Community Chat

[esmerelda]

---

@kittymomNC wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

And this is why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did...because the majority now say so?

---

I've tried my best to stay out of this because I didn't start this thread to rehash anything from Friday... but have you conveniently forgotten that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of the United States, not how people vote?

---

I didn't say anything about how people vote.  It's others who keep talking about the majority being in favor of the decision.  Talk to them.

I know very well the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.  I don't know how or what part they interpreted to arrive at the decision they made.

[sfnative]

---

@missy1 wrote:

It was strange the mods let posters congratulate the rainbow ruling, but posters couldn't say they don't agree with it,

---

What missy said here is HUGE, regardless of which side you're on.

MODS: I hope you're taking notice of this, as this practice is truly a political one on the side of QVC.

[JaneMarple]

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

@Lila Belle wrote:

---

@terrier3 wrote:

---

@Northray wrote:

---

@biancardi wrote:

it is not split down the middle to Americans

60-37 in favor.

---

Public support for the legality of same-sex marriage first reached a majority in 2011, when 53% supported it. Since then, support has ranged from 48% to 55%. 

From Gallap

Not an overwhelming majority.  IMO.

---

Majority rule has nothing to do with protecting the rights of people in the minority.

---

*************************************

It seems that many forget that one of the major roles of the SCOTUS, besides being a check on Congress and the WH, is to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.

---

The SCOTUS has but TWO functions.

ONE is to interpret laws passed by Congress.  The SECOND is to determine whether federal and state statutes and exeuctive actions conform to the Constitution. 

Under which function does the "rainbow ruling" fall?

What is your source for the idea that they are to protect the minority from the majority? 

---

In your argument the same rationale could have been used for slavery or the women's right to vote. WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

[Lion]

---

@biancardi wrote:

but it is false equivalency to say that both sides were equally at fault.  People were trying to explain and show what the mods had instructed us to do, and it was ignored.

That is why folks got frustrated and said to start a new thread if they wished to ignore the moderator's instructions on that thread.

---

_______________________________________________

That is the truth of the matter.

Fact was that the mods asked us to keep the thread celebratory in tone.    The *mods* warned us to keep the thread that way.

Fact was that when some wanted to change the tone to NON-celebratory, others asked them to please start another thread -  a NON celebration thread.

That was requested so the celebratory thread could continue w/o getting deleted for NOT following mods' warnings.   

[Maudelynn]

[Lila Belle]

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

@kittymomNC wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

And this is why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did...because the majority now say so?

---

I've tried my best to stay out of this because I didn't start this thread to rehash anything from Friday... but have you conveniently forgotten that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of the United States, not how people vote?

---

I didn't say anything about how people vote.  It's others who keep talking about the majority being in favor of the decision.  Talk to them.

I know very well the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.  I don't know how or what part they interpreted to arrive at the decision they made.

---

*************************

Easy. The 14th Am.

[biancardi]

---

@kittymomNC wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

And this is why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did...because the majority now say so?

---

I've tried my best to stay out of this because I didn't start this thread to rehash anything from Friday... but have you conveniently forgotten that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of the United States, not how people vote?

---

I didn't but someone inaccurately stated that the country was split down the middle.  I was just showing that it isn't

You are correct, that is SCOTUS's job & they ruled due to the 14 amendment.   They are never to be elected, otherwise they can be bought. 

[kittymomNC]

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

@kittymomNC wrote:

---

@esmerelda wrote:

---

And this is why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did...because the majority now say so?

---

I've tried my best to stay out of this because I didn't start this thread to rehash anything from Friday... but have you conveniently forgotten that the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution of the United States, not how people vote?

---

I didn't say anything about how people vote.  It's others who keep talking about the majority being in favor of the decision.  Talk to them.

I know very well the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.  I don't know how or what part they interpreted to arrive at the decision they made.

---

'equal justice under law' 

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Kennedy wrote of same-sex couples in the case. "The Constitution grants them that right."

Take time to read the majority opinion and I guess you can get your answers.

[esmerelda]

You mean this 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.

(There are other sections dealing with representatives and debt, but I think this is the part you mean.)

So what part of this was interpreted to mean what was ruled?

As far as the ruling goes, the ruling (supposedly) came from the interpretation, so we're back at step 1.  So....

[JaneMarple]

Funny how if the ruling had gone the other way, there wouldn't be any arguments against the constitution. I also find it funny that since January of 2009, certain groups are all of a sudden experts on constitutional law.