SCOTUS Gay Marriage Thread

[digamma]

And the Republican presidential candidates keep on effing that chicken.

Huckabee expects civil disobedience in response to SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

I'll say this for Walker. At least he understands the Constitutional issue and framework.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Marriage isn't a fundamental constitional right. its defined by states.

Actually it is. There's countless Supreme Court rulings going back to the 1800's that establish that.

[Toddzilla]

Brian - do you have any issues with the sexual nerves involved?

[tarcone]

The couple doesn't move to that state. That's pretty simple. And I don't want to hear the "what-ifs", and a law was passed by their duly elected officials defining marriage to incorporate them into it, then why move?
It's not the courts place in this instance to create a law.

The majority of Americans are in favor of same sex marriage. Laws in states would have redefined marriage and our democratic republic would remain as it was intended.

Loving v. Virginia was a different issue. They were sentenced to jail for their marriage, thus making it unconstitutional. No one gay couple has Ben sentenced to jail.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Loving v. Virginia was a different issue. They were sentenced to jail for their marriage, thus making it unconstitutional. No one gay couple has Ben sentenced to jail.

The holding in the case applies to all marriages, not just that specific one.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Actually it is. There's countless Supreme Court rulings going back to the 1800's that establish that.

show me in the constitution it says marriage is a right.

[digamma]

So, we'll put you in the Huckabee camp of either needing a refresh on basic U.S. Civics or being willfully ignorant about how judicial review works? Fair?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The holding in the case applies to all marriages, not just that specific one.

Loving v. Virginia is aboUt equal application of the law. The 2 parties were sentenced to the term in jail so Virginia argued it was legal. This case was solely about race and not the right to marry whomever you want.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, we'll put you in the Huckabee camp of either needing a refresh on basic U.S. Civics or being willfully ignorant about how judicial review works? Fair?

So I'm wrong that the United States has 3 branches of government that are charged with specific duties?
And I'm wrong that one of the duties of the legislative branch is to make laws?

I want to get this right. I sure dont want to make your condescending rhetoric to come across as wrong.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

show me in the constitution it says marriage is a right.

I feel like you are you trying to use reasoning (and failing) to argue a topic that is obviously an emotional one for you. I'm sure there is no amount of legal "gotcha" rebuttals that will change your mind, or even enlighten you.

If you feel you need to share your thoughts, like so many here have done well on both sides, speak from the heart. Just my 2 cents...

[molson]

I think if you want to argue against gay marriage you should rely on Roberts' dissent rather than disclaim 100+ years of Supreme Court precedent.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

So I'm wrong that the United States has 3 branches of government that are charged with specific duties?
And I'm wrong that one of the duties of the legislative branch is to make laws?

I want to get this right. I sure dont want to make your condescending rhetoric to come across as wrong.

What law was made here?

By my read, existing laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

[tarcone]

I have no issue with who marries who. I have an issue when the Feds start impinging on the states right to govern.
This is an emotional issue. But it was forced upon the land in the wrong way. This will cause more problems long term. It should have been done the right way. And had it, I imagine within a couple years you would have seen 90% of states legalizing it and within a couple years after that, every state.

It is not the judicial branches job to make law. And that's what they did.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by digamma

What law was made here?

By my read, existing laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

And same sex marriage legalized. Thus, a law.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by molson

I think if you want to argue against gay marriage you should rely on Roberts' dissent rather than disclaim 100+ years of Supreme Court precedent.

I have been. And Scalia and Alito and Thomas.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by tarcone

This will cause more problems long term.

what long term problems do you think this will create? i am having problems imagining any.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Loving v. Virginia is aboUt equal application of the law.

So was this. Heck, they quoted Loving v Virginia in the actual majority opinion.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And same sex marriage legalized. Thus, a law.

No. Marriage was already a law. This ruling just says that everyone has a right to it.

[larrymcg421]

From Loving v. Virginia:

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. "

[digamma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And same sex marriage legalized. Thus, a law.

OK, I can play your game too. Show me in the codified laws of the US or in the states where gay marriage bans were struck down where there is a new statute in the books.

Of course the headline says, legalizes gay marriage. It's easy to write that. But if you read the opinion, you'll see the issue here was existing gay marriage bans which were struck down.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

what long term problems do you think this will create? i am having problems imagining any.

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced. If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position. If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

Just a couple things

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced. If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position. If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

Just a couple things

Why stop there? What if Christianity is outlawed!!!

[tarcone]

From Judge Thomas

Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it"

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why stop there? What if Christianity is outlawed!!!

And I think that's the type of reaction some people are afraid of. That this is the first step on that journey.

[Logan]

This entire debate can be boiled down to the simple rule that Ben established for this board:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

RULE 1: Don't act like an asshat.

When you are coming up with some of these ridiculous scenarios to spell inevitable doom for the country, all because we as a country are now allowing two people of the same sex to be treated the same as two people of the opposite sex, you are failing to uphold that rule.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt?

Yes.

Originally Posted by tarcone

Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

See above.

Originally Posted by tarcone

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced.

No.

Originally Posted by tarcone

If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position.

Yes.

Originally Posted by tarcone

If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

No.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by tarcone

From Judge Thomas

Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it"

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

There are lots of things that our founding fathers wouldn't recognize. Should we not have laws governing telecommunications because of it?

This is about equal application of standing laws. Essentially, you can't create a subclass of citizen with legislation.

But, buck up young camper, in thirty or forty years, none of this will matter to you at all.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And I think that's the type of reaction some people are afraid of. That this is the first step on that journey.

You really can't believe this.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why stop there? What if Christianity is outlawed!!!

I was in Louisville for a wedding this weekend. I had some free time so I traveled around more rural Kentucky, did some hiking, and came across a huge flea market. It was a fun little sampling of the area, I bought some local jam. There was a couple of people wearing confederate T-shirts and talking politics with some of the vendors. One expressed a concern that before long, they'd only be allowed to go to church in their own garages. I believe he was being sincere because he was talking only to other like-minded individuals, they were sympathizing with each other. These are very poor people (one of the poorest parts of America in fact), very uneducated.

I kind of felt bad for them - if you sincerely belief that's a real concern, I can see how that would be scary and how it could fuel your hate. And you can see these huge dividing lines between these people at the flea market and the liberal downtown Louisville crowd. At least the wedding crowd - the bride was the founder of Louisville's Fair Vendor Alliance, a group that organizes and promotes "gay-friendly" local businesses who are open to providing services for gay weddings and events, which can be a great thing to know if you're trying to plan something like that in an area that isn't fully tolerant.

So I really saw both worlds and kind of felt the disdain they have for each other. But I wish there was a way to bring down those walls some and address the sincere concerns both sides have rather than have this environment of broad mutual hostility. You can't hate people into accepting something. I always thought that real social progress comes from the individual level, from people who are able to reach across those divides. Like the Kentucky Christian redneck who supports gay marriage and convinces a few of his old friends and it's not a threat to them, or the gay kid from the rural christian family who comes out and helps gradually gets his community to evolve their views not by labeling them all as bigots, but just by being himself. You know, if Jimmy the former high school football star from the great family is gay, then maybe it's not such a big deal. Not everybody came around that simply but I think those little battles is how progress comes.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yes.

See above.

No.

Yes.

No.

Wow. You have an amazing crystal ball. I didn't realize you could see into the future.

I want to place a bet on next years Super Bowl. Who will win?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And I think that's the type of reaction some people are afraid of. That this is the first step on that journey.

This is where I quit taking you seriously.

[BillJasper]

On a serious note, I just can't believe that people think the government is going to outlaw their religion because they've ruled that the government has to treat people equally.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You really can't believe this.

It doesn't matter what I believe or don't.
There are already articles out there comparing this to Dred Scott and roe v wade in its social implication.
I'm far from a far right wing religious zealot. But, as you know, they are out there. And this will, most likely, be their war cry.
You know as well as I do that people are not happy with this decision. And you know that people do crazy things.
And those that believe this will use the evidence produced and will be firing on all cylinders.

I hope this goes down as a great social decision. I don't like the legalities of it. I don't like how it was done. And I have no fear my life will change because of it.
But I'm only one.

[cuervo72]

In other words, just like how the Feds forced desegregation down the throats of the southern states.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It doesn't matter what I believe or don't.
There are already articles out there comparing this to Dred Scott and roe v wade in its social implication.
I'm far from a far right wing religious zealot. But, as you know, they are out there. And this will, most likely, be their war cry.
You know as well as I do that people are not happy with this decision. And you know that people do crazy things.
And those that believe this will use the evidence produced and will be firing on all cylinders.

I hope this goes down as a great social decision. I don't like the legalities of it. I don't like how it was done. And I have no fear my life will change because of it.
But I'm only one.

Who cares what their war cry is? We don't make decisions in this country to appease crazy zealots.

I really don't think this will be a big deal. Bunch of states had already made the switch. Bunch more were on their way. Other countries have done it for years. Nothing big came out of it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I was in Louisville for a wedding this weekend. I had some free time so I traveled around more rural Kentucky, did some hiking, and came across a huge flea market. It was a fun little sampling of the area, I bought some local jam. There was a couple of people wearing confederate T-shirts and talking politics with some of the vendors. One expressed a concern that before long, they'd only be allowed to go to church in their own garages. I believe he was being sincere because he was talking only to other like-minded individuals, they were sympathizing with each other. These are very poor people (one of the poorest parts of America in fact), very uneducated.

I kind of felt bad for them - if you sincerely belief that's a real concern, I can see how that would be scary and how it could fuel your hate. And you can see these huge dividing lines between these people at the flea market and the liberal downtown Louisville crowd. At least the wedding crowd - the bride was the founder of Louisville's Fair Vendor Alliance, a group that organizes and promotes "gay-friendly" local businesses who are open to providing services for gay weddings and events, which can be a great thing to know if you're trying to plan something like that in an area that isn't fully tolerant.

So I really saw both worlds and kind of felt the disdain they have for each other. But I wish there was a way to bring down those walls some and address the sincere concerns both sides have rather than have this environment of broad mutual hostility. You can't hate people into accepting something. I always thought that real social progress comes from the individual level, from people who are able to reach across those divides. Like the Kentucky Christian redneck who supports gay marriage and convinces a few of his old friends and it's not a threat to them, or the gay kid from the rural christian family who comes out and helps gradually gets his community to evolve their views not by labeling them all as bigots, but just by being himself. You know, if Jimmy the former high school football star from the great family is gay, then maybe it's not such a big deal. Not everybody came around that simply but I think those little battles is how progress comes.

I agree, with the caveat that some people aren't willing to change(at least at this point in their life.)

I'm generally suspicious of slippery slope arguments like Tarcone's. We make lines all the time. Yes, we allow the lines to move from time to time, but we can and have been more than capable of saying here's where the line is and then holding to that. Slippery slope arguments tend to just be lazy arguments against the original proposition.

[path12]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I have been. And Scalia and Alito and Thomas.

And that side was overruled by a majority. That doesn't seem like a hard concept to grasp, though you are proving me wrong there.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

There are lots of things that our founding fathers wouldn't recognize.

HOLY SHIT that's a 2nd amendment arguement - wrong thread, sir.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

The liberty to marry?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

On a serious note, I just can't believe that people think the government is going to outlaw their religion because they've ruled that the government has to treat people equally.

Especially since my church (ELCA) was praying for this ruling!

[Subby]

Republicans better get with the times. At this rate, they are never going to win another presidential election and in turn are never going to appoint another supreme court justice.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by tarcone

It is not the judicial branches job to make law. And that's what they did.

Actually they struck down law that was in violation of the equal protection clause. Which is what they are supposed to do.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?

I don't know why you think this has anything to do with churches. Churches already had the ability to deny to perform weddings. What makes you think they've lost that?

But after today’s ruling, if you don’t approve of same-sex marriage and you are a legislator, your voice has been silenced. If you don’t accept it and you’re a court clerk, you must perform the ceremony or resign your position. If you don’t like it and you’re a public schoolteacher, must you promote it or be fired?

Just a couple things

There are lots of things a legislator might be in favor of that are unconstitutional or may become unconstitutional in the future. That's the way it works. What does a court clerk do? I'm sure they are against many things that come before the court. There is a compelling government interest in offering access to this. The remedy will be to replace you if your religious beliefs prevent you from fulfilling the duties of the job.

There are lots of things that are legal that schoolteachers are not required to promote. What makes you think they have to promote it?

There is so much FUD in your post that I cannot believe you really think all of that is true.

[Solecismic]

Of all the objections, I think I understand the polygamy one the most. And maybe that will be challenged at some point in our lives. If so, it wouldn't be about social acceptance, it would be about whether the government is discriminating against a group of people based on their family structure.

If you have faith that something two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home disqualifies them for membership in your preferred version of the afterlife, you also have faith that you version of a god will mete out some appropriate punishment. And that has to be enough for you in a free country.

Now if someone else is being harmed by these consenting adults, by all means, make your case.

For similar reasons, I kind of hope Obama would consider drawing a cartoon Muhammad himself. Nothing mean, of course. But I don't think we do enough to stand up for freedom from those who want to monitor our thoughts and our bedrooms.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by tarcone

From Judge Thomas

Kennedy and the Court's liberal wing are invoking a definition of "liberty" that the Constitution's framers "would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect."

"Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government," Thomas said. "This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it"

Loving was about liberty. Not marriage.

You may not know this, but there are dissenting opinions given in a lot of cases before SCOTUS. It is interesting to read their opinion, but their take on the matter is not law.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Subby

Actually they struck down law that was in violation of the equal protection clause. Which is what they are supposed to do.

Or they infringed upon states rights.

And you really can't compare this to slavery can you, Cuervo?

That was a slippery slope arguement and I got side tracked from what my issue is. And it is an issue I've had problems with before. The Feds forcing the states what to do when that is not the Feds job.

Was it a bad law in the books of many states? Sure.
But it was voted on by the people of the states. And most states were changing those laws. So, why did the feds have to step in? They didn't. But an overzealous group of judges felt they needed to legislate.

Same sex marriage would have been legal in all states sooner rather then later.

[Tekneek]

If SCOTUS finds a law to be unconstitutional, it does not matter what any state thinks about it. The U.S. Constitution supersedes all.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The Feds forcing the states what to do when that is not the Feds job.

Was it a bad law in the books of many states? Sure.
But it was voted on by the people of the states. And most states were changing those laws. So, why did the feds have to step in? They didn't. But an overzealous group of judges felt they needed to legislate.

Or, you know, under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, the Constitution trumps state law. Therefore the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment overrules any contrary state rules. Constitution always wins. That's why the feds had to step in.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Or they infringed upon states rights.

And you really can't compare this to slavery can you, Cuervo?

That was a slippery slope arguement and I got side tracked from what my issue is. And it is an issue I've had problems with before. The Feds forcing the states what to do when that is not the Feds job.

Was it a bad law in the books of many states? Sure.
But it was voted on by the people of the states. And most states were changing those laws. So, why did the feds have to step in? They didn't. But an overzealous group of judges felt they needed to legislate.

Same sex marriage would have been legal in all states sooner rather then later.

Just a little thing called federal preemption which I believe is spelled out in the Constitution.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Same sex marriage would have been legal in all states sooner rather then later.

Yeah they said the same about Jim Crow, too. Somehow I think that wouldn't have happened. Just a hunch.