The supreme court decision.

[Insert name here]

As I am sure most of you know, the Supreme Court has ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all fifty states.(Awesome! ) However , when my father heard about it he said that the court had done so illegally, I don't really agree with that, but what do you guys think? Did the Supreme Court have the right to make that decision? Or should it have been left for congress or the states themselves?

[EquALLity]

Yup!

Why should it have had to go to Congress? The Supreme Court decides whether or not things are Constitutional or not, not Congress.

Does your dad think this about all Supreme Court cases? If not, why is this the exception?

Not everything should always be left up to the states when many would choose to oppress people, and federal laws aren't illegal.

On what basis does your dad call this illegal?

[Insert name here]

Yup!

Why should it have had to go to Congress? The Supreme Court decides whether or not things are Constitutional or not, not Congress.

Does your dad think this about all Supreme Court cases? If not, why is this the exception?

Not everything should always be left up to the states when many would choose to oppress people, and federal laws aren't illegal.

On what basis does your dad call this illegal?

He correctly asserts that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to interpret laws, I get the feeling that he thinks they decided that is was legal, where as I think that it was more of an overturn on the state bans on same sex marriage. And in all honesty,how is this ruling that much different from the court ruling on segregation? They interpreted that the law of segregation is unconstitutional based on the fourteenth amendment which provides everyone with equal protection under the law. It is essentially the same thing here with same sex marriage. But my father never did care one way or another about this debate, in his words he " Doesn't have a dog in this fight." So that may have something to do with it.

[brimstoneSalad]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The supreme court interpreted the 14th amendment, as is its prerogative.
The purpose was to prevent the state from passing discriminatory laws against the minority by the majority.
Beyond outlining power of government, protecting minorities against persecution by the democratic majority is the main purpose of the constitution (whether you agree with that mandate or not). It's idiocy to say things like this should be left to democratic processes and that the constitution has nothing to say about it.

[Insert name here]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The supreme court interpreted the 14th amendment, as is its prerogative.
The purpose was to prevent the state from passing discriminatory laws against the minority by the majority.
Beyond outlining power of government, protecting minorities against persecution by the democratic majority is the main purpose of the constitution (whether you agree with that mandate or not). It's idiocy to say things like this should be left to democratic processes and that the constitution has nothing to say about it.

I couldn't have put it in better words myself brimstone, I am still trying to figure out why people think the Supreme Court over stepped the boundary on their power, but I digress. Regardless, this is a happy time for equality.

[brimstoneSalad]

I am still trying to figure out why people think the Supreme Court over stepped the boundary on their power, but I digress. Regardless, this is a happy time for equality.

Because they disagree with that interpretation, and they do not believe that interpretation to be a reasonable one.

As if the supreme court had declared that everybody should be mandated to wear a flowered hat based on the 14th amendment.

The courts have no checks on their powers of interpretation, so some people disagree with the courts' rights to do so at all, and others think they overstep by reading into the laws the implications rather than taking them literally and very conservatively based only on the most narrow possible intent of the laws at the time.

These people are mistaken about the court misinterpreting the laws; at the time of the 14th amendment, women were still essentially property, and the institution of marriage as it is did not exist (it was more of a ceremony of property rights). Modern marriage of equals is a new institution, so within the context of modern gender equality, the interpretation of the 14th amendment is necessarily different (otherwise it doesn't make much sense -- really, read the whole amendment out of context).