Let’s take religion out of the equation. Would it be constitutional for a state to tell me that I can enter into a contract to have a woman dig a well for me, but it would not be a legal contract if I made it with another man?
So you mean the same judges who ruled on District of Columbia v Heller, agreeing with Scalia writing that the preamble to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State …” was just superficial decoration and could be completely ignored when overturning gun laws they didn’t like. 
This was exactly the same gang of activists (with the exception of Justice Stevens, who was a Republican moderate with libertarian leanings and supported Heller) who subsequently dissented on the Obergefell ruling.
That’s fair.
Clearly, denying marriage to same-sex couples is restricting their liberty. in violation of the 14th Amendment. The pursuit of happiness itself has been considered a fundamental right going back to the nation’s founding, unfortunately we have not always done a great job in ensuring that.
It’s much more than that. It’s dehumanizing and relegating them to the status of second-class citizens. It’s one of the reasons that Kim Davis was hit with having to pay $100,000 in compensation for the emotional damage her hateful actions caused to the plaintiffs, in addition to legal costs.
let me answer your question with one of my own. Do you think judges can make rulings in cases that they believe should be decided one way (based on ideological, political, or other reason) even when there is not a clear basis for such a ruling in the Constitution (hence an activist decision) while also issuing opinions in other cases that are clearly grounded in established Constitutional doctrine (hence not activist)? There is not such thing (really) as an activist judge, just activist decisions.
That’s a terribly subjective opinion. How about “A judge that overrules the legislature or executive branch” - at least that’s objective. A judge that overrules a law banning some marriages is activist - and so is a judge that overrules a law legalizing some marriages.
This cunt has nothing better to do with her time than stew about gay marriage. What is the penalty for not paying the quarter of $1 million in fines she owes?
of course it is, but the 14th amendment only prohibits “any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law“. Furthermore, “liberty” here is interpreted to mean “civil liberties”, not just anything a person desires to do. It doesn’t prevent a State from outlawing and preventing someone from driving drunk for example.
Bullshit. Thomas and Alito are especially spectacular examples of totally unthinking judges who are driven entirely by their warped ideology. Their rulings are absolutely 100% predictable based on the ideological issue in question, and the Constitution be damned. You can’t get any more activist than that. These clowns are unfit to judge pigs at a county fair, let alone sit on the Supreme Court.
Historically, who wasn’t allowed to marry?
And marriage is a fundamental right afforded to individuals.
If she is successful, I predict her debts will disappear the next day, paid by various right-wing religious organizations and people.
the Supreme Court agreed with you. I agree with you. I just don’t think it is entirely clear that the Constitution and history agree with that, hence my statement that the decision rested on shaky doctrinal ground.
Well, interracial couples weren’t in almost every state at some point. Not until Loving v. Virginia, which established that anti-miscegenation laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment using the exact same justification as Obergefell.
Clearly, those were also activist judges as well by the logic of @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves.
I regret the intemperate resort to gendered insults. Let’s come together with “asshole,” please
In other words, what made them “activist judges” was just that they made a decision based on their interpretation of the Constitution? Where I come from, the word for that is just “judges”. That’s their job.
For that, I think we can look to the 9th Amendment.
not at all. There was no Constitutional basis for anti-miscegenation laws, and thus they violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
It differs from Obergefell. Obergefell invoked the 14th amendment for both the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process clause. Once they stated that marriage was a fundamental right and denying it violated due process (the shaky part of the decision), they then stated that denying same-sex couples the right to marry constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection clause (very solid part of the decision once the first aspect was met).
Under what reasoning, historical and legal, would it not be a fundamental right?
It is nice to know that any rando can petition the Supremes.
However, let’s say they grant her hateful request. What becomes of marriages that were performed lawfully, but are suddenly “not marriages”?