Quote from: Ilirix on July 06, 2015, 02:19:35 PM

Quote from: Riniojet on July 06, 2015, 01:42:31 PM

The Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting it?

If you're going to take that attitude then what's the point of having this debate at all?

It's not an attitude at all. It's the truth. There is no entity that overrules the Supreme Court on these matters, and it certainly isn't your call (or mine) as to whether they got this one "right." They made their judgment, and unless and until they change that judgment, it will stand.

Quote

You haven't given any reasons. You are just leaning your argument on the whole "preference" line of baloney.

Quote

The fact that you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean I haven't given any. And just calling it "baloney" doesn't even come close to constituting a counterargument.

The Constitution simply does not require that preferences (or desires or whatever equivalent term you want to use) be treated equally. It's just not there, either in the text of the document, the history behind it, or judicial precedents that have been established up till now. You're free to try to come up with any evidence to the contrary.

Instead, why don't you come up with the precedent that frames a similar issue in terms of "preferences"? It's been a while since I had my nose in a law textbook, but I can't recall the "preference" argument at all. I do remember protected groups, though, which I think fits this case very well. It was only a matter of time before homosexuality was recognized.

Quote

What distinction are you drawing between homosexuals and heterosexuals that allows one the right to a marriage contract, but not the other? Spell it out, please.

Quote

Maybe if you can post where I said that, I can address it. But I'll just point out to you that if a state wanted to legislate that only same-sex unions would be recognized as "marriage", that wouldn't be discrimination against heterosexuals either, for the exact same reasons I mentioned.

Such a law falls heavier on a certain group, and it serves no useful purpose. There is nothing terribly novel about this decision at all.

Your argument is, as Entspeak said very well, specious. From the decision, "The first premise of this Courts relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." A number of years back (but within my lifetime), if your "preference" as a white man was to marry a black woman, you were out of luck in many states. You could always "choose" to marry a white woman and stay within the law, but your right to your personal choice has already been well established. Plus, we all know that's flat-out discrimination, and 48 years later, it's incredibly easy to spot.