Jump to content

Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Four Supreme Court justices did not agree with that decision. Apparently you think you know more about constitutional law than those Supreme Court justices, but it sounds more like a political opinion than a legal opinion.

Are you also claiming that the gay marriage decision had NO constitutional basis?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Good news is that problem is easily solved in the vast majority of cases by asking them. 

Last week I loaded about ten bags of mulch for a lady at home Depot and I sinned, I didn't even ask her if she wanted help. I just went over and said hello and started loading bags. 

  A couple months ago I grabbed a 100lbs bag of silica sand off the floor of home Depot and put it on a cart for a lady, and guess what, I didn't ask if she wanted me to. You know what's funny, instead of being upset, we talked for like 10 minutes and I ended up giving her one of my cards, her husband called  and I gave him an estimate to do his roof. Sadly, they couldn't get the loan finalized.

A couple weeks ago I had a lady come over to me and hold my cart still in the parking lot because I was struggling with sheets of 3/4" plywood, it was windy and I couldn't keep the cart still. She never asked if I needed help, shame on her.

Last year I was going down the interstate and went past a lady who had broken down. I backed up about 150 yards, got out looked at her tire, started my compressor and blew the tire up all while she stood their watching. She was more than greatful and thanked us, we actually followed her 2 exits down to a filling station because I couldn't fix the leak, it was coming out of the valve.

 You keep telling about these women who are scared of men approaching them but I have yet to meet one. Do I need to move to Utah to find them? 

 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

You keep telling about these women who are scared of men approaching them but I have yet to meet one. Do I need to move to Utah to find them?

Or you have met them, but they decided it was best to say nothing so as not to offend you and possibly set off your temper and then given the episode ended without problems, they then could judge you as safe.

It is so great for women to have their instincts for safety dismissed. 
 

How would you feel if your responses here led some woman to feel guilty about not accepting a man’s help and so she did...and then he raped her?

Not saying it is likely, but it is not unusual for women victims to speak about how they had learned to mistrust their own instincts about men because of being told that they had no need to worry, only to become victims.

But feel free to completely ignore what some women are saying because you won’t be the next victim because you were convinced it is unfair to distrust guys who say they are there to help.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/02/man-posing-as-good-samaritan-helped-woman-home-then-raped-her-cops/

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article225095855.html

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/true-good-samaritans-help-woman-raped-by-man-posing-as-good-samaritan

https://www.fox13memphis.com/top-stories/police-man-pretended-to-be-good-samaritan-raped-woman-after-offering-ride-home/739897072/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8987417/Takeaway-delivery-driver-52-raped-woman-22-posing-Good-Samaritan.html

Helped load groceries, then stole her car:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyadvent.com/news/amp/ca47c8b1f6cf6eaaa7b1f4f15da41dcc-Police-Man-helped-woman-load-groceries-then-took-her-car

There are thankfully a lot more stories out there about true Good Samaritans, sometimes even in the stories of rapists posing as one, but the problem for women is there aren’t business cards or other signs that are guarantees on which is which. Sometimes it is the homeless or strange looking guy doing the saving and the upstanding, could be the guy next to me on the pew who is the attacker.

But do a search on women being attacked in or abducted from grocery store parking lots and maybe you can figure out why many women prefer strange men to keep their distance in such places. 
 

Unfortunately not only men. It is wise to be cautious with women as well. 
 

https://www.wistv.com/story/15237507/sheriff-woman-attacked-while-loading-groceries-in-car/

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

But do a search on women being attacked in or abducted from grocery store parking lots and maybe you can figure out why many women prefer strange men to keep their distance in such places

I guarantee you this woman would of preferred for the men inside the building to run out and help her, instead they locked the door. Probably because she didn't give them consent to approach her, maybe they should of asked the guy to stop pounding her head in the pavement for a minute so they could discuss her feelings and find out if she needed help. 

Like I said, if you demonize the good men, this is what you'll be left with, a bunch of cowards.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Probably because she didn't give them consent to approach her, maybe they should of asked the guy to stop pounding her head in the pavement for a minute so they could discuss her feelings and find out if she needed help. 

More straw men. I have said nothing to indicate that if an actual attack is happening, anyone should hesitate about getting involved. 
 

Why do you keep going to extremes no one is arguing to justify your position?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Like I said, if you demonize the good men, this is what you'll be left with, a bunch of cowards.

Not demonizing anyone. I am not saying men are bad for wanting to help or who actually try to help. Just pointing out there are better ways that are less likely to cause unintended harm.  Just asking men to be considerate and ask before acting when they are worried about women (worried, not watching an attack).

What is benefitting you to misrepresent what I am saying?

How about you tell us how to tell the difference between good men who are walking towards us and bad men.  

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is benefitting you to misrepresent what I am saying?

What is benefitting you not even considering I might know what I'm talking about. Your also misrepresenting what I'm saying by saying I'm trying to be a hero. I've been in fights that are life or death, in a really bad situation you usually don't have time to ask questions or even consider feelings. If you have to jump in, not because your a hero, but because someone is truly in danger, seconds count, it's rare you would even have 5 seconds. In the scenario we've now dragged out over 2 days you and I see it differently. There's nothing wrong with that. 

  Check out the video below, guy on a bike and in 2 seconds he has changed that women's life forever. It's not about being a hero in the parking lot scenario, it's about minimizing bodily injury to someone probably physically weaker than the guy on the bike. 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you also claiming that the gay marriage decision had NO constitutional basis?

I am not claiming anything about the decision other than the undisputed fact that 4 Supreme Court justices joined a dissent. The decision was not unanimous or clear cut like you are trying to make it. So when you make a passive aggressive comment mocking someone for agreeing with 4 Supreme Court justices instead of the 5 you agree with, it comes across as petty and mean. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, california boy said:

I understand if you are claiming to know more about constitutional law than the Supreme Court justices, but it sounds more like a political opinion than a legal opinion

As @kllindley already pointed out, four out of nine Supreme Court justices dissented, and the quote I provided was from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Are you claiming to know more about Constitutional Law than him?

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Last week I loaded about ten bags of mulch for a lady at home Depot and I sinned, I didn't even ask her if she wanted help. I just went over and said hello and started loading bags. 

Sinned is a good word for seemingly benign.events you'd use to justify acting on women w/o their consent.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I am not claiming anything about the decision other than the undisputed fact that 4 Supreme Court justices joined a dissent. The decision was not unanimous or clear cut like you are trying to make it. So when you make a passive aggressive comment mocking someone for agreeing with 4 Supreme Court justices instead of the 5 you agree with, it comes across as petty and mean. 

Rarely do all Supreme Court justices all agree on decisions. But in this case there was also every federal district judge in the country except one who also ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right guaranteed under the equal protection clause.  There was even a Mormon federal judge who ruled in favor of gay marriage.  
You and Smac may disagree with the verdict, but neither one of you can honestly state that the verdict is not based on legsl rights guaranteed in the Constitution 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

A couple months ago I grabbed a 100lbs bag of silica sand off the floor of home Depot and put it on a cart for a lady, and guess what, I didn't ask if she wanted me to

We get it. Your compulsions include never asking women if they want your help and judging what is best for them. That must have been an awesome dating profile.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

As @kllindley already pointed out, four out of nine Supreme Court justices dissented, and the quote I provided was from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Are you claiming to know more about Constitutional Law than him?

 

See above reply.  
 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Rarely do all Supreme Court justices all agree on decisions. But in this case there was also every federal district judge in the country except one who also ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right guaranteed under the equal protection clause.  There was even a Mormon federal judge who ruled in favor of gay marriage.  
You and Smac may disagree with the verdict, but neither one of you can honestly state that the verdict is not based on legsl rights guaranteed in the Constitution 

Again, I did not make any claim about the verdict, nor did I even say I disagreed with the decision.  I'm not sure why you seem to need me to fit into this box you have created. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I think you're having a hard time accepting some women like men who have the testicular fortitude to run to a womens defense. Sorry, but not all women think like you do. 

And not all women think like you and your wife.  That is Cal's entire point.

She's not saying no woman would want you to run in and play the hero to a situation that doesn't yet need one, she's saying you should find out before you do. 

Doing what you want regardless of what the woman wants takes zero testicular fortitude (whatever that is, I laughed typing it out it's such a silly thing to say.  Testicules are probably the weakest and easiest to hurt body parts that exist.  When I think of fortitude I don't think of testicules. :lol: )

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, kllindley said:

Then nothing I could say would make any difference to you. Have a nice evening. 

Actually, I absolutely would be interested in hearing how you would demonstrate the harm you're claiming, but I accept if you aren't able/willing to defend your statement or offer evidence of such.

I am reminded of the saying, “The loss of privilege can feel like oppression.” 

You’ve claimed that you and your children would be harmed if BYU were to lose it’s tax-exempt status or federal tax-payer funding if private schools would be required to respect sexual orientation as a protected class, just as race and religious affiliation are protected.

I absolutely understand that you may sincerely feel that you are being harmed by being required to honor anti-discrimination laws to accept tax exemption benefits and public funding, but from a legal perspective, the law does not classify such as ‘irreparable injury.’ 

The Bob Jones University v. United States case involving a religious school losing it's tax exemption status due to it's prohibition of interracial marriages from 1983 (LONG before same-sex marriage) explicitly states that the law does not consider the loss of tax privileges to be 'injury' (see the bolded and red text below):

Quote

 

Bob Jones University v. United States…was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

Because of its interpretation of Biblical principles regarding interracial dating, Bob Jones University completely excluded black applicants until 1971, and from 1971 until 1975, admitted black students only if they were married. After 1975, the University began to admit unmarried black applicants, but continued to deny "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University also imposed a disciplinary rule that prohibited interracial dating.

Under pre-1970 IRS regulations, tax exemptions were awarded to private schools regardless of their racial admissions policies, and Bob Jones University was approved for a tax exemption under that policy. Pursuant to a 1970 revision to IRS regulations that limited tax-exempt status to private schools without racially discriminatory admissions policies, the IRS informed the University on November 30, 1970 that the IRS was planning on revoking its tax exempt status as a "religious, charitable . . . or educational" institution. In response, the University filed suit in 1971 in Bob Jones University v. Schultz.

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted a preliminary injunction, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed in 1973, citing the Anti-Injunction Act.

The University petitioned for a rehearing in the Appeals Court in Bob Jones University v. Connally. The Appeals Court ruled March 21, 1973, stating that Americans United v. Walters did not conflict with the decision in 1973.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in Bob Jones University v. Simon. The case was decided May 15, 1974, in an 8-0 decision (Douglas not participating). They stated that there was a lack of proof of "irreparable injury."

The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."

 

Based on your previous comment suggesting you are no longer critical of the LDS Church’s involvement in anti-marriage initiatives for same-sex couples, it sounds like you’re saying you were unaware of the above case and the strong possibility anti-discrimination laws in education or places of public accommodations would ultimately apply to sexual orientation in the same way that they apply to race. 

You may have missed all of the numerous discussions here on this board about these possibilities, but they were absolutely part of long standing conversations about how BYU would likely be affected if sexual orientation were recognized as a protected class, and if civil marriage were recognized as a civil right for same-sex couples in the same way civil marriage was recognized as a civil right for interracial couples.  And the Bob Jones University case was explicitly called out on numerous times both in our discussions and even in the various court cases across the country that were considering the issue of same-sex marriage and the status of sexual orientation as a protected class.

Circling back, though… again, if the Bob Jones case taught us anything, from a legal perspective, there wasn’t ‘irreparable injury’ to the students and parents of said students at Bob Jones University when it lost its tax exempt status.  I expect the courts will rely on that same precedent—that no injury is occurring—should BYU be required to respect anti-discrimination laws if it would like to continue to accept the benefits of receiving government perks.

Further, despite not being LDS and disagreeing with many of Mormonism's truth claims, assertions, and practices, and despite not being in an interracial marriage myself, I do not believe I am harmed by being required by the law to respect and refrain from discriminating against Latter-day Saints or members of any other Faiths, or members of other races, or those that choose to marry someone of another race, etc. 

Anti-discrimination laws requiring me to respect the legal rights others on the basis of protected classes who are never-the-less different than I am do not harm me

Again, the loss of privilege can feel like oppression, but from a legal perspective, it is not the same as being subject to irreparable injury or harm.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, kllindley said:

I find the suggestion that "We told you all along that legalizing SSM would lead to stripping federal funding/discrimination lawsuits" to be the very definition of the word "gaslighting."

It would only be gas lighting if those discussions had actually NOT been occurring.  They have been occurring all along, with the Bob Jones University case being explicitly invoked by members on BOTH sides.  Of course, I can't speak to what you may or may not have heard off this board, but Bob Jones was brought up in the numerous court cases around the country by both sides, as well as discussed here on this board.

Those of us who are pro-LGBT repeatedly said that same-sex marriage directly parallels interracial marriage rights.  We repeatedly said BYU would face the same types of social and legal pressures it faced based on it's race-based policies, such as in sports (i.e. football boycotts by other schools) and tax-exemption status (which BYU and other schools likewise faced). 

Further, many of us predicted that sexual orientation would ultimately be recognized as a protected class and that businesses would be forced to treat sexual orientation just as it treats race, religion, and the other protected classes; in fact, those legal protections against discrimination are at the core of what we've been arguing for decades.

You and others saying that pro-LGBT advocates were usually or routinely insisting that these things would NEVER happen are puzzling to me.    

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think we are misunderstanding each other.  Maybe?

In the past, when some members of the church (or certain other churches) fought against SSM or other anti-discrimination laws focused on lgtbq, one of the reasons that they sometimes gave for fighting against them was that creating those kinds of laws would open up the way for people to go after religious institutions for discriminating against lgtbq people because of their religious beliefs.  Basically, they made the argument that these laws were going to create a slippery slope that would eventually make it possible for someone to sue religious institutions (like BYU or the church) for discrimination, and force them to either accept lgtbq behavior (for lack of a better term) or be stripped of federal funds and privileges.

Sometimes, when that slippery slope reason for fighting against SSM/lgtbq rights was brought up, those who disagreed would claim that there was no reason to worry about that, that such a thing couldn't happen, and that people who claimed it was likely to happen were being dumb/irrational/flat out lying to sway people.

So while the bold may be true for some on both sides, it was not true for everyone.  I personally heard people (more than a few) say that it was such a scam for anyone to suggest that people shouldn't vote to support SSM because people would use those laws to go after religious institutions on the grounds of discrimination was stupid. 

 

I understand what you're saying; yes, there were some people who were claiming that "there was no reason to worry about [making it possible for someone to sue religious institutions like BYU]," and that any such people who claimed that those suggesting that BYU could be sued were "being dumb/irrational/flat out lying" were both flat out wrong and either ignorant or being deceitful.  Full stop.

That said, I don't think that was the case here on the board, at least.  The legal ramifications that BYU would ultimately likely face were discussed and acknowledged here often. 

My initial point of clarification in this thread was that this explicit topic--BYU facing sanctions that it's currently facing--do not fall under the "But, gee... pro-gay advocates repeatedly told us this would never happen..." and that suggesting such about posters here would NOT be true, at least here on the board.  Far from it, and exactly the opposite.

As mentioned in my previous post to you, I do NOT believe that any such lawsuits against the LDS Faith itself (or any other church) would or will ever succeed.  Legal precedent shows that churches and clergy members themselves will be entirely free to continue to discriminate against/maintain their prohibitions on same-sex relationships and behaviors despite civil protections of such, just as churches themselves continue to be entirely free to discriminate against interracial relationships and behaviors despite civil protections of such.  

Now, if I'm wrong about what I just said in the above-preceeding paragraph, THEN I would expect someone to turn to me and say, "But Daniel2, you said THIS would never happen!," and I'd have to admit that that person would be right.

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

By way of responding to the general topic of this thread, I came across the following 2015 NPR article which raised some interesting issues immediately after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil marriage rights for same-sex couples:

Quote

 

Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Raises Questions Of Religious Rights, Tax Status
July 17, 20155:09 AM ET

Religious colleges worry that if they stick to their convictions, they may lose tax-exempt status. That happened to Bob Jones University in 1983 because it continued to prohibit interracial dating.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

Now that the Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage, some religious institutions are worried they'll be forced to change their own view of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some see this as a test of the country's basic commitment to religious freedom. As NPR's Tom Gjelten reports, the question revolves around the meaning of liberty and also the relationship between church and state.

TOM GJELTEN, BYLINE: Some of the uproar over the Supreme Court's marriage ruling is misplaced. Ministers will not be forced to marry same-sex couples, and churches will not be forced to accommodate same-sex weddings. But what about schools? Union University in Tennessee prohibits sexual activities that fall outside a marriage covenant between a man and a woman. That applies to staff as well as students, and Samuel Oliver, Union's president says it dictates, for example, which employees qualify for marriage benefits.

SAMUEL OLIVER: We don't offer benefits to same-sex partners because having that same-sex partner would be a violation of our behavioral code.

GJELTEN: Hope College in Holland, Mich., early this month announced that it would begin extending spousal benefits to employees who are in a same-sex marriage. The president said it was because those marriages are now legally recognized. So could Union University get in trouble with the federal government because its policies still discriminate against same-sex couples? Shapri LoMaglio is vice president for government relations at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. As a lawyer, she tells her schools the First Amendment protects them as long as they directly tie their policies on same-sex relationships to their core religious beliefs.

SHAPRI LOMAGLIO: Not only this is our policy but this is why we have this policy, and this is the theological belief that we hold that this policy stems from.

GJELTEN: But some conservatives aren't so sure the Constitution will protect them. Here's Rod Dreher, who writes on religion issues for The American Conservative.

ROD DREHER: For me, the most likely scenario is the government and the courts will use the law to pressure religious institutions to give up their core commitments, that gay civil rights will trump religious liberty.

GJELTEN: Dreher feels the entire culture in America is moving against conservative Christian values. The culture war, he says, is one conservative Christians can't win right now. He thinks it's time for them to turn inward and focus on their own survival as a religious community.

DREHER: I think we Christians have got to fall back on strengthening our own institutions, our own families and our own institutions for the sake of resilience.

GJELTEN: In 1983, the Supreme Court denied tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University because it prohibited interracial dating. Though no institution today would defend such a policy, there is that precedent. The government can punish a school if its policies contradict what the government stands for. Rod Dreher would go so far as to recommend that Christian institutions - schools and churches alike - should consider giving up their government benefits in order to preserve their independence.

DREHER: We're going to have to disengage ourselves from the state as much as we can if we're going to be true to what we believe.

GJELTEN: This idea that religious institutions might actually be better off without their government benefits seems to be growing. Mark Oppenheimer writes the Belief column for The New York Times.

MARK OPPENHEIMER: Nonprofits in general, when they ask for tax exemptions, are, in a sense, inviting the government into their business. When you ask for a special status in the tax code, you are risking government intrusion.

GJELTEN: The action taken against Bob Jones University in 1983 did not lead to any infringement of religious freedom in general. Racial discrimination became seen as an abhorrent ideology. Mark Oppenheimer points out that the concept of what's sinful often changes over time.

OPPENHEIMER: Up until the 1970s, for example, it was highly frowned upon in evangelical circles to get a divorce. That belief completely vanished. It's just gone. The disapproval of divorce in evangelical circles is very, very tough to find. It just changed along with the culture.

GJELTEN: That could also happen with same-sex marriage, though many conservatives would no doubt fight it. But it is now clear that last month's Supreme Court decision has brought a reassessment of the culture wars on all sides. Tom Gjelten, NPR News.

 

The topic of this thread certainly isn't new... it's been around for a long time.  Schools are certainly free to choose to forego government tax breaks while holding true to their values, as Bob Jones University chose to do for 17 years. 

Edited by Daniel2
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I understand what you're saying; yes, there were some people who were claiming that "there was no reason to worry about [making it possible for someone to sue religious institutions like BYU]," and that any such people who claimed that those suggesting that BYU could be sued were "being dumb/irrational/flat out lying" were both flat out wrong and either ignorant or being deceitful.  Full stop.

That said, I don't think that was the case here on the board, at least.  The legal ramifications that BYU would ultimately likely face were discussed and acknowledged here often. 

My initial point of clarification in this thread was that this explicit topic--BYU facing sanctions that it's currently facing--do not fall under the "But, gee... pro-gay advocates repeatedly told us this would never happen..." and that suggesting such about posters here would NOT be true, at least here on the board.  Far from it, and exactly the opposite.

As mentioned in my previous post to you, I do NOT believe that any such lawsuits against the LDS Faith itself (or any other church) would or will ever succeed.  Legal precedent shows that churches and clergy members themselves will be entirely free to continue to discriminate against/maintain their prohibitions on same-sex relationships and behaviors despite civil protections of such, just as churches themselves continue to be entirely free to discriminate against interracial relationships and behaviors despite civil protections of such.  

Now, if I'm wrong about what I just said in the above-preceeding paragraph, THEN I would expect someone to turn to me and say, "But Daniel2, you said THIS would never happen!," and I'd have to admit that that person would be right.

I'm remembering that I did hear the bold on this board (because this board was pretty much the only place I was a part of discussions on the topic), but I certainly can't prove it and I acknowledge that my memory may be flawed on that.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm remembering that I did hear the bold on this board (because this board was pretty much the only place I was a part of discussions on the topic), but I certainly can't prove it and I acknowledge that my memory may be flawed on that.

I don't mean to suggest it was NEVER said on the board; some people did, which is why I acknowledged such it the first paragraph, and said they were wrong.  

I remember encountering some of those folks here on the board, as well, which is why I said they were usually either ignorant of the issue or being willfully deceitful... As I encountered such individuals, I always attempted to engage with and educate them about my belief that our laws would likely ultimately treat sexual orientation and same-sex marriages the same way that it had treated race and interracial marriages, including public accommodations (businesses would be compelled to treat same-sex marriages as they are compelled to treat interracial, mixed-faith, inter-generational marriages, etc.; and religious schools such as BYU would likely face the same social and legal pressures it had faced over it's racial policies during the 60's-70's).

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, california boy said:

Rarely do all Supreme Court justices all agree on decisions.

Are you sure about that? When it comes to the Supreme Court, a unanimous decision is actually the outcome which occurs with the highest degree of frequently (see, e.g., here).

Now, you may only pay attention to controversial cases which have slim 5-4 / 5-3 majorities, but consensus on the Court is actually the rule - not the exception.

In fact, the guys over at scotusblog who track the numbers say that over the last several years, during the Robert's Court, it is no longer a statistical anomaly to have 50% or more of the decisions be unanimously decided.

 

Quote

But in this case there was also every federal district judge in the country except one who also ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right guaranteed under the equal protection clause.  There was even a Mormon federal judge who ruled in favor of gay marriage.  

Yes, after Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Windsor which struck down the section of DOMA which forbade federal recognition (and thus federal benefits) to same-sex marriages, the lower courts took that as a signal that it was now permissible to overturn state as well as federal marriage laws. Which is exactly what they started to do, up to the point where there was a circuit split and the Obergefell case went before the Supreme Court.

In other words, the Federal Judiciary didn't pile on until after they felt they had a bead on what SCOTUS (read: Anthony Kennedy) was going to do. So don't pretend there was some kind of broad consensus about the Constitutional question. There wasn't. All those federal judges didn't just suddenly find a Constitutional right that had been overlooked by everyone else up until that moment. They were simply reading the tea leaves left out for them by the swing-vote Justice of the century. 

 

Quote

You and Smac may disagree with the verdict, but neither one of you can honestly state that the verdict is not based on legsl rights guaranteed in the Constitution 

I think there are good Constitutional arguments that can be made in favor of same-sex marriage, and I personally believe that same-sex marriage ought to remain legal.

However, I also stand by my original opinion that Justice Kennedy's decision in Obergefell and the reasoning used to justify the opinion was and is, as I said before, a hot mess.

 

Edited by Amulek
Link to comment

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...