Can We Defy the Supreme Court? Jesse Ventura on Kim Davis's Violation

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It legitimizes gay marriage but reduces govt oversight ? What makes you think govt won't have a wide open door into personal stuff? People have such odd ideas if what statism is and isn't,

The ruling removed laws from the books. That means LESS government no matter how you want to slice it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I disagree govt will be involved in taxes, divorces, wills, adoptions, etc. so not less oversight. Maybe you meant something different.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I disagree govt will be involved in taxes, divorces, wills, adoptions, etc. so not less oversight. Maybe you meant something different.

Will be involved? The government has already been involved in those activities. None of those activities are anything new.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Can you explain how they overreached their authority?

The legal definition of marriage, up until this recent decision was specifically one man and one woman.

Not ALL states had miscegenation laws.

Overturning the miscegenation laws was not redefining the institution. It was one man, one woman before and it was one man one woman after with no stipulation regarding race permitted. Prior to the removal of miscegenation laws, a man and a woman could not marry in states where interracial marriages were prohibited. I don't think the miscenation decision was an overreach because before and after, marriage was wstill defined as a man and a woman.

Now it isn't. No laws were changed. 5 out of 9 justices decided that the legal definition of marriage was wrong.

I disagree with the appropriateness of their ability to do that by decree.

Let's see what they unilaterally decide to change the definition of next year. I'll be against it happening then, too.

originally posted by: yeahright
The Supreme Court decision does a lot more than define who's permitted to enter into a marriage agreement. It changes the definition of what a marriage is.


....
LEGAL definition of marriage. Or at least, it used to be. That's been flipped upside down in a narrowly decided 5-4 verdict by 9 guys elected by nobody.

IMO.

This from your definition link..

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate marriage by prescribing who can marry and the manner in which marriage can be dissolved.

States may grant an Annulment or divorce on terms that they conclude are proper, because no one has the constitutional right to remain married.

There is a right to marry, however, that cannot be casually denied. States are proscribed from absolutely prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason.

The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, struck down laws in southern states that prohibited racially mixed marriages. These antimiscegenation statutes were held to be unconstitutional in the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010, because they violated Equal Protection of the laws.

Now the reasons that those opposed to "Gay Marriage" seem to have proposed are what?..."My God doesn't like it"..or "Yuck" ??

Neither seem to qualify as "Valid" reasons to deny marriage...and as far back as 50 years ago the SCOTUS was regulating the states in their denial of marriage for "invalid" reasons like race..

So how is this SCOTUS ruling radical or different in any way than the precedent they have set?

a reply to: yeahright

Your legal definition of marriage comes from the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Clinton. That's a law. The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn laws that are deemed to be Unconstitutional. It's not like marriage is defined in the Constitution or anything. So please do what Benevolent Heretic asked and explain how they overreached their authority. You ARE familiar with how Judicial Review works right?

Legal Definition of Marriage

I can't make it any plainer than I have. We disagree, not about the decision but about the way it came about.

You have no problem with it. Great for you.

9 appointed federal employees come to a narrow split on 200+ years of precedence and tradition, about the basic building block of our very society and don't understand how people might have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it mainly because it isn't a topic I worry about, but when there are changes that huge and significant made without the legislative process being followed, there are going to be large segments of society that aren't going to embrace it. I think we'd have gotten more buy-in on the change had it not been a highly contested decree by unelected bureaucrats to social engineer something.

originally posted by: yeahright
I can't make it any plainer than I have. We disagree, not about the decision but about the way it came about.

You have no problem with it. Great for you.

9 appointed federal employees come to a narrow split on 200+ years of precedence and tradition, about the basic building block of our very society and don't understand how people might have a problem with it.

Um... No. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed in the 90's. Before that, there was no legal definition of marriage.

I don't have a problem with it mainly because it isn't a topic I worry about, but when there are changes that huge and significant made without the legislative process being followed, there are going to be large segments of society that aren't going to embrace it. I think we'd have gotten more buy-in on the change had it not been a highly contested decree by unelected bureaucrats to social engineer something.

It doesn't matter. That is how Judicial Review has always worked. Look how long it took the Supreme Court to overturn Segregation.

originally posted by: yeahright
I can't make it any plainer than I have. We disagree, not about the decision but about the way it came about.

You have no problem with it. Great for you.

9 appointed federal employees come to a narrow split on 200+ years of precedence and tradition, about the basic building block of our very society and don't understand how people might have a problem with it.

Respectfully...Anyone is welcome to maintain "precedence and tradition" in their own faith or following.

But the SCOTUS does not have a constitutional mandate to maintain "Precedence" or "Tradition"..It has a mandate to interpret the constitutionality of laws when challenged.

Just sayin...I think part of the disconnect might be thinking the Supreme Court of the United States has a mandate to preserve some Christian value-set. It does not. The Constitution and Justice are not synonymous with Christian tradition.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Um... No. The Defense of Marriage Act was signed in the 90's. Before that, there was no legal definition of marriage.

And there is that too.

a reply to: butcherguy

Has Kim Davis been shot for treason and/or insurrection?

John Brown was not killed for his opposition to Dred Scott.

Let's at least maintain some vague connection to actual history, just for fun.

Was Kim Davis told she could not pray to Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not worship Him via whatever ritual she prefers?

Was Kim Davis told she could not sing hymns honoring Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not attend Sunday sermons, handle snakes, or drink strychnine?

In fact, was Kim Davis in any way kept from enjoying the freedom of worship and religion that the Constitution decrees?

Of course not; she was kept from inflicting her OWN version of her OWN religion on others. That is all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: butcherguy

Has Kim Davis been shot for treason and/or insurrection?

John Brown was not killed for his opposition to Dred Scott.

Let's at least maintain some vague connection to actual history, just for fun.

John Brown's reason for Harpers Ferry was the Dredd Scott decision.
He felt that the government declaring that black people were not human was a reason to fight.
If you think it wasn't a good reason, you just stick with that.

Thank you for not ignoring me. You didn't say anything about the Constitutional basis for this decision, however.

originally posted by: yeahright
Not ALL states had miscegenation laws.

Not all states had gay marriage bans either.

It was one man, one woman before and it was one man one woman after with no stipulation regarding race permitted.

Yes, If you're saying that they "changed the definition" with Obergefell v Hodges, then they changed it with Loving v. Virginia. too. Because, prior to that decision, marriage was one man and one woman of the same race. After Loving v. Virginia, the race qualification was removed, because the bans violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment. After Obergefell v Hodges, the gender qualification was removed.

Marriage is still the union of two people.

I don't think the miscenation decision was an overreach because before and after, marriage was wstill defined as a man and a woman.

But there WAS a change. From "of the same race" to " of any race". You're not upset by Loving v. Virginia because you see people as people, whose race doesn't matter. And that's great. But their sexuality doesn't matter either. Why do people's sexuality matter any more than their race? Why is that more of an overreach?

5 out of 9 justices decided that the legal definition of marriage was wrong.

No, they didn't. They decided that states' marriage laws weren't providing for due process and equal protection under the law, thereby violating the 14th amendment.

a reply to: yeahright

So, you don't agree with the Civil Rights Act?

a reply to: JesseVentura

Wow

Jesse is on this site, I just want to tell you keep up the good work sir, we are proud of you

a reply to: Wickedjr89

the supreme court order is a bad idea then by all means defy it. This isn't the case here however. Her homophobic self needs to go to back to jail if you ask me. Just because you believe something does not give you the right to force your beliefs onto other people.

See, this is exactly what I already said was going on with people who think nothing of overrunning the Constiution, the law, or the Supreme Court just as long as it's something they approve of.....thanks for proving my point.

The Supreme Court ruled that a woman can have on demand murder of her unborn child as long as it's called abortion...is that a just ruling?
When the laws of the land no longer reflect true moral and spiritual piety but rather the callousness and infamy of secular moral relativity, it's not a good portent.

originally posted by: butcherguy
John Brown challenged the Dredd Scott decision at Harper's Ferry. You can check the history books to see what he got for his trouble.
I was just giving an example of a very bad SCOTUS decision and now I have given you the answer as to what happens if you dare challenge them.

John Brown organized a 21 man raid on Harper's Ferry, took hostages and seized a U.S. Military armory. He was attempting to start an armed slave revolt. They killed four townspeople including the mayor and their first casualty was a free black man at the railway station. They barricaded themselves in and had a raging gun battle before JEB Stuart's men killed many of them and captured the survivors, including Brown. He was hung for the crime, not for his beliefs.

Using Brown as an example of anti-law sentiment is fraught with peril. His belief in equality is acknowledged but his actions were unforgivable and I can think of no one that finds his display of violence acceptable.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Was Kim Davis told she could not pray to Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not worship Him via whatever ritual she prefers?

Was Kim Davis told she could not sing hymns honoring Jesus?

Was Kim Davis told she could not attend Sunday sermons, handle snakes, or drink strychnine?

In fact, was Kim Davis in any way kept from enjoying the freedom of worship and religion that the Constitution decrees?

Of course not; she was kept from inflicting her OWN version of her OWN religion on others. That is all.

Since when did Kim Davis force others to worship Jesus?

Since when did Kim Davis force others to sing hymns to Jesus?

Since when did Kim Davis force others to attend church on Sundays, handle snakes or drink strychnine?

Since when did Kim Davis hinder anyone from enjoying the freedom of worship and religion that the Constitution decrees?

Of course, she did none of these things. She was jailed for exercising her own freedom of religious expression. That is all.