Posted by Tina
No matter your opinion on the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, if you are intrigued by the law and are a defender of the Constitution, you don’t want to miss, “Lincoln on the Same-Sex Marriage Decision,” by David C. Innes – The American Thinker.
Associate Porfessor Innes cites cases from Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott to make the fundamental point that the SC Justices have no authority unless their decision is tied to civil law or more importantly, the Constitution:
Their authority does not proceed from any qualities they bring to their office — wisdom, compassion, the common touch — but strictly from the law they labor to interpret and apply. They speak for the law or they speak only as private citizens.
Innes concludes that because the Justices failed to tie their decision to civil law or the Constitution, but instead relied on “the private opinions of five of its members,” local authorities are not bound by their gay marriage decision.
Interesting reading.
Tina: “Innes concludes that because the Justices failed to tie their decision to civil law or the Constitution, but instead relied on “the private opinions of five of its members,” local authorities are not bound by their gay marriage decision.”
Thanks for the summary–now I don’t have to read the article, since you’ve just told me that Innes’ entire premise is a lie.
See, unlike you, I’ve actually read the Obergefell decision. While I think it could have been better written, the Justices were VERY clear that their decision was based on the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Last I checked, the Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the Constitution, not a product of “the private opinions of five of [the court]’s members.”
In fact, I decided to read Innes’ article anyway, and found that nowhere in it do the phrases “Equal Protection” or “Due Process” appear. He completely ignores the entire basis of the decision he is attempting to critique. Innes’s article appears to be written for people who are too lazy to read the actual decision, and who prefer to be lied to by dishonest right wing blogs.
Yes, “interesting reading” indeed.
In fact Chris did not read the article.
Pie, you’re a peach!
If the opinion isn’t Chris’s it’s automatically wrong. I don’t think he’s intellectually curious at all. We must all comply or shut up…what a guy!
Tina: “If the opinion isn’t Chris’s it’s automatically wrong.”
This is a very unfair characterization of my comments. I made an effort to engage with the arguments presented by the article you cited, and to explain WHY they were wrong. You ignored those arguments completely, just as the article ignored the arguments of the court.
Once again: The Supreme Court based their decision in Obergefell on the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. Now, you could disagree with their interpretation of this part of the Constitution, and explain why. I’ll probably still disagree with you, and explain why. That would be an honest debate.
What is NOT an honest debate is claiming that the Supreme Court did not base their opinion on the Constitution AT ALL, and that their decision was entirely based on personal opinion. That is simply a lie. It is a way to decieve people who have not read the decision.
Like Innes, you have refused to engage with the SC’s actual arguments in this decision. At no point since the decision was made have you addressed the arguments based on the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. How can you criticize the decision in any intelligent manner if you completely ignore the specific premises of it?
“We must all comply or shut up…”
I have never asked you to “shut up.” On the contrary, I have asked you several times to explain your opposition to the Obergefell decision in a way that actually engages with the logic in the decision. That’s literally the opposite of telling you to shut up. Every time I have asked you to explain your argument more clearly, you have deliberately chosen not to do so. Why? Is it because you feel like you can’t argue honestly with the arguments of the court?
I’ll ask again: please address the actual arguments of the court if you are going to continue criticizing their decision. Start by explaining why you believe their interpretation of the Forteenth Amendment is incorrect.
Tina: “Pie, you’re a peach!”
Uh…for just blatantly making stuff up about me? I did read the article–how else would I know that the author never mentioned the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses?