Listen to oral arguments in Supreme Court gay marriage case, part 2
[ad_1]
Part 2 audio from April 28, 2015 oral arguments made before the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional challenges to state gay marriage bans.
[ad_2]
Listen to oral arguments in Supreme Court gay marriage case, part 2
Saul Goodman has some great arguments in part 2
Oh boo.Wanted actual video.
the argument over sates having to recognize other stats marriages is bs its the same as straight people if a straight couple gets married in Mi and moves to Tx they are still married there is no difference in gay marriages why are they making an already complicated issue more complicated to confuse people that's why it is utterly ridiculous and I would hope the judges are smart enough to see this
How nice if as a voice (audio) was heard, the speakers image was displayed as well.
I recognize some of the speakers on this video, but not all.
(I hope that made sense.)
Jacques Coulardeau at Amazon (9)
The US Supreme Court,
A Universal Lesson in Constitutional Right
Jacques Coulardeau & Ivan Eve
This essay studies the Case of California's Proposition 8 from its adoption by the voters in November 2008 to the most recent US Supreme Court ruling on June 26, 2013. This essay is essentially centered on the legal and constitutional side of the case and the arguments dealing with Amendment 14 to the US Supreme Court, Article III of teh US Constitution, and the concepts of due process of law, equal protection of the laws, strict scrutiny, standing, all concepts that should be universal in all legal and judiciary systems in the world. The case then provides the world with a full demonstration of these judicial human rights that in fact should define the concept of Habeas Corpus.
This case deals with same-sex marriage in California. The US Supreme Court refused to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. They vacated and remanded the Federal Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit's ruling on the case because the people speaking for the State of California did not have the necessary standing. That ruling indirectly affirms the ruling of the Federal District Court that had declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Though it does not create a legal void in California, this ruling encourages the ProtectMarriage organization to start a new round of legal proceedings in the California Supreme Court.
This long essay would not have been possible if the first and shorter version had not been encouraged by one of its first readers as follows:
“I think your argumentation and logic is good. You shouldn’t be entering the rest of the discussion, maybe you can quote all the experts or send back to what was said in a footnote, but it is not your point. You are following the logic of the legal and constitutional system: Amendment 14, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court. What will happen, we can’t be sure, but you can project yourself in the future, and you are already doing it, by saying that the Supreme Court, despite taking a lot of time (which can also be to get the “temperature,” the mood of the country within the next few months), is very unlikely to commit itself with such an important issue. And your logic shows just that . . .
So, in short, your approach is the most valuable as the case starts in California (and its norms) and shifts to the federal level (multiple norms): they all thrive under the US Constitution and Amendment 14.”
Paris, January 11, 2013
Amazon Kindle
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Language: English
ASIN: B00E24JTC0
US$ 4.12 (VAT included) EUR 3,15 (TTC)
Search Monica Denningtons A message for the Supreme Court and America, the day America dies.
BREAKING NEWS – THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE CONSTITUTION ASSURES THAT SAME SEX COUPLES CANNOT BE DENIED THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY. THIS RULING HAS BROUGHT MARRIAGE FOR SAME SEX COUPLES TO THE ENTIRE NATION.
EXCERPT FROM THE RULING:
" No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. "
I would like to congratulate all my same-sex-loving brethren and sisteren! Finally, you are not denied what 90% of the rest of the population is in terms of matrimonial rights! If you and your partner have been waiting, make sure your credit reports are accurate and then go forth and have excellent lives!
THIS IS RIDICOULOUS somehow stability of a heterosexual marriage is more stable then a homosexual marriage? what a fucking lousy arguement 55 percent of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce
Everyone does understand what was debated here right?
Nine ADULT species, (3 humans, 1-communist-human-(chief) and 5 communist-barbarians) are arguing about whether or not – you and the nation as a whole, will benefit after "THEY" force the idea into our culture – that when two or more people delve around in human sewage – we're all better off?_
To date, the pro-sodomy run media, has successfully worked overtime to hide the bottom line facts from the general populous.
Primarily and ABSOLUTELY-UNDENIABLY, THE FACT THAT, – SINCE THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE DEMANDED WE LEGALIZE SODOMY NATIONWIDE, HUMAN FECAL and BLOOD BORNE DISEASES FROM ACTS OF SODOMY OF EVERY KIND HAVE SPREAD OUT OF CONTROL AND CAUSED IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE, INCLUDING WIDESPREAD DEATH – TO INDIVIDUALS AND ALL SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, AS WELL AS, IMMEASURABLE DESTRUCTION OF THIS NATION'S FINANCES COLLECTED FROM YOUR PAYCHECKS!
No one in the pro-sodomy media, DARES tell you about the diseases these people have "CREATED" – JUST RECENTLY – VIA THIS BEHAVIOR!
IF THE NOVEL STRAINS OF FORMERLY CONTROLLED DISEASES, AND THE NEW VECTORS AND CO-INFECTED DISEASE CARRIERS (DIRECTLY FROM THE FECAL CAVITIES OF THESE PEOPLE ALONE) – BEING SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC – IF ALL OF THAT WAS COMMON PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY IN THE MEDIA – AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE IN COURT HOPING TO STOP NATIONWIDE QUARANTINING OF THEMSELVES, RATHER THAN HOPING TO CARRY OUT THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTOS' INSTRUCTION OF DEMORALIZING OUR COUNTRY TO DESTROY US.
Indeed, if these so called, "Pro-Family" Lawyers had a brain, they wouldn't have even bothered playing this LOSING constitutional game designed by pro-sodomy perverts, and instead would have forced the inquiry into the sanity, safety, security of our country in multiple arena's concerning the question on the order of: "Has the country benefited or suffered, from legalizing the act of sodomy, e.g. 2 or more sub-humans, playing in each other's human sh*t?"
UTILIZING REAMS OF CDC, the-WHO, NIHM, and TRUCKLOADS OF homosexuals personal confessions, as well as, LOCAL AND NATIONAL HEALTH STATISTICS and EVIDENCE, – EVEN THIS PRO-SODOMY-COMMUNIST COURT WOULD HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GRANT THE STATES LICENSE TO TRACK, ARREST AND DETAIN IN QUARANTINE – the mentally ill people who actually think there's something, "happy" about plunging around in, eating, and spreading human feces among themselves and the willfully ignorant public.
Yall need Jesus, or medication. Which ever you believe in….
Not many people are aware of this but… same-sex 'marriage' public policy violates one of the most fundamental human right, since it deprives citizens of property rights without due process of law. According to Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no person shall 'be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law'. Since taxation is a deprivation of property the US Constitution permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. In short, taxes shall only be levied for general welfare of the people, sometimes worded as the public welfare or common good. Otherwise, there would be a violation of the due process clause. This is of course logical and reasonable because government, as a collective group of people, is not able to take away property of other people and then use this property for private benefit. That would be taking the property of another without right or permission which is stealing. That is why taxpayer-funded good and services must be accessible to all members of a society.
Generally, all government spending and every public policy or law which determines eligibility for taxpayer-funded rights and privileges respect due process, except one – the public policy which recognises – same-sex 'marriage'.
Examples: defence, police, public infrastructure, environment protection, science, welfare system, health care…are examples of common good issues whose effects are shared or accessible to every member of a society. If someone threatens me, if I become bankrupt or ill… I, the same as any other citizen in the same situation, have the right to police protection, welfare system or health care. Tax incentives to eco-friendly individuals also respects the due process clause because environment protection is rationaly related to the well-being of the general public.
The same is true for public policy that promotes love, respect, fidelity… between men and women through the institution of marriage and provides taxpayer-funded privileges to those couples that accepted legal obligation to mutual love, respect and fidelity. Love and respect between between men and women is rationally related to well being of children and society. The more man and woman, that are in relationship, love and respect each oder the less families would be broken, more children would live in intact families with mom and dad, and social costs of broken families would be lower. Hence, there is a unique and inherent connection to the well-being of the general public in the union between one man and one woman and that is why this type of relationship has been recognized and promoted by public authority for millennia in all societies and civilizations.
From the above mentioned it's clear that law or policy by which same-sex couples are eligible for taxpayer-funded privileges, constitutes a due process violation. The reason is simple – there is nothing inherent in the love, respect, fidelity between two persons of the same sex that is rationally related to the well-being of the general public so that citizens that accepted legal obligation to mutual love, respect and fidelity should be given taxpayer-funded privileges. The same is true for various romantic or non-romantic relationships in which people live together. Polygamous or polyandrous unions, roommates, benedictine nuns, sibling or cousin cohabitations… All this unions are not inherently related to the well-being of the general public and that is why this types of unions are neither recognazed by law or public policy nor eligible for taxpayer-funded privileges.
Since same-sex unions belong to the same category as unions previously mentioned, but they are still publicly recognized and benefited with taxpayer-funded money this constitutes a due process violation. From that, it follows logically that same-sex marriage policy violates the human right of US citizens to property.