Ginsburg: Gay marriage shows Constitu...

Ginsburg: Gay marriage shows Constitution's genius

There are 174 comments on the NBC12 story from Sep 6, 2013, titled Ginsburg: Gay marriage shows Constitution's genius. In it, NBC12 reports that:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently officiated at a friend's same-sex wedding, told a Philadelphia audience Friday that growing acceptance of gay marriage reflects the "genius" of the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC12.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#123 Sep 14, 2013
Muay Thai Champs wrote:
<quoted text>.... The constitution makes no allowance for same sex marriage, that was Gibgsburg's lesbianism and bigoted hate speaking.
Please provide the exact location in the Constitution were gay folks were specifically excluded form equal protection under this country's laws. Thanks.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#124 Sep 14, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
I meant one point, that women and men think entirely differently. I am aware that certain stimuli will affect men's brains differently from women's as far as which part of the brain gets involved. I am sure there are many other differences as well and will say that I am certain that you realize those things as well, just so there are no misunderstandings that lead to needless accusations.
"Entirely differently" is an exaggeration, and you know it, and there are almost as wide variations between members of each gender across the spectrum, as there are between men and women.

And none of that has anything to do with marriage law, as there are no tests required to ascertain if a couple thinks differently or similarly enough to obtain a marriage license.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#125 Sep 14, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>That is what was declared and not according to what is actually written in the Constutution. This sounds more like a preconceived judical interpretational philosophy than a constitutionally derived one. You will never find compelling interest in the Constitution. It is just another means to try to make the Constitution say what is doesn't.
What is actually written in the Constitution is that all persons within a state's jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

You are seemingly entirely ignorant of the US Constitution, otherwise you would understand that the US Supreme Court is that last word in interpreting the US Constitution. I'm sorry that you disagree with the rulings of the high court, but that doesn't change the reality that their opinion carries the weight of law, yours does not.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#128 Sep 14, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>It still says nothing about a compelling interest.
No, it doesn't use that specific phrase. On the truly darkside, it doesn't use the word "corporation", either.

I'm waiting for that list of all occurrences of the word "Justice" in the Constitution.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#129 Sep 14, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>The hell it doesn't. The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution according to what is written and not according to their own whims. Blantant disregard of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment. There are a good many things including the Federal Reserve which is totally and blatantly unconstitutional and nobody has the intestinal fortitude to challenge it.
ANYTHING is grounds for impeachment. Anything at all.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#130 Sep 14, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text> ... SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction as to LAW and FACT. Their power of judicial review and the legal principles they establish for implementing such review derive from this authority granted by the constitution ...
You left out "EQUITY", and it's extremely important.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#131 Sep 14, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are speaking about the brain between a man's legs......then yes, it is easy to see that certain stimuli will affect it and make it search for one thing and one thing only.......it makes them irrational when to much blood is rushed to a particular part of the anatomy and there is no other control put in place......lol!!!
Males were given enough blood for only one brain or the other to work at a time.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#132 Sep 14, 2013
See! This conversation was getting actually REALLY GOOD ... and the trolls show up.

Please ignore them ... for a change!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#133 Sep 14, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Males were given enough blood for only one brain or the other to work at a time.
Yes, I would tend to agree with ya......lol;)

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#134 Sep 14, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
You left out "EQUITY", and it's extremely important.
"Law" and "fact" are specifically mentioned in Article III of the constitution pertaining to SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction. The poster to whom I was responding has been insisting on "where something is written in the constitution" so I gave it to him.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#135 Sep 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps that's because Article II pertains to the Presidency, not the Judiciary.
The relevant language is found in Article III which states:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction as to LAW and FACT. Their power of judicial review and the legal principles they establish for implementing such review derive from this authority granted by the constitution.
<quoted text>
Because the authority to establish voting qualifications was left to the states, not given to the federal government. The 14th amendment did grant citizenship to former slaves and thus made them eligible to vote if allowed by state law.
<quoted text>
Because marriage, unlike voting, is deemed a fundamental right and therefore subject to much stricter rules in order for states or the federal government to restrict or infringe exercising of the right to marry. Voting is not deemed a fundamental right, hence the reason it can be taken away from convicted felons while felons are not prohibited from marrying.
<quoted text>
But SCOTUS having ruled marriage a fundamental right, puts that right outside the ability of the state to infringe or restrict its exercise by citizens except in cases on a compelling government interest. SCOTUS' ruling has the same effect as if written in the constitution.
<quoted text>
You really need to retake high school civics and not sleep through the part that discusses how constitutional rulings of SCOTUS are the law of the land just as much as what is written in the constitution itself.
Article II was a typo. I meant Article III. And your conclusion is a stretch and not all Supreme court justices follow the doctrine of "compelling interest" (whatever that means) anyway. "Compelling interest" is a judicial philosophy that was predated by over 140 years by the Constitution. There is still no consensus as to what it means anyway. You really need to educate yourself about the issues that were discussed prior to the writing of the Constitution in order to get a better grip about the intent of its framers as opposed to the modernistic reinterpretation of it.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#136 Sep 15, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
"Entirely differently" is an exaggeration, and you know it, and there are almost as wide variations between members of each gender across the spectrum, as there are between men and women.
And none of that has anything to do with marriage law, as there are no tests required to ascertain if a couple thinks differently or similarly enough to obtain a marriage license.
Do we really need to engage in a debate over semantics which will inevitably end up with an inconclusive finding? We could quibble over technicalities for the rest of our lives.

In the interest of trying to reach an agreement with you on the subject, I will restate my belief in this manner: There tends to be substantial differences in the way women generally think as opposed to men. Is that better?

Let me also say that I never intended by statement about the difference between men and women the way you frame it. You read more into it than was intended as I had simply gotten engaged in a discussion with another poster about his college studies that had only a very indirect bearing on the subject at hand.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#137 Sep 15, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
You read more into it than was intended as I had simply gotten engaged in a discussion with another poster about his college studies that had only a very indirect bearing on the subject at hand.
I might be over reaching here, but I hope you were not referring to me being a "His"?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#139 Sep 15, 2013
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
More anti-gay propaganda about a young man who has been dead for quite some time now.......you folks will do anything to prove your point, won't ya?

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#140 Sep 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
ANYTHING is grounds for impeachment. Anything at all.
Read the fine print. This is cut and pasted from the web:

The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Chief Justice William Renquist at the time that impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon was being considered stated that the Supreme Court could reserve the right to overturn any possible conviction of the President back during the Watergate hearings. I suppose violation of one's oath of office by willfully and repeatedly ignoring what is written in the Constitution qualifies for impeachment and removal from office. Our forefathers wiaely included basic standards for grounds for impeachment.

Richard Nixon definitely did commit impeachable offences. Andrew Johnson did nothing morally wrong and was the victim of political vindictiveness. Clinton's impeachment was on very questionable grounds as the perjury charge was based on a response to a question that involved a matter which the judge ruled was inadmissible in the civil suit against the President. It all means that Clinton's lying on a sworn deposition had absolutely no possible effect on the civil suit outcome.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#141 Sep 15, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What is actually written in the Constitution is that all persons within a state's jurisdiction are entitled to equal protection of the laws.
You are seemingly entirely ignorant of the US Constitution, otherwise you would understand that the US Supreme Court is that last word in interpreting the US Constitution. I'm sorry that you disagree with the rulings of the high court, but that doesn't change the reality that their opinion carries the weight of law, yours does not.
It is not me who is ignorant of the Constitution. I simply pointed out a few facts that indicated that equal protection is not as all inclusive as you would like to think. Learning about what the issues were when the Constitution and its amendments were being considered will go a long way to better understanding what its framers intended.

If one only considered the text of Amendment XIV and ignored the historical context and background, I suppose one could have a possible argument for declaring that it applies to gay marriage. That is where we differ as I believe that the Constitution needs to be understood according to its intended purpose and not simply text alone. We have many historical accounts of the debate that went on about how the Constitution and its amendments were debated and how and why they agreed to the final wording which usually makes it very clear how it was intended to be construed.

flbadcatowner

“I call it as I see it.”

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#142 Sep 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
See! This conversation was getting actually REALLY GOOD ... and the trolls show up.
Please ignore them ... for a change!
Trolling is not limited to LGTB opponents.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#143 Sep 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
"Law" and "fact" are specifically mentioned in Article III of the constitution pertaining to SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction. The poster to whom I was responding has been insisting on "where something is written in the constitution" so I gave it to him.
Of course, and very nicely done, too.

But the SCotUS's authority to sit in Equity links that with the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances in the Bill of Rights, and forms the framework for much Judicial decision.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#144 Sep 15, 2013
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Article II was a typo. I meant Article III. And your conclusion is a stretch and not all Supreme court justices follow the doctrine of "compelling interest" (whatever that means) anyway.
SCOTUS has established various rules to guide exercise of the power of judicial review as it pertains to the constitutionality of laws. Justices are by no means bound by these rules and they have evolved over time. However, the Justices typically don't outright ignore or throw them by the wayside due to the fact the rules are precedent and stare decisis acts to moderate abrupt changes in precedent without a legitimate reason for doing so.
flbadcatowner wrote:
"Compelling interest" is a judicial philosophy that was predated by over 140 years by the Constitution.
So? The constitution gave SCOTUS appellate authority as to fact and law. That includes interpreting the meaning of laws and the constitutional which is the supreme law of the land.
flbadcatowner wrote:
There is still no consensus as to what it means anyway.
On the contrary, it has a legal definition. However, as it is applied by individual or groups of judges in appellate courts, there can be some subjectivity in in determining how it apple to a particular set of circumstances. But that's an issue with the law in general, not just the principle of compelling interest.
flbadcatowner wrote:
You really need to educate yourself about the issues that were discussed prior to the writing of the Constitution in order to get a better grip about the intent of its framers as opposed to the modernistic reinterpretation of it.
I have no need to. Your view of how the constitution should be interpreted is not the majority view of jurists today. But feel free to continue whining about it, as that's a protected exercise of your right to free speech.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#145 Sep 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, and very nicely done, too.
But the SCotUS's authority to sit in Equity links that with the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances in the Bill of Rights, and forms the framework for much Judicial decision.
I agree. But if the imbecile to whom I was responding doesn't even believe the actual words of the constitution even when given what he demands, I doubt he has the critical thinking skills to make such abstract connections.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church appoints 93-year-old ex-surgeon a... 6 min Imprtnrd 4
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 1 hr Wondering 823
News Connecticut sees - gay baby boom' 1 hr Wondering 30
News Reading series teaches students about inclusion 1 hr Wondering 11
Thank You Mr President 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 7
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 hr cpeter1313 17,299
News US gay couple sues after getting 'hateful' flye... 10 hr Holy Guacamole 1
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 10 hr GodSmacked 27,290
More from around the web