BaalChatzaf Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Jayzus, Mary and Joseph!!!!! Begod and begorrah!!! Hoodahthunkit?????Erin go bra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Well what did you think that whole leprechaun [(Irish: leipreachán) is a type of fairy in Irish folklore] thingy was all about?And come on, the kilts!<<<<Hey sailor ... want a date?And the whole "Gaelic" code language?And the Irish bagpipe!!So this should not be a surprise.A...Erin go bra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) Too bad America doesn't have the same democratic scheme -- a national referendum -- as did Ireland. The inevitable vote on gay marriage in the USA will only take into consideration the nine Supreme votes. The vote to legalize gay marriage amends the Irish constitution. It is done, it is over.The parallels to American public opinion are striking. America too has 60 percent in favour of gay marriage legality.-- the header is of course wrong. Ireland de-criminalized homosexuality in 1993. Edited May 24, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 You are correct Bill, Ireland would clearly have been able to defeat Nazism without us backward Americans.Hell, if we were French, we would surrender to Ireland...A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) You are correct BillI know. Isn't it great?Ireland would clearly have been able to defeat Nazism without us backward Americans.Ireland was neutral during WWII, of course. Which means they did not enter the war as combatants, with mixed effects on the allied war effort. What do you think about the success of the Irish referendum? Or, if you have no thoughts to share on that, what do you think your Supremes will decide on the issue come June? Here's a pretty good column from the SCOTUS blog: "No clear answers on same-sex marriage: In Plain English."So where does this leave us? Once again, it may all come down to Justice Kennedy, and he didn’t tip his hand during his questions and comments in the first part of today’s arguments. Kevin Russell, who contributes frequently to this blog, has suggested that the Chief Justice’s questions during the second part of the oral argument could be part of an effort to broker a compromise, in which the Court rules that there is no right to same-sex marriage but still gives the plaintiffs much of what they are seeking by requiring states to recognize same-sex marriages that happen somewhere else. Notably, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy was quiet during the arguments on the recognition question. Does that silence mean that he had already decided to rule for the plaintiffs on the first question, eliminating any need to worry about the second one? His colleagues will know the answer later on this week, when they meet to vote on the case. We won’t know until the Court issues its decision in late June, but when we do we will be back to report on it in Plain English.I have no idea how the decision will come down, me. In Irish "code," it goes like this: Tá a fhios agam nach bhfuil tú ag aon fadhbanna pearsanta le daoine homaighnéasach, ach Don `a fhios agam cad a bhfuil tú i gcoinne na Gaeilge.I found a bit of a stunner from GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (bearing in mind key facts: SCOTUS 'will answer two questions: Can states ban same-sex marriages? And can states that ban same-sex marriage refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally married in another state?' -- Huckabee seems on another planet). From Crooks and Liars: "Presidents have understood that the Supreme Court cannot make a law, they cannot make it, the legislature has to make it, the executive branch has to sign it and enforce it," Huckabee said. "And the notion that the Supreme Court comes up with the ruling and that automatically subjects the two other branches to following it defies everything there is about the three equal branches of government." "The Supreme Court is not the supreme branch," he added. "And for God's sake, it's not the Supreme Being." Edited May 24, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 If the justices rule as strict Constitutionalists, it will be 9-0 to send the main issue to the states.Additionally, they should enforce the full faith and credit clause in ruling that any state that has passed changes to their Domestic Relations Law to include homosexuals the statutory state right to marry, that shall be valid for enforcement in all the jurisdictions of the United States.Also, they should extend all domestic marital contract rights to all Federal employees under the 14 th Amendment that would extend certain protections through this Amendment to each individual State.Finally, they should rule to eliminate the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Court.Next question...A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 .Adam, strict construction would not require the US Supreme Court to leave the question of whether a State should recognize interracial marriages to the States. Likewise, in the present case. Likewise in the case a few years ago in which the Court overturned State bans on "sodomy." Equal protection under the law pertains not only to laws that prohibit or enjoin, but to laws that confer legal powers. Following the letter of the constitution in our time does not mean following it with the same unstated caveats of its drafters and the same cultural blinders as worn by its drafters. They never meant freedom of the press from the law in the simpler way the Amendment came to be interpreted by the Court by middle of the twentieth century (Emergence of a Free Press -Leonard Levy).I'll bet a coke the US Supreme Court will hand down a 5-4 decision saying that States are not in violation of the US constitution in not granting marriage to same-sex applicants. (The conservatives and Catholics on the bench, you know.) And they will rule 9-0 in requiring all States to recognize marriages granted in other States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 So this should not be a surprise.A...Erin go bra!Amen. Erin go bra! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) Adam almost answers the question "What do you think your Supremes will decide on the gay marriage issue come June?"If the justices rule as strict Constitutionalists, it will be 9-0 to send the main issue to the states.We probably agree that the main question is "Can states ban same-sex marriages?" Your answer to the main question seems to be that the answer ought to be yes, on principle.The second question before the court hinges on the first: "Can states that ban same-sex marriage refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally married in another state?"Additionally, they should enforce the full faith and credit clause in ruling that any state that has passed changes to their Domestic Relations Law to include homosexuals the statutory state right to marry, that shall be valid for enforcement in all the jurisdictions of the United States.Okay, so the Supremes should say no to the second question at issue. Also, they should extend all domestic marital contract rights to all Federal employees under the 14 th Amendment that would extend certain protections through this Amendment to each individual State.Is that at issue in the case? I am not clear on what you meant by 'extend certain protections' to each individual state. Federal employees who are married/gay should have their legal-elsewhere-in-the-USA marriages recognized by each state in which they reside? In the DOMA case, US v. Windsor, the court found a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and struck the provision. The result allowed gay partners the same federal benefits as straight partners. This means, as you note, there is a difference between some states. A couple could be married in the eyes of the senior government, but not in the eyes of the state.I guess your 'shoulds' are seen as effecting the same end, a reduction of the disjunction between state/federal rights of marriage; I think the simplest way to that end is if SCOTUS rules that states may not ban same-sex marriages. I think the arguments for the plaintiffs are based on Fourteenth amendment grounds. Correct me if I am wrong on that.Finally, they should rule to eliminate the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Court. About that last bit, about an exception to federal court, again I don't understand. The Supreme court should "eliminate the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Court." Is that at issue in Obergefell v. Hodges? Maybe it is the way you phrased it. How would the Supremes eliminate the exception, and what is it that is presently being excepted? -- anyway, I am no constitutional expert, so I can only read the tea-leaves on this case -- try to understand what the court may do, not what the court should do. From what I know about the court and the case, I can't do anything other than guess. I said I had no idea, but on reflection, how about this ...I predict the June decision will answer only the first question and will answer No, with the line-up likely this -- No: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts. Yes: Thomas, Scalia, Alito.I think Roberts will be thinking history and so will write for the No majority, even if he is not utterly persuaded of the plaintiff case. It seems to me that the disparities pointed out by Adam are what is ultimately at issue. On an issue so ramified as marriage, why maintain a patchwork of contradictory regimes of rights? It is bizarre. Here's a bit of reporting that put that issue in relief for me. I bet that Roberts will have been affected by the humanity or inhumanity of the current regime in arguments before the court.Army Reserve Sgt. First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thomas Kostura married in New York, where same-sex marriage is legal; Sgt. DeKoe has since deployed to Afghanistan and returned. The couple is asking that their marriage in New York be recognized by Tennessee, where DeKoe is now stationed, and the couple now resides. DeKoe said the refusal of Tennessee to recognize his marriage is "particularly painful," because "he is denied the very freedom, liberty and equality that he risked his life to protect," according to the SCOTUS blog on the case.From my far-away Canadian cabin, I see the issue in human terms, and figure the court will in the end, rule against the gay-marriage-banning states. The bans do unnecessary damage.Next question... What do you think about the Irish referendum?How do you think your Supremes will actually rule on Obergefell v. Hodges?[added: here is a 'Super Cuts' audio file that compresses the highlights of oral arguments. Hear the ferocious questions from the bench! Hear the squirming of the lawyers! Hear the screams of a You Will Burn In Hell protester!Super Cuts from the Same-Sex Marriage Arguments ] Edited May 24, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 From a different thread "Gay Marriage."In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court will review a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee prohibiting same-sex marriages. The 6th Circuit’s 2-1 ruling followed decisions in the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that declared unconstitutional state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying.The Supreme Court has granted review on two questions: (1) Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? (2) Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?There is also an Amicus brief regarding exceptions to Federal jurisdiction. For example, a child custody case cannot get into a Federal District Court [first level of the Federal "sheme"] because of the Domestic Relations Exception. This is a power assigne5,000d to Congress in the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court is limited to:diversity of citizenshipissues in controversy in excess of $75,000a Federal issueThe few cases that have risen to the Supreme Court that involved an aspect of child custody under the freedom of association aspects of the Constitution.A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9374&view=findpost&p=229768 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) How will the Supremes will actually rule on Obergefell v. Hodges? Few dare opine.From a different thread "Gay Marriage." [link added]In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court will review a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee prohibiting same-sex marriages. The 6th Circuit’s 2-1 ruling followed decisions in the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that declared unconstitutional state laws prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying.The Supreme Court has granted review on two questions: (1) Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? (2) Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?That is what I wrote above, Adam -- the two questions before the court. We are on the same page.Thanks for linking to the other recent thread, it is interesting how American public opinion has shifted from the first entry back in 2010. In that thread and here in your quote above, you pasted excerpts from a gentleman named Edwin Chemerinsky, from an ABA Journal article which I found of note on review. You had no comment on the excerpts then. From his article, further down from your quote of the basics: Predictions are free and worth what they cost, and we’ll all know by the end of June how the court will decide these cases. That said, my prediction is that Tuesday, June 30, at about 10 a.m. Eastern Time, the court will hold 6-3 that laws prohibiting marriage equality deny equal protection. Either Chief Justice John G. Roberts or Justice Kennedy will write the opinion for the court and it will be joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. [...] Ultimately, for Chief Justice Roberts, and for Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the question is whether they want to be part of the next Plessy v. Ferguson, a decision regarded by history as based on bigotry and being terribly misguided, or the next Brown v. Board of Education, a ruling seen as expanding equality and the court playing its most important role for society. Looked at this way, it is easy to see why most expect that the court will find a constitutional right to marriage equality.Which, wow, is just what my guess is. I must have retained Chemerinsky's argument somehow. Regarding the amicus brief you mention, is it this one from Eagle Forum, mentioned in Joseph's Symposium article? I add an attribution to that article suggested by SCOTUSblog: Recommended Citation: Larry Joseph, Symposium: Supreme Court should address the domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction in its marriage-case decision, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 17, 2015, 12:55 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/symposium-supreme-court-should-address-the-domestic-relations-exception-to-federal-jurisdiction-in-its-marriage-case-decision/ I will leave off pining for an answer to my questions. I suppose you don't care to venture a guess on the SCOTUS decision, nor an opinion on the Irish vote. Oh well. These are hard times. and very hard questions. Save your strength. Edited May 24, 2015 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 . Save your strength.No problem. I can guarantee you that I will not place my strength where I place your unsolicited advisories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 We have a winner.I will leave off pining for an answer to my questions. I suppose you don't care to venture a guess on the SCOTUS decision, nor an opinion on the Irish vote. Oh well. These are hard times. and very hard questions. Save your strength.No problem. I can guarantee you that I will not place my strength where I place your unsolicited advisories.Yeah. It seems you get all lathered up and then don't actually shave, leaving you foaming, wet and bristly. Maybe if someone not on your scold list asked for your opinion on the outcome of this case, you would be able to squeeze out an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 There are so many people who have been sexually molested they have now become a powerful leftist political class. So they petition their god of government to grant its blessing on their behavior, and they will get it because they created their god of government in their own image.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinReborn Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Very interesting... Ireland only legalized divorce in the mid 90s.FWIW I think a lot of this increasing tolerance for homosexuality is partly due to our current economic situation. During the great depression people had less kids and married later because they couldn't afford kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Very interesting... Ireland only legalized divorce in the mid 90s.FWIW I think a lot of this increasing tolerance for homosexuality is partly due to our current economic situation. During the great depression people had less kids and married later because they couldn't afford kids...You have a source for that statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Chemerinsky... the quintessential feminized liberal male.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Here's one for the low birth rate. Don't ask me how to link that up with the vote in Ireland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Here's one for the low birth rate. Don't ask me how to link that up with the vote in Ireland.Thanks a lot...perfect.What it does show is that we had WW! which kinda cut into the productive sperm carriers a bit and most importantly, the US ended immigration in the 1920's.A...No clue as to the Irish vote either in terms of nexus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moralist Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 I think homosexual marriage and low birth rate are related consequences, but not directly to each other. Rather they are both driven by the same cause. The former is politically driven by the secular political religion of leftism, and the latter seems to be more of a confluence of economic forces as well as leftism which aligns itself against the traditional family and Judeo/Christian values.Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Kids are assets for farmers. Absent that they are an expensive luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I'm perplexed. What does the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the government, or the 'will of the people' - as in Ireland - have to do with any marriage? To government, marriage is simply a contract, whether between people seeking mutual interests or profit, or a couple sealing a romantic bond. That should be the full extent of its legal involvement. Nobody has to be 'granted' approval (or expect and demand it), which would be like being 'granted' freedom. Does it have to be re-stated that what any two (or more) adults do together is not the business of anyone else? At this time I wouldn't be celebrating the Irish referendum if I were gay. Sure, for once Progressives got a result right - but as usual, by wrong means, from badly flawed premises. A majority of 'the people' gave their blessing to gay marriage. What does their sanction count for? Who needs it? It can be removed, as well as given. From encroachment into a private life by religion, now replaced by the encroachment of society. Marriage has carried that ancient burden of being in the eyes of God -- now it's in the eyes of Mrs. O'Reilly and her kin up in the High Street: both of them imposters, to be treated just the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 William, would you mind pointing to that particular phrase "equal justice under law" in the United States Constitution including the Amendments.Thanks.I think of one of my favorite comedians Steve Wright who said, "How do you know when you run out of invisible ink?"A... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now