Same-sex marriage legal across US

[Czcibor]

I agreed with Citizens United and just about any supreme court decision that removes limitations on freedom and think there are good conservative reasons to agree with this decision.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html

One clarification, I'm not sure, whether my stances (second post) are clear to you. It's not against any gov recognition of any form in which people could live together. It's against judicial branch overstepping its authority. That's the part that I consider as dangerous, and is matter of rule of law and not any religious/conservative stuff.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the things that turned my opinion around on this issue was my sister's wedding. My sister is an athiest and I assume her husband is too. They were married by a justice of the peace, in a beautiful outdoor ceremony at the Boston Navy Yard. Their wedding and their marriage itself has nothing to do with religion.

From a functional standpoint, a marriage that does not involve God does not impact those who get married in churchs or those churches themselves (they are still free to choose who they will marry and who they won't). Indeed, the opposite (recognizing only church weddings) would be a violation of the 1st amendment clause on the establishment of a state religion. And it would make my sister's wedding/marriage invalid. So, since the principle argument is already invalidated by the fact that non-church/non-religious weddings already happen, it doesn't seem to me that that argument can be used to prevent gay marriage.

Also, at one time I had argued that "marriage" should be the religious thing and some other term like "civil union" should be used for non-religious weddings. But if, functionally, the different terms don't change anything, why bother?

 

[Czcibor]

From a functional standpoint, a marriage that does not involve God does not impact those who get married in churchs or those churches themselves (they are still free to choose who they will marry and who they won't). Indeed, the opposite (recognizing only church weddings) would be a violation of the 1st amendment clause on the establishment of a state religion. And it would make my sister's wedding/marriage invalid. So, since the principle argument is already invalidated by the fact that non-church/non-religious weddings already happen, it doesn't seem to me that that argument can be used to prevent gay marriage

I think that it would not need to establish a state religion. In my country in interwar period marriages were regulated by religious law, however gov was guaranteeing freedom of conscience. It was leading to a very limited number of divorces (RCC officially did not allow any divorce, but rich people were able to get their marriage declared null ab initio on very weird grounds) and very high number of religious conversion (mostly from RCC to Lutheran) that was ending prior marriage.

(yes, it was funny)

 

[SteamKing]

I would ask you was the court meddling with states rights when it invalidated interracial marriage bans? I prefer to the keep the government out of the bedroom and gun closets as removing restrictions and invalidating laws is usually a good thing in this law crazy nation.

It's not clear what you mean by a "law crazy nation".

Just as the Second Amendment protects your right to have a gun closet at all, and the First Amendment protects your right to write about it, so I should think proper deference be given to the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell case, Loving v. Virginia did not alter the fundamental definition of marriage as it was understood at that time, but invalidated the discriminatory laws which prohibited two individuals of different races from getting married. As far as the other restrictions which the states put on marriage, such as prohibiting incestuous marriages, the court's ruling left these undisturbed.

Now, there is to be a single federal marriage bureau, I suppose, for better or for worse, no pun intended.

The problem which many have with this decision, and some others in recent years, is that the court is taking on the functions of an unelected legislature.

When the Court doesn't side with the little guy, as happened in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), in which the Court expanded the definition of what constituted a "public purpose" for the state to condemn a person's property in order to benefit a private party, then the state legislatures must step in with new laws to give added protection to a person's property rights (which some did), so that you don't have to fetch the contents of your gun closet to protect your home from being seized and razed should a developer cast an envious gaze at it.

 

[nsaspook]

One clarification, I'm not sure, whether my stances (second post) are clear to you. It's not against any gov recognition of any form in which people could live together. It's against judicial branch overstepping its authority. That's the part that I consider as dangerous, and is matter of rule of law and not any religious/conservative stuff.

IMO 'overstepping its authority' is a dubious reason to oppose this decision (and the Defense of Marriage Act decision) when you have citizens with completely different rights in different states that also effects your federal status in something as basic as federal taxes and who can be buried next to you in a national cemetery with those federal taxes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/gay-married-vets-get-joint-plots-national-cemeteri/

 

[nsaspook]

Now, there is to be a single federal marriage bureau, I suppose, for better or for worse, no pun intended.

There has been a federal marriage bureau for a long time with requirements for 'legal' marriage called Civil registration.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/convention.pdf
United States of America signed 10 Dec 1962

 

[rude man]

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.

Oh, great idea, turn the law over to the religionist mob.

 

[Tyzoone]

Just FYI not one Mormon in (good standing with the religion) has practiced polygamy since 1890. If they currently are members and practice polygamy they face excommunication and their records are removed from the church. So tired of this rumor still being spread...At least mormons didn't slaughter thousands during the inquisition or kill an estimated 290 million people in the name of Allah since the late 1800's alone... And if plural marriage was legal the churches policies would remain the same as it currently. As for the legalizing of gay marriage I can GUARANTEE the LDS church will never support or practice it because homosexuality contradicts some of our most fundamental doctrines.

Rant over...

 

[DavidSnider]

Just FYI not one Mormon in (good standing with the religion) has practiced polygamy since 1890. If they currently are members and practice polygamy they face excommunication and their records are removed from the church. So tired of this rumor still being spread...At least mormons didn't slaughter thousands during the inquisition or kill an estimated 290 million people in the name of Allah since the late 1800's alone... And if plural marriage was legal the churches policies would remain the same as it currently. As for the legalizing of gay marriage I can GUARANTEE the LDS church will never support or practice it because homosexuality contradicts some of our most fundamental doctrines.

Rant over...

It's not a "rumor". It's the history of the church. Polygamy was an integral part of the early church and they didn't get rid of it for religious reasons. Don't pretend like Mormon settlers didn't have blood on their hands either, you know they did.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Note to all members: this thread concerns the Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage. This is not the place to compare the body count or atrocities of religions. Keep the conversation on topic or posts will be deleted.

 

[gfd43tg]

I'm just curious why all the states even bothered to vote for same sex marriage when apparently the Supreme Court can in one vote make it legal everywhere?

 

[jtbell]

Louisiana has officially dug in its heels. According to the state attorney general's office:

it has found nothing in today’s decision that makes the Court’s order effective immediately. Therefore, there is not yet a legal requirement for officials to issue marriage licenses or perform marriages for same-sex couples in Louisiana. The Attorney General's Office will be watching for the Court to issue a mandate or order making today’s decision final and effective and will issue a statement when that occurs.

https://www.ag.state.la.us/Article.aspx?articleID=1037&catID=5

 

[Czcibor]

IMO 'overstepping its authority' is a dubious reason to oppose this decision (and the Defense of Marriage Act decision) when you have citizens with completely different rights in different states that also effects your federal status in something as basic as federal taxes and who can be buried next to you in a national cemetery with those federal taxes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/gay-married-vets-get-joint-plots-national-cemeteri/

It's the same reason why some people dislike idea of lynching a guilty person, and instead insist on due process, which may finish anyway with execution. A matter of state following in case of any controversial decisions its own procedures to make an impression that they matter. (question of rule of law and gov legitimacy in eyes of those who disliked the decision)

 

[nsaspook]

It's the same reason why some people dislike idea of lynching a guilty person, and instead insist on due process, which may finish anyway with execution. A matter of state following in case of any controversial decisions its own procedures to make an impression that they matter. (question of rule of law and gov legitimacy in eyes of those who disliked the decision)

Yes, it short circuited the process (properly IMO) but the inverse of your reasoning is Justice too long delayed is justice denied.

There was a balancing act between States rights and discrimination that has a very familiar ring to it.

 

[Evo]

I can't believe that people object to gays being allowed to be married. For those of you that are against equality for all adult US Citizens, what harm does allowing gays to marry inflict on you? What freedoms and legal rights do you lose? And remember to leave religion out of this, this is not a religious issue and religion is not affected.

 

[Evo]

Again, this thread is about legalizing gay marriage in the US, it is not about your personal definition of the word marriage, it is not about religion, or religious views. Any off topic posts of this nature will be deleted.

 

[mheslep]

What freedoms and legal rights do you lose?

NY Christian Farm Family Fined $13,000 for Refusing to Host Gay Wedding

Indiana pizza joint that vowed to never deliver pizza to a gay wedding forced to close

And remember to leave religion out of this, this is not a religious issue and religion is not affected.

Following that proscription literally entails an Orwellian truncation of public debate on the subject.

I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. ...

 

[Evo]

NY Christian Farm Family Fined $13,000 for Refusing to Host Gay Wedding

They're not a church, correct?

Indiana pizza joint that vowed to never deliver pizza to a gay wedding forced to close

They don't have that right, they're not a church.

So I don't see your point. If they become churches they can discriminate all they want.

It appears Obama wisened up, it happens.

 

[Vanadium 50]

For those of you that are against equality for all adult US Citizens, what harm does allowing gays to marry inflict on you?

I think this confuses the outcome with the decision. I am happy with the outcome. I am unhappy with the decision. The decision says, basically, five justices thought this was a good idea, even though the drafters of the portion of the Constitution they cite (written in 1868) did not intend this. It is a Supreme irony (pun intended) that the same justices who argued in the Obamacare case that what mattered was what the legislature intended to write, not what it actually wrote, are here arguing much the opposite: that it didn't matter what they thought in 1868.

For those of you who think it is a good idea to short-circuit the legislative process (when it's already moving in the direction you want), ask yourself what happens when five justices do the same thing in a matter you are opposed to.

Additionally, Justice Ginsburg said on an earlier occasion on a different topic.

The political process was moving . . . , not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handedjudicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears tohave provoked, not resolved, conflict

Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of changewere freshening at their backs

I would urge people to read the decision and the dissent. I am happy with the outcome, but feel that we paid a much heavier price than we had to by reaching the outcome in this manner, rather than through the legislative process.

 

[Evo]

I would urge people to read the decision and the dissent. I am happy with the outcome, but feel that we paid a much heavier price than we had to by reaching the outcome in this manner, rather than through the legislative process.

And that's a legitimate discussion, and what we have been trying to get the thread back to.

Saying well, I now have to deliver pizza to a gay wedding, even though they pay me, I should be able to discriminate against them like I shouldn't have to deliver to blacks, or Asians, the handicapped, "little people", atheists, just basically anyone I don't like. THAT discussion is not going to be allowed here. We have a varied membership and we will not have posts discriminating against anyone.

 

[rude man]

I'm just curious why all the states even bothered to vote for same sex marriage when apparently the Supreme Court can in one vote make it legal everywhere?

Because the SC was unwilling to come up to speed with the American public until now. So progressive states, those who realized the value of compassion in dollar in addition to purely human terms, passed their own laws. So which explains why the northeast and the west coast have all the brains, technology and money while the bible belt types are living off taxpayer handouts earned by the progressives.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I can't believe that people object to gays being allowed to be married. For those of you that are against equality for all adult US Citizens, what harm does allowing gays to marry inflict on you? What freedoms and legal rights do you lose? And remember to leave religion out of this, this is not a religious issue and religion is not affected.

Exactly - listen to Maurice Williamson speech on the matter -- http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/13407

 

[lisab]

...even though the drafters of the portion of the Constitution they cite (written in 1868) did not intend this...

This can be said of *every* case that gets to the Supreme Court.

The easy cases - those directly and unambiguously addressed by laws and/or the founding fathers' writings - are handled by lesser courts.

 

[StevieTNZ]

This can be said of *every* case that gets to the Supreme Court.

The easy cases - those directly and unambiguously addressed by laws and/or the founding fathers' writings - are handled by lesser courts.

It is up to the Court to interpret the Constitution. They did so, and that's final. The Constitution wasn't created by a legislature, so there is no way to know what their intention was. That's why Courts refer to Hansard to try and determine what the legislature meant in enactments.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This can be said of *every* case that gets to the Supreme Court.

I disagree. Consider Wickard v. Filburn. The issue there was not an issue of legislative interpretation, it was an issue of definition: is a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use engaged in interstate commerce or not? (The ruling was that he was)

Also, the argument that this was what was intended in 1868 is an argument that could have been made in the decision, but it was not. Instead the argument was made that this it didn't matter that this was not what was intended. I would again encourage people to read the decision and the dissent.

 

[nsaspook]

For those of you who think it is a good idea to short-circuit the legislative process (when it's already moving in the direction you want), ask yourself what happens when five justices do the same thing in a matter you are opposed to.

I would urge people to read the decision and the dissent. I am happy with the outcome, but feel that we paid a much heavier price than we had to by reaching the outcome in this manner, rather than through the legislative process.

I don't think the decision was 'good' in that sense but believe it was necessary as the alternative of continued legal discrimination by law was worse. This decision was going to happen eventually and the 'heavy price' we pay today seems to me a bargain to not have years of uncertainty and discrimination until that happened.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Judges can make law -- it is known as common law. The legislature is entitled to override that common law by legislation.

From the email discussions I have had, statutory interpretation (such as interpreting the Constitution) is part of that common law.

 

[russ_watters]

While my opinion on the issue has flipped in the past 5 years or so - as, apparently, a lot of peoples - I don't think it is fair or tolerant of people to respond with vitriol to those who still hold the opposing view...largely because the mainstream view is so new. Even if one feels the opposite opinion is somehow "wrong", people should not forget that it was the mainstream view just a few years ago. Righteous indignation rings hollow when it is so fickle.

 

[jim hardy]

...ask yourself what happens when five justices do the same thing in a matter you are opposed to.

Hmmmm.

from page 2 of the ruling
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed

and page 5

(5)
There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.

Should they levelize 2nd amendment prohibition on ""infringement" among the states
what model do you think they'll choose? More like New York or Texas ?

 

[Tobias Funke]

While my opinion on the issue has flipped in the past 5 years or so - as, apparently, a lot of peoples - I don't think it is fair or tolerant of people to respond with vitriol to those who still hold the opposing view...largely because the mainstream view is so new. Even if one feels the opposite opinion is somehow "wrong", people should not forget that it was the mainstream view just a few years ago. Righteous indignation rings hollow when it is so fickle.

It's good that your opinion changed, but I think you're confusing who's fickle. There's been a significant percentage of people for decades who have supported same-sex marriage, and then there are the people who apparently just go with the "mainstream view." (Which is far from new.)