Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Same-sex marriage legal across US

  1. Jun 26, 2015 #1

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 26, 2015 #2
    Time for Mormons? ;)

    And more seriously - for me the way in which the US Supreme Court operate is a bit peculiar. For me that's mostly judiciary usurping power of legislature. (I mean concerning procedures, not the decision as such, I can't say bad word about Irish who legalized that after a referendum)
     
  4. Jun 26, 2015 #3

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, it's time for Mormons. Just as the court was right saying people of legal age can marry who they want it should also be OK to marry how many they want (and properly suffer the consequences). In this case the US Supreme Court decided the legislature has no say about the sex of whom can marry so it was always legal by default (in general rights are taken in the US, not given).
     
  5. Jun 26, 2015 #4

    Maylis

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Their interpretation of the constitution is quite a stretch
     
  6. Jun 26, 2015 #5

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I just don't see how.
     
  7. Jun 26, 2015 #6

    Maylis

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    marriage is not the business of the federal government and the constitution does not delegate any powers for this purpose
     
  8. Jun 26, 2015 #7

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Exactly, that's why I agree that the federal government and as a 'civil right' all governments should have no say in what sex can have 'legal' marriage if all other conditions are met.
     
  9. Jun 26, 2015 #8
    Curious which other laws are being infringed now that we would learn about it in a century...

    The problem is that US constitution is don't directly regulate such issue. So at least following any literal interpretation - it would mean that catch all category - state power. Getting a different conclusion seem to me as a usual replacing "rule of law" with "rule of lawyers". Maybe that's an idea for the US gridlocked legislature being replaced by legislative power overstepping its authority.
     
  10. Jun 26, 2015 #9

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    States still have the power to regulate 'legal' marriage, they just can't use sex if all other requirements are met in the same way they were stopped from using race to regulate 'legal' marriage in the south. IMO this is removing a legal restriction in the basic rights of people so the US constitution is supreme over state power in this case.
     
  11. Jun 26, 2015 #10

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Waitin' for my state-issued spouse to arrive to keep me from bein' lonely.

    The Constitution is now reduced to a self-help tome for the perpetually confused (I'm lookin' at you, Justice Kennedy.)

    The next time a vacancy opens on the Court, might as well nominate Dr. Phil for the seat, since the law is now just so much flummery.
     
  12. Jun 26, 2015 #11
    Honestly speaking I see such interpretation as very thin ice. And plenty of other possibilities. For example age of consent or minimum legal drinking age. Equal protection clause and age discrimination. And arbitrarily ruling a new threshold.

    (actually in my country is 15 for sex, 18 for alcohol, so I'm not saying that from any ultra stick in the mud position)

    EDIT: I think we're not touching the core of the problem. US constitution was written a while ago, when quite a few issues no one thought that shall be regulated. In a bit cryptic language, modern constitutions are usually longer. Now there is a game of planting "right" people to interpret it, to get desired result. And for me such game looks a bit against idea of rule of law.

    EDIT2: I'm used to codex law, yes I know I may treat common law in a bit unfair way.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  13. Jun 26, 2015 #12

    nsaspook

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I know what you mean but in this case the threshold is something we are born with like race (but subject to some change with modern technology). That should have no bearing in a 'legal' contract with another person that the government can regulate by force of law.
     
  14. Jun 26, 2015 #13
    More wonderful news for Americans!
     
  15. Jun 26, 2015 #14
    Would you say it's time for us to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?
     
  16. Jun 26, 2015 #15

    Maylis

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My suggestion is to remove the institution of marriage entirely from the public sector, and give it back to the church where its origins lie. Then same sex marriage becomes a non-issue like it should be.
     
  17. Jun 26, 2015 #16

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That would be a real headache as marriage bleeds into all sorts of property laws. If your church allows polygamy... how does the estate get split up? how does alimony and child support get figured out? Does a child belong to his biological mother or to the group of wives who raised him?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2015
  18. Jun 26, 2015 #17

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    But people get married for legal reasons, those cannot be granted by a church. A church ceremony is not legal unless the person performing the ceremony has been granted the ability to file the paperwork with the court on behalf of the couple.

    I am truly amazed by how many people do not realize that the church ceremony is not legal on it's own, it's just an optional ceremony you can ask your church to perform if you are religious.

    http://info.legalzoom.com/make-marriage-official-21976.html
     
  19. Jun 26, 2015 #18

    SteamKing

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    No clear cut determination on that issue, otherwise child custody cases wouldn't be so contentious, even when only two parents are involved.

    However, the U.S. Constitution was drafted to set up a government, not provide a Talmudic reference book for figuring out the solution to all of life's everyday problems.

    The Tenth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights (for some reason, law schools stop teaching the Bill of Rights at the Eighth Amendment) to ensure that the federal government would not get involved in areas where the Constitution was silent. Those powers were properly reserved to the several states or to the people, so that, for instance, you wouldn't get the federal government entangled in how one disposes of his property in a will, or who gets custody of the kids should a couple break up.

    But, with the latest rumblings from Mount Scotus, perhaps it's time to bring back the Delphic Oracle, to be consulted in figuring out all of life's thorny issues. Certainly, the reasoning used by Justice Kennedy is better suited for printing in Cosmopolitan Magazine or Seventeen, than U.S. Reports.
     
  20. Jun 26, 2015 #19

    DavidSnider

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Who was suggesting that the constitution should be used in the way you describe?
     
  21. Jun 26, 2015 #20

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    This decision wasn't about the religious aspects of marriage. It's about legal discrimination.

    My marriage is heterosexual. If I have a serious injury, my heterosexual spouse can approve the perhaps dangerous medical procedure that has a good chance of fixing me. If I die, my death benefits, life insurance, and lifelong earnings go to my heterosexual spouse. If I do something very bad that makes my spouse decide that living with me is untenable, our community property needs to be split.

    That my heterosexual marriage has preferred legal status is quite untenable. There is no reason that someone with a seriously injured homosexual partner shouldn't be able to legally approve that risky medical procedure, that someone with a deceased homosexual partner shouldn't be able to legally receive the partner's death benefits, or that someone with a cheating/abusive homosexual partner shouldn't be able to sue to nullify the marriage contract.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Same-sex marriage legal across US
Loading...