Trump's tweets

[Thunderpup]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

The best solution is to be reasonable fucking human beings and giving access to this benefits to whomever fucking wants them regardless of sexual orientation. 

 

No, the best solution would be to give those benefits to people without requiring them to be married in the first place.

 

people who aren't married shouldn't be given second class status as citizens.  

[TidaLWaveZ]

The whole point of this "Hamilton" ordeal being stupid is that it wasn't just "some little play" it was a big deal broadway play.  It's totallly unprofessional and selfish to completely disrupt a play to promote your political propaganda and attack an audience member's(Pence, who was in the audience)opinions that haven't even gone into effect in US politics yet. Calling out an audience member on their future political career in front of the rest of the audience is in extremely poor taste.

[Misanthrope]

23 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Haha, dont get me wrong, I'm not here to defend the catholic church. I just think that money does more good being used by them to help people than it would being taxed and having the government use it on something frivolous. 

No: They could do both pay taxes and help people. Tax evasion shouldn't be allowed whenever it comes to big corporations using tax heavens of clergy fucking parasites that kick back a tiny amount vs what they save on tax thanks to idiots who contribute to the church. 

 

Not to mention the places where they converge: The Church gets free money, tax free and the rich get to deduct that shit.

[Real_PhillBert]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No: They could do both pay taxes and help people. Tax evasion shouldn't be allowed whenever it comes to big corporations using tax heavens of clergy fucking parasites that kick back a tiny amount vs what they save on tax thanks to idiots who contribute to the church. 

 

Not to mention the places where they converge: The Church gets free money, tax free and the rich get to deduct that shit.

If I removed 30% of your income, the first thing you would do is cut unnecessary spending, in their case that would be charitable contributions. All I'm saying is that that money is probably doing more good going directly to charity than it would be at the hands of the US government. I have no idea what you're talking about with big corporations and clergy members, perhaps you could provide a link? 

 

We obviously fundamentally disagree on the productivity of taxation. 

[SansVarnic]

8 hours ago, RooR said:

When bible thumpers forget that their is something called separation of church and state...

<snip>

There is absolutely no such thing... Show me where that exists ... please.

I can show you letters between where it was discussed between Thomas Jefferson and baptist preacher, the continental congress in debate about the issue of government / church involvement and where Benjamin Franklin [the last person to to mention this] made the point he did about needing a religuos influence on government in order to help maintain itself properly in a free society so having  decided that the Government would have no involvement in the church but the church would be allowed to have influence on the government. I can show you the first document (actually a treaty) that shows a separation existing only for the sake of preventing a military action from the muslim sect that was charging a ransom against the US for shipping in the Mediterranean sea, and then having congress (senate) passing a real treaty several months after removing such claim and showing no such separation exists. The treaty was made in response to the incident that occurred between the USS Enterprise and the Muslim pirate ship Tripoli. Thomas Jefferson (then POTUS) was not happy with the arrangement the Ambassador made by signing the first treaty in the manner it was written but it worked thus having the Senate passing the next one later on.

Ya no such thing as separation of church and state exists in the US in the manner of which you mention.   Not officially.

 

8 hours ago, tlink said:

yea i completely agree with this sentiment. they should remove religion from every official pledge or symbolism. "in god we trust" should be removed and so should swearing on a bible. swear on a flag or something idgaf. its fine if some people do want to pledge religiously or use symbolism religiously but it should NEVER be the status quo in a government.

You remove the foundation of which the country was formed, you remove the essence of which the nation is. We would no longer be the United States of America and would have to form a whole new nation. This is a historical truth. 

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

There's legal definition because there's legal benefits and legal responsibilities. You can't do away with those without removing basic incentives to how families, wills, trustfunds and ownership of property and assets work. 

 

The best solution is to be reasonable fucking human beings and giving access to this benefits to whomever fucking wants them regardless of sexual orientation. 

 

There was already a term used for same sex unions called civil partnerships or civil unions so there was no need to butcher/bastardize the term Marriage which was/is a Christian institution.

3 hours ago, ImperialSteele said:

I am under the impression this falls under a "flame war topic"

You are correct that this has become one but the discussion thus far has remained civil and as far as it doesn't erupt into something more the mods might let it run its course.

 

 

I don't make these arguments necessarily because I am of the Christian faith but mostly because of the position they are in  US History and US Constitutional law.

 

*edit

Historically Catholicism has been both good and a lot more bad because of power a wealth corruption and the its over bearing influence though out history being ever present. Catholicism has more harm in the eyes of the public to the Christian faith than it is willing to admit. Obviously I am not Catholic but the facts remain and I speak purely on unbiased footing here. The founders of the US placed emphasis that no one particular denomination of the christian faith would have more influence over the other in the growth of the Federal government. This would a more accurate version of the "separation" that @RooR mentioned.

[Misanthrope]

25 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

There was already a term used for same sex unions called civil partnerships or civil unions so there was no need to butcher/bastardize the term Marriage which was/is a Christian institution.

Not exactly the same rights and as you say, name is irrelevant so what does it matters if we know call this "marriage" instead of "civil unions for fags 2.0" or whatever.

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, Real_PhillBert said:

If I removed 30% of your income, the first thing you would do is cut unnecessary spending, in their case that would be charitable contributions. All I'm saying is that that money is probably doing more good going directly to charity than it would be at the hands of the US government. I have no idea what you're talking about with big corporations and clergy members, perhaps you could provide a link? 

 

We obviously fundamentally disagree on the productivity of taxation. 

I theory. In practice Vatican is the richest country in the world. That joke about stockpiling gold? They're literally stockpiling gold, expensive invaluable art, etc. It would be like heavily taxing Bill Gates the guy is so stupidly fucking rich it wouldn't even matter to him, same goes for the Catholic Church it's just the biggest scam ever conceived. Let them go fucking bankrupt.

 

The other parts were just minor tangents about how rich people love to evade taxes and a popular tactic is to donate to charity organization and churches to solve tax issues due to the way the tax code works.

 

But yeah this might be far beyond the scope of this topic: to me the current tax code would work without issues if there was actually a way to collect on most rich people and large corporations that basically say "No, fuck you" and pay no taxes at all. Not a little less, not a bit behind what's their fair due, close to no fucking taxes at all.

[Blade of Grass]

32 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

There is absolutely no such thing... Show me where that exists ... please.

I can show you letters between where it was discussed between Thomas Jefferson and baptist preacher, the continental congress in debate about the issue of government / church involvement and where Benjamin Franklin [the last person to to mention this] made the point he did about needing a religuos influence on government in order to help maintain itself properly in a free society so having  decided that the Government would have no involvement in the church but the church would be allowed to have influence on the government. I can show you the first document (actually a treaty) that shows a separation existing only for the sake of preventing a military action from the muslim sect that was charging a ransom against the US for shipping in the Mediterranean sea, and then having congress (senate) passing a real treaty several months after removing such claim and showing no such separation exists. The treaty was made in response to the incident that occurred between the USS Enterprise and the Muslim pirate ship Tripoli. Thomas Jefferson (then POTUS) was not happy with the arrangement the Ambassador made by signing the first treaty in the manner it was written but it worked thus having the Senate passing the next one later on.

Ya no such thing as separation of church and state exists in the US in the manner of which you mention.   Not officially.

This is incorrect. The First Amendment (specifically, the Establishment Clause) clearly establishes a separation of church and state. Essentially, it states that the government may not pass laws which favor one religion over another (or over no religion). 

Quote

There was already a term used for same sex unions called civil partnerships or civil unions so there was no need to butcher/bastardize the term Marriage which was/is a Christian institution.

Marriage was a Christian institution, now it is a legal one (It's been that way since the founding of America). Along with it, there any many benefits, including tax breaks and power of attorney for personal care over your significant other (generally). To be fair though, marriage has "always" been a "bastardization" of what Christianity originally made - you could get a divorce since 1701 (in Maryland). 

The issue with civil union/partnerships is that they do not grant the same benefits as marriage, which is why the supreme court ruled the definition of marriage as unconstitutional (discrimination on the grounds of disproportionate presumably).

Quote

You are correct that this has become one but the discussion thus far has remained civil and as far as it doesn't erupt into something more the mods might let it run its course.

Correctomondo 

 

[SansVarnic]

10 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

This is incorrect. The First Amendment (specifically, the Establishment Clause) clearly establishes a separation of church and state. Essentially, it states that the government may not pass laws which favor one religion over another (or over no religion). 

That's pretty much what I said just took me longer to make the point. Government has no influence over the church. That is it, no such thing as the church can have no influence over the government. This is why there is the prayer breakfast and congressional sessions are opened with prayer.

Quote

Marriage was a Christian institution, now it is a legal one (It's been that way since the founding of America). Along with it, there any many benefits, including tax breaks and power of attorney for personal care over your significant other (generally). To be fair though, marriage has "always" been a "bastardization" of what Christianity originally made - you could get a divorce since 1701 (in Maryland). 

The issue with civil union/partnerships is that they do not grant the same benefits as marriage, which is why the supreme court ruled the definition of marriage as unconstitutional (discrimination on the grounds of disproportionate presumably).

I was in favor of amending the civil unions to match the rights of marriage just no in favor of re-coining the usage of marriage, it was a slap in the face to the Christian faith.

Quote

Correctomondo 

 

 

[Real_PhillBert]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I theory. In practice Vatican is the richest country in the world. That joke about stockpiling gold? They're literally stockpiling gold, expensive invaluable art, etc. It would be like heavily taxing Bill Gates the guy is so stupidly fucking rich it wouldn't even matter to him, same goes for the Catholic Church it's just the biggest scam ever conceived. Let them go fucking bankrupt.

 

The other parts were just minor tangents about how rich people love to evade taxes and a popular tactic is to donate to charity organization and churches to solve tax issues due to the way the tax code works.

 

But yeah this might be far beyond the scope of this topic: to me the current tax code would work without issues if there was actually a way to collect on most rich people and large corporations that basically say "No, fuck you" and pay no taxes at all. Not a little less, not a bit behind what's their fair due, close to no fucking taxes at all.

Here's my problem with your analogy to Bill Gates. Bill Gates runs a company (well used to but bare with me), in which people are exchanging money for goods and services. This is not the same thing that's happening with the church, all of the church's "Income" is made up of willful donations or gifts, there is no exchange of products or services. So it boils down to a simple question, if I gift you $100, do you think the government should take a chunk of it?"

 

If you answered yes, then that's where we disagree. 

 

If you answered no, you have to be accepting of releasing the church from taxation. 

 

As for how the Vatican collects gold and art, regardless of how much money they have, they're going to want more; therefore cutting their income by 30% wont make them simply cut down on the number of gold bars they're stacking in the wine cellar, they'll cut back on the good that they do in order to continue to stack those gold bars. Even though I am not a fan of the Catholic Church, I can see what good they do in the world, and don't want to stop it. If they are making a bit of money at the same time, well, it's part of the game. 

 

With all that said, I think we can both agree that there are even more efficient ways of funding causes like feeding the hungry and housing the homeless than the church, I'm simply arguing that the church is still more efficient at it than the US government. (not that this is a particularly high bar)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

It's funny how this is all so surprising now, as the US probably haven't seen this in a looong while. But for other parts of the world... I mean, a president ruling from twitter? 

To be honest, the more I see Trump, the slogans he ran on, etc, the more I feel the time has finally come: Dear US, welcome to Latin America!

The dream of American unity feels closer. Canucks, what are you waiting for?  

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, Real_PhillBert said:

Here's my problem with your analogy to Bill Gates. Bill Gates runs a company (well used to but bare with me), in which people are exchanging money for goods and services. This is not the same thing that's happening with the church, all of the church's "Income" is made up of willful donations or gifts, there is no exchange of products or services. So it boils down to a simple question, if I gift you $100, do you think the government should take a chunk of it?"

Yes. Because of the reasons I explained: the main big donors, don't do it out of goodness. They just want the tax write-off. That's a shitty law that needs to go away. As far as non-profits not paying taxes I'd agree to a reduced tax rate for them (But not fully exempt: they still occupy spaces and basic amenities within society and as such they should contribute) But the Catholic Church makes so much money that just accumulates it should not be considered a non-profit entity anyway. The clergy are basically faith dealers: they sell peace of mind through tax code chicanery as their main source of income, of course it should be taxed.

 

But again in the interest of full disclosure, I am vehemently opposed to all Clergy so I will always see them on an extremely unfavorable light so I mostly will be bigoted against them, with what I believe is justified reason but nevertheless something you should know.

[Real_PhillBert]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yes. Because of the reasons I explained: the main big donors, don't do it out of goodness. They just want the tax write-off. That's a shitty law that needs to go away. As far as non-profits not paying taxes I'd agree to a reduced tax rate for them (But not fully exempt: they still occupy spaces and basic amenities within society and as such they should contribute) But the Catholic Church makes so much money that just accumulates it should not be considered a non-profit entity anyway. The clergy are basically faith dealers: they sell peace of mind through tax code chicanery as their main source of income, of course it should be taxed.

 

But again in the interest of full disclosure, I am vehemently opposed to all Clergy so I will always see them on an extremely unfavorable light so I mostly will be bigoted against them, with what I believe is justified reason but nevertheless something you should know.

I cant say I totally agree, but at least I better understand your position.

 

Cheers.

[Blade of Grass]

1 hour ago, SansVarnic said:

That's pretty much what I said just took me longer to make the point. Government has no influence over the church. That is it, no such thing as the church can have no influence over the government. This is why there is the prayer breakfast and congressional sessions are opened with prayer.

No, that section of the law prevents the church from having influence over government. Since the government is not allowed to establish or favour a religion, it prevents them from creating laws that cater to the beliefs of one specific religious group (or to non-religious groups). Now, to what extent this goes has still not exactly been established, but there is case law which supports this interpretation of the amendment. Some examples of what this means is that the US would be unable to ban the wearing of religious head dressings as it disproportionately affects religions which require them. Another example would be that no one can pass a law requiring kids to read the bible in public school. (or rather, these laws could be created, but it is very likely that they would be struck down upon any challenge on their constitutionality)

 

Also,

19 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

The Constitution sets a precedence on how immigrants are to be handled and that falls on the States to handle and not the Federal Government, the Federal's role is only to process the immigrant to citizen status. Many people overlook this and Trump has made several comments about this over the course of the last 2 decades. Thing is people are losing their minds over this because they are not paying attention to what he says on to what the media tells us what he says.

The states do not have control over immigration. See http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html

Quote

matter of fact gay marriage was not even passed by congress it was voted on in Supreme court so it is not even legal to begin with ...

This is also incorrect. The courts interrupt the law and constitution and decide what is legal and illegal under it (by interpreting what the laws mean and how they can be applied). In the case of same-sex marriage the court ruled that the previous definition of marriage, which prevented same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional, and as such they struck it down (meaning that it cannot be enforced). This then allowed people, who previously would have been unable to marry due to that section of the law, to marry as it no longer can impose restrictions on them. These principles are the foundation for the entire common law legal system.

[SansVarnic]

37 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

No, that section of the law prevents the church from having influence over government. Since the government is not allowed to establish or favour a religion, it prevents them from creating laws that cater to the beliefs of one specific religious group (or to non-religious groups). Now, to what extent this goes has still not exactly been established, but there is case law which supports this interpretation of the amendment. Some examples of what this means is that the US would be unable to ban the wearing of religious head dressings as it disproportionately affects religions which require them. Another example would be that no one can pass a law requiring kids to read the bible in public school. (or rather, these laws could be created, but it is very likely that they would be struck down upon any challenge on their constitutionality)

I am pretty sure we are arguing the same point here.

Quote

Also,

The states do not have control over immigration. See http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/spring-2014/who-is-responsible-for-u-s--immigration-policy-.html

I know that the law was changed amended but the point I was getting at is the original version and the intent of immigration was for the states to maintain this policy and it needs to go back to that...maybe I should fix that to make it clear that is what I meant.

Quote

This is also incorrect. The courts interrupt the law and constitution and decide what is legal and illegal under it (by interpreting what the laws mean and how they can be applied). In the case of same-sex marriage the court ruled that the previous definition of marriage, which prevented same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional, and as such they struck it down (meaning that it cannot be enforced). This then allowed people, who previously would have been unable to marry due to that section of the law, to marry as it no longer can impose restrictions on them. These principles are the foundation for the entire common law legal system.

They interpret not create. By making the ruling the court justices did indeed create law as the ruling did not become a bill to be passed by congress and signed POTUS so there -in subverting the law making process.

[Blade of Grass]

9 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

They interpret not create. By making the ruling the court justices did indeed create law as the ruling did not become a bill to be passed by congress and signed POTUS so there -in subverting the law making process.

Although it might seem like a splitting of hairs, they did not create any laws. Instead, they removed the section of an existing law (as it violated the constitution) which restricted the people who it applied to. This is not the creation of a new law. This process forms the foundation for the common law legal system, and to suggest it's the subversion of the law making process is incorrect. The legislative branch creates the laws and the courts decides if they're constitutional. If a law is not constitutional, then it is the responsibility of the court to strike it down, otherwise, what else would prevent the government from passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws? While yes the people could revolt upon each unconstitutional law, it is far easier for the government to create a judicial review process instead (as they have). 

[SansVarnic]

1 minute ago, Blade of Grass said:

Although it might seem like a splitting of hairs, they did not create any laws. Instead, they removed the section of an existing law (as it violated the constitution) which restricted the people who it applied to. This is not the creation of a new law. This process forms the foundation for the common law legal system, and to suggest it's the subversion of the law making process is incorrect. The legislative branch creates the laws and the courts decides if they're constitutional. If a law is not constitutional, then it is the responsibility of the court to strike it down, otherwise, what else would prevent the government from passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws? While yes the people could revolt upon each unconstitutional law, it is far easier for the government to create a judicial review process instead (as they have). 

I know the process,  it is the ruling that the justices made and how they did it that I don't agree with so I will review the particulars of what happened again and get back to you.

[CantThinkOfAUserName]

20 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Hey I rather President Elect Trump spends his time on bitch boy twitter wars than deporting motherfuckers.

Depends on who he deports. If it's illegals then they deserve to be deported. I say deport them or make them citizens and pay taxes. One of the two but you have to pick one.

[fjdhdhcyfhf]

5 hours ago, Real_PhillBert said:

If I removed 30% of your income, the first thing you would do is cut unnecessary spending, in their case that would be charitable contributions.

depends on how you implement tax. If tax is on profit then a clean charity that serves its purpose will not loose anything to tax because they will give away everything they take. A dodgy charity will no longer be as profitable to launder money or be used as a cash income. If you tax on consumption (VAT, GST) then charities will loose big time.

[SansVarnic]

@Blade of Grass

My position is along the same line as what Justice's Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wrote in their dissenting opinions.

 

Justice Roberts

Quote

Fundamental rights are protected through the Due Process Clause, but warned it has been misused over time to expand perceived fundamental rights, particularly in Dred Scott v. Sandford and Lochner v. New York. Roberts stated that no prior decision had changed the core component of marriage, that it be between one man and one woman; consequently, same-sex marriage bans did not violate the Due Process Clause. Roberts also rejected the notion that same-sex marriage bans violated a right to privacy, because they involved no government intrusion or subsequent punishment. Addressing the Equal Protection Clause, Roberts stated that same-sex marriage bans did not violate the clause because they were rationally related to a governmental interest: preserving the traditional definition of marriage.

Justice Scalia

Quote

Addressing the claimed Fourteenth Amendment violation, Scalia asserted that, because a same-sex marriage ban would not have been considered unconstitutional at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption, such bans are not unconstitutional today.[139] He claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid, and directly attacked the majority opinion for "lacking even a thin veneer of law".

Justice Thomas

Quote

 "invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—roa[m] at large in the constitutional field guided only by their personal views as to the fundamental rights protected by that document"; in doing so, the judiciary strays from the Constitution's text, subverts the democratic process, and "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority."

Justice Alito

Quote

Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.

 

I agree that using the 14th amendment was a poor way to fight this battle as the 14th had nothing to do with homosexual marriage in the least. I agree it was a violation of the use of the 14th in this process. Having made the ruling was a radical move by justices looking to make a name for themselves as Thomas pointed out and Alito pointed out same-sex marriage does not meet the definition of what the 14th was intended for. Due process was not observed correctly as Scalia made note of and having ignored many previous precedents made by several other cases in the past as Roberts made a point of in his statement.

 

(By the way I will not use the term gay as I find the use of it in this manner quite offensive, fyi, it is again taking a word and redefining it just like marriage to fit an agenda)

 

In my conclusion based on what they 4 justices said and the process outlined in the founders notes and the Constitution itself I find myself looking at the ruling as not following the correct due process of law making. Striking out any portion of the bill by the court means it needs to go back and be re-voted on by congress to be legit law. This is by an large subverting peoples representation of the what the bill is after compared to what it was. 

[AshleyAshes]

34 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Although it might seem like a splitting of hairs, they did not create any laws. Instead, they removed the section of an existing law (as it violated the constitution) which restricted the people who it applied to. This is not the creation of a new law. This process forms the foundation for the common law legal system, and to suggest it's the subversion of the law making process is incorrect. The legislative branch creates the laws and the courts decides if they're constitutional. If a law is not constitutional, then it is the responsibility of the court to strike it down, otherwise, what else would prevent the government from passing and enforcing unconstitutional laws? While yes the people could revolt upon each unconstitutional law, it is far easier for the government to create a judicial review process instead (as they have). 

It's almost as if the United States Constitution exists with legal supremacy over all other laws within the United States for the express purpose or protecting the basic rights of it's citizens from an overzealous legislature.  Further more, if the elimination of same sex marriage is found to be such a pressing issue for the American people then a simple constitutional amendment is needed.  You'll just need two thirds of the Senate and two thirds of Congress or two third's of the nations state legislatures to agree on that.  Good luck with that one, the United States can't even pass the equal rights amendment.

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

my conclusion based on what they 4 justices said

You'd almost think that there are nine justices for a reason...

[Misanthrope]

29 minutes ago, CantThinkOfAUserName said:

Depends on who he deports. If it's illegals then they deserve to be deported. I say deport them or make them citizens and pay taxes. One of the two but you have to pick one.

Many do already, but yes: amnesty shouldn't be divorced from increased border security imho, regardless of past failures on that area.

[SansVarnic]

11 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

It's almost as if the United States Constitution exists with legal supremacy over all other laws within the United States for the express purpose or protecting the basic rights of it's citizens from an overzealous legislature. 

Hit that nail straight on.

11 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Further more, if the elimination of same sex marriage is found to be such a pressing issue for the American people then a simple constitutional amendment is needed.  You'll just need two thirds of the Senate and two thirds of Congress or two third's of the nations state legislatures to agree on that.  Good luck with that one, the United States can't even pass the equal rights amendment.

And no I highly doubt either would pass under a constitutional convention within the deadline of the 7 years required to pass. I doubt it would happen in my lifetime.

We have civil rights laws, thanks to Martin Luther King [for the record he is a hero in my book].

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

You'd almost think that there are nine justices for a reason...

My conclusion is based of more than just 4 justices statements please don't cloud it by taking it out of context.

There have been as little as 4 and and as many as 20 justices sitting at that bench so your point does not hold much muster, the myth of having 9 sitting judges is just that.

It doesn't matter if 1 justice sits on that bench, if they do not interpret the law correctly them they are not doing the job correctly. They are there to decide one thing, to either approve of or not approve of the constitutionality of a law. Not change it. Not amend it, and certainly not enforce it. The courts role is clearly defined. This is why the appointment is for life is because they do not have the overreaching power to make changes or enforcement of the law just like they pretend to do today.

[AshleyAshes]

27 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

 if they do not interpret the law correctly them they are not doing the job correctly

There is no provision in US law for the majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to be 'incorrect'.  'Incorrect' does not exist exist in this scenario as much as you may want to say that it is incorrect.  Don't like it their decision?  Amend the constitution.  Don't like that they can't be 'incorrect'?  Amend the constitution.  Seems to me all the folks against same sex marriage are just way too lazy to get around to that whole 'Two Thirds' thing.

 

You could also of course create new legislation and then run that though the supreme court (And all the courts before that) and hope for the best.  Works super well for all those runs at Roe V. Wade over the years.  Not to mention popular support for same sex marriage that exists now.  The whole topic is pretty radioactive these days.  It was one thing to defend the status quo it's a whooooole 'nother thing to try and revoke a legally defended right of a particular group of citizens and not have it go thermos nuclear in your hands.