Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 3:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
What is it determined by?

The constitution.

Who determines the intention of the Constitution?

Judges determine if a law is constitutional.

Do you think there's any chance that any of those fellows are religious folk?

Sure

So you think religious folk interpreting the Constitution and trying to apply it's intent 220+ years later can't be influenced by religious tradition?

Of course they could be influenced.  But they still need to use legal reasoning when they publish their decision.  Tradition and religion aren't enough to overcome scrutiny, especially if they apply scrutiny at a level above rational basis.

Do you understand the word "interpretation"? 

Interpreting a 200 y/o document is almost like trying to explain art.   Of course they can't say "I'm basing my decision on religious beliefs" but they're pretty smart people.   They can base their interpretation on religion and dress it up as something else.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Do you understand the word "interpretation"? 

Interpreting a 200 y/o document is almost like trying to explain art.   Of course they can't say "I'm basing my decision on religious beliefs" but they're pretty smart people.   They can base their interpretation on religion and dress it up as something else.

Well they could, but there's nothing we can do about it.  Assuming they issue a decision in good faith, they won't do that.

I'm also glad you agree that religion alone isn't a valid reason for banning same sex marriage.

Did I ever say it was?  Or that I cared?

77 pages

actions/louder/words

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 6:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/29/2012 5:52:00 PM (view original):
Do you understand the word "interpretation"? 

Interpreting a 200 y/o document is almost like trying to explain art.   Of course they can't say "I'm basing my decision on religious beliefs" but they're pretty smart people.   They can base their interpretation on religion and dress it up as something else.

Well they could, but there's nothing we can do about it.  Assuming they issue a decision in good faith, they won't do that.

I'm also glad you agree that religion alone isn't a valid reason for banning same sex marriage.

Why can't a good faith decision come down against SSM?

It could.

Then there we go.

Isn't it time to stop discussing this?

In order for a good faith ruling against SSM, an argument would have to be presented showing a compelling governmental interest in banning it. I don't think there is one.

Perhaps legal folk much smarter than you will have one.

Perhaps they will. But they haven't yet. I can't imagine they've been holding back on the hope that the case goes to the supreme court.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/29/2012 9:48:00 PM (view original):
In order for a good faith ruling against SSM, an argument would have to be presented showing a compelling governmental interest in banning it. I don't think there is one.

Actually all they need to show is it doesnt rise to the level of Consitutional issue.

You keep avoiding that. In your mind of something bothers you then the SC should fix it.

The intent of the Consitution was to setle disputes between states or settle issues that are clear violations of rights that should be protected by the Federal government.