constitution can be amended to expand the rights and the scope of the federal government.

    4|2
    0|0
    • And here's the full text of the decision, not some pundit's biased interpretation and obfuscation of it:

      www.supremecourt.gov/.../14-556_3204.pdf

    • Their legal reasoning was pathetic. The 14th Amendment addresses equal protection under the law--that is, the equal protection of citizens under existing laws of the states. It says nothing about ensuring some metaphysical sense of "equality" through some perceived consistency in state laws. Otherwise, this "equal protection" clause would apply equally to pedophile marriage, illegal immigrant voting rights, or any other form of nonsense that strays far from the original intent of the 14th amendment.

    • If you want to disagree with their legal reasoning, you have minority dissenters to commiserate with. But to question their reading of the law is not the same as to accuse them of violating the constitution and writing a new law. (QA said "they literally wrote a new law," which they literally did NOT do).

      Anyone with a high school reading level should be able to look at the decision and see that they tested the case against existing law and precedent as per their mandate in the constitution.

  • I have been keeping up to date on the governments problems for a while now, and among many unconstitutional things the marriage thing was one of them. I don't agree with what they did and I was and still am highly against it. At the very least it should have been up to the states and left for them to decide individually.

    6|4
    5|1
    • That is what they have been doing, and apparently their decisions were deemed unconstitutional.

    • Show All
    • @northeast106: Aaand you've lost all credibility. Marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution at all, and in fact there is a very long Supreme Court history determining that the Constitution does in fact regulate state decisions about marriage. So you pretty obviously just don't know what you're talking about.

    • @cipher42 actually you might be right. I can't find it anywhere, I have a constitution but it includes other documents, including the articles of confederation in with it. Think I mixed up where I read that specifically. I really should source things before debating. I epic failed that one.

  • I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges that discovered a brand new, never-before-found "Constitutional right" to homosexual marriage. Whatever you think about whether homosexuals should be able to get married or not, that was a process that was occurring in the states according to their respective rights under the 10th Amendment. Some states (a minority) had chosen to redefine marriage to allow for homosexuals to get married. Over 30 states had passed state constitutional amendments reaffirming what marriage has always been, or passed laws through the legislative process reaffirming traditional marriage. What the Supreme Court did wiped all that out. A bare 5 member majority of the Court --- 5 unelected judges --- decided this issue for the entirety of the nation. In doing so they certainly didn't base their opinion on the U. S. Constitution, because the idea that the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship and equal protection of the laws to the freed slaves) requires every state to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple is absurd. What the majority in Obergefell did was to simply take their personal policy preference and issue a decree that is binding on the entire country.

    0|0
    1|0
    • Do you not understand that what the states decided doesn't mean shit here? The constitution, at least the parts relevant to this matter, overrules unconstitutional state decisions. And there have already been previous cases determining that the Supreme Court has the right to overrule state decisions about what marriage is.

  • It's the Supreme Court. According to the Constitution, they are the ones who decide whether laws are in accordance with the Constitution. They decided that denying the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples was a violation of the equal-protection clause of the 14th amendment. You can disagree, but you aren't on the court and don't get a vote. If the executive branch decides that to ignore the authority of the Supreme Court, it's game over for constitutional government -- we would then be living in a fascist state.

    2|1
    0|0
  • But doesn't the the declaration of independence say that every citizen has the right to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If that's the case, then denying someone the freedom to marriage the person they want cause that makes them happy, will go against one of the bases the US was built on.

    2|0
    0|2
    • right to* forget about the "be"

    • Show All
    • The Declaration of Independence doesn't actually have any kind of legal influence. But the constitution does mandate legal equality, and that's where the ruling came from.

  • It should be legal, but churches should be able to refuse to hold gay weddings cuz I believe in the separation of church and state

    3|2
    0|0
  • It's constitutional. It's even politically correct. Who gets to decide if people want to get married? The church? Random guy in the street? Some old politician? You? The only this the nation can do is recognise it or not.

    If they don't recognise gay marriage then why do they have to recognise ANY marraige? You can not use the Church definition if marriage here because of "separation of state and church". The only thing left is the public, hence a referendum would be a nice choice but a court ruling would work too since it would be a lot less expensive and carries a lesser chance of splitting the population.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Short sweet and to the point. It was overstepping of the courts power they are to interpret the law not make laws and force them on individual states. Which is exactly what they did.

    5|0
    3|1
  • The Supreme Court's main function, essentially, is to interpret the Constitution and in that vein, to act as the supreme law of the land. This is
    exactly what they did.

    Honestly, I feel like the "it's unconstitutional" crowd is just sucking on sour grapes. Live and let live.

    0|1
    0|0
  • You need to go back to law school. The Supreme Court didn't create any laws. As supreme arbiters of what is Constitutional and what is not (That is their job as fully established in Marbury v. Madison.), they ruled that existing laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional. It was the correct decision.

    1|0
    0|1
  • Okay your logic is probably totally correct but if it is illegal why hasn't anyone challenged it - Seriously in Ireland the merest hint of unconstitutionality and the opponents are in court first thing in the morning to challenge it.

    0|1
    0|0
    • They sort of have. In our court system, things generally make their way through lower court's first before getting to the Supreme Court. Usually the Supreme Court doesn't even pick up a case until there's disagreement among lower courts about it. But once the Supreme Court has ruled, that's it, at least until the constitution is amended or the Supreme Court has good reason to rehear the case (such as new data).

  • The good news is, blacks and minorities will no stand in the pedestal. Watch as hate crimes, murders, lynching, etc. will be acted upon gays.

    Religious freedom weighs more heavy than gender equality. I mean look at the history of court battles, EEOC. Religious discrimination or religious freedom awards more in punitive damages. Millions of dollars AKA early retirement.

    0|0
    2|0
  • It was completely unconstitutional.. No doubt about it. See I think the gay rights movement has forgotten equality isn't a one way street, you can't have what you want and forget about everyone else. That is called being biased.. Like it or not religious freedom is in the constitution, you can't simply not care about it because it suits you.. You look at people funny when they don't accept you and sue them when they dare make a choice to not serve you.. Who made you the judge? Because you had some "struggles"? Join the damn club.. Equality isn't equal for some, it's equal for all...

    2|0
    4|0
    • Prohibiting the government from blocking gay marriage does not violate your right to practice your religion. The first amendment applies to you, an individual human, not the government. The government doesn't have a religious belief to violate because it's not allowed to have one.

  • Um... how would u defend a stance against gay marriage, without using a religious argument?

    That's the point. Outside of a religious standpoint, discriminating against gays to marry isn't possible. The Supreme Court ruling pretty much said, "religion cannot be used as a reason to deny gay marriage, therefore it is allowable".

    ---

    Why do the religious anti-gay-marriage people care so damn much about same sex couples getting married?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Let me tell you were you're wrong. The Supreme Court didn't pass a law making gay marriage legal, way it did was find the laws the states had making it illegal to be unconstitutional. Which was well with in their rights. The same can be applied to the separate but equal laws during the civil rights movement. All those laws were found to be unconstitutional which made my null and void.

    3|0
    0|0
  • No, as the ultimate reason for the system was checks and balances. That the courts could check congress if it passes a law that is unfair. It's the courts job to defend the individual from legislative excesses. Think of it this way, if the majority of the population of the US decides that YOU should die, and passes a law just to kill you, what branch of the government do you have recourse to? That's right, the Judicial.

    1|0
    0|1
  • You don't ever give up, do you?

    If you don't want gay marriage, don't have one. Nobody forces you.

    0|0
    0|0
  • The same applies to laws around marijuanna. Federal law trumps state law.

    However your argument is around legislation. But this is a court case. When it's decided at the Supreme Court level, it applies to all levels, meaning it becomes law.

    However, I see it applying to the Bill of Rights. Everyone has the right to happiness. This should include marriage. 50 years ago, the same topic applied to interracial marriage. If it makes two people happy, why not?

    0|0
    0|0
  • The LGBT lobbyists are very powerful that's why they got it to the Supreme Court. Personally I don't think marriage is a basic human right and based on the way people see it in the US it should've only been legalized through state wide referendums. The LGBTs don't want referendums because they claim that "rights should not be voted on" however when the referendum is in their favour like in Ireland than its completely fine.

    Truth is whether you like it or not, gay marriage would have eventually been legalized one way or another since most people don't care what others do in the bedroom. The Supreme Court merely sped up the process.

    0|0
    2|0
  • The supreme Court thought it constitutional so who would you appeal to?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I agree. But this country is going insane right now. It does not surprise me at all that they would do something like this. When it comes to regulations, bureaucracy and rules, the public is completely subject to them. Somehow, the people governing over the public is exempt from it. Why I am not sure.

    0|0
    0|0
  • If it truly was unconstitutional I'm sure there's a Xerxe's size lawyer horde marching to court to battle for a dismissal.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It was unconstitutional and illegal to have 5 judges ignore the peoples voice and decide what's best for everyone else. The SCOTUS is a federal power grab and the next step for them is to persecute Christians, then steal our property and weapons as they have been doing for the past century. Our early presidents have warned us against tyrants like these, and unfortunately our situation in America will get much worse before it gets better. New laws are being introduced to protect our religious freedoms but so far they're being ignored. Some day, when peaceful protest is ineffective, violence will be our only option.

    0|0
    3|0
    • Are you really this uninformed? The Supreme Court was intended to be removed from the political leanings of the public. That's why they have life tenure. Have you ever taken a decent government course? Cause it sure doesn't sound like it.

    • The dissenting judge would agree with me that this is a federal power grab, whether gay marriage is "right" or not. I got this idea from THEM actually, and I'm sure they aren't "this uninformed." They're well versed with government law.

      It also isn't farfetched, or "uninformed," to believe that Christians will be persecuted; it's ALREADY HAPPENING, just look at the gay man suing bible companies for 70 million bucks! It takes decent foresight to see this coming! Understand?
      www.catholic.org/news/hf/family/story.php?id=62225

  • Because it's 2015... You do realize how messed up it is we were denying people this right? Would you say the same when they allowed interracial marriage? Who cares about made up laws when we did what's right.

    Stop trying to follow the book word for word.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Following that book "word for word" is the only thing that keeps our nation from state-sponsored genocide and complete chaos.

    • Uhm... No it's not. Lol... you really think genocide will happen if the constitution was tossed out today?

  • Not unconstitutional or illegal. Keeping someone from exercising their amendments is what is unconstitutional.

    1|0
    0|0
  • The better question is, is Judicial Review even constitutional? Since when does the Supreme Court have the right to do any of this? Marbury V Madison declare it... but is declaring your own power legitimate in a constitutional republic?

    0|0
    0|0
  • it's the highest court. it can make rulings on courts to say they cannot disallow it.

    1|1
    0|0
  • It was completely unconstitutional

    1|1
    2|0
  • More from Guys
    19
Loading...