It's not the court that's a joke on us all, it's the rest of government that makes laws against gay and interracial marriage. And selling cars on Sunday. And worse. The court wouldn't have to get involved if the government respected us.
Maris has a point. 5-4 decisions used to be unusual, now they are the norm. The Court even has said that decisions (such as Bush v Gore) should not have precedent. Constitutional scholars have said there is absolutely no Constitutional basis for calling corporations "people" (Hobby Lobby, Citizens United) and giving them rights actual people don't have. Justices now are using their position for political agenda. I wonder how the two ladies in my avatar (both in their 90s, being married after 70 years together) are keeping young hetero men from marrying? And why just hetero men? Are hetero women just as likely to marry if gays do? An obvious problem if hetero men won't marry them! Clearly MarAzul is talking nonsense; there have been no changes in hetero marriage rates in 37 states & DC, or in Canada, South Africa, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, etc. I guess if you really really hate gay people the idea of having anything in common, like marriage or, you know, being human, becomes abhorrent. Fortunately that attitude is not evolutionarily viable and hence is dying out.
What "rights" do you think SCOTUS gave to corporations? I know, but it seems like you don't (sorry). They have no rights that actual people don't have.
To put this corporations are people nonsense to rest... Corporations are people in the sense that they are protected from the States under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and they have the right to enforce contracts and sue in the courts. THAT'S IT. What's the fuss? Fuss for fuss' sake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood Corporations as persons in the United States[edit] As a matter of interpretation of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.[5][6] The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[7] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association. Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections that would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis. In United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company, "[a]ppellants [suggested] the use of the word 'taxpayer' several times in the regulations requires the fifth-amendment self-incrimination warning be given to a corporation." The Court did not agree.[8] Since the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, upholding the rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment, there have been several calls for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish Corporate Personhood,[9] even though the Citizens United majority opinion makes no reference to corporate personhood or to the Fourteenth Amendment.[10]
Denny, since you asked and not to go a million miles off. Which I think is your intention. In Hobby Lobby, the Court declared that a corporation had a religion, and that it could avoid following the law by claiming their religion was opposed. Even though it was their employees, who were of many/no religion, who were impacted. In the same session, a suit was brought by residents of a town where city council meetings opened with sectarian prayers to Jesus Christ. The residents objected that their First Amendment rights were violated by this obvious government endorsement of a particular religion. The Court ruled that being forced to hear sectarian prayers in town meetings was just an "inconvenience", which they compared to having to watch a TV commercial (except you can't put a town meeting on mute). So - a corporation has a religion that must be respected and that employees must abide by. An individual may have a religion or none at all but that does not need to be respected; they have to abide by the majority. Constitutional scholars, which I am not, commented pretty much unanimously that the Court had it exactly backwards; individuals are the ones who have religious freedom, including a religion-neutral government. Corporations do not have "souls", they don't go to heaven or hell, and as the saying goes, I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one. Now tell me how gay people getting married will stop straight people from getting married?
That's just stretching things too far. You mischaracterize the Hobby Lobby decision. A corporation is merely a means to reduce liability risk for its owners. Hobby Lobby decision said no such thing as you claim. The ruling applies to non corporations too. Exactly because corporations and other businesses are made up of people. City council is not a corporation. I don't know why you brought it up. The house and senate begin their daily meetings with a prayer. They've been doing so for centuries. OMG!!!! Your corporation as person assertions are simply crap.
And crandc, I'm completely in favor of gay marriage. The first libertarian party presidential candidate was openly gay. I'm not of the DOMA/Hillary party.
Town council ruling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...142ede-cf9d-11e3-b812-0c92213941f4_story.html All nine justices endorsed the concept of legislative prayer, with the four dissenters agreeing that the public forum “need not become a religion-free zone,” in the words of Justice Elena Kagan.
