Same-Sex Marriage is now a Right

[Hawk]

Robert Barnes
@scotusreporter
supreme court allows same sex couples ot marry nationwide. opinion by kennedy 5-4

[sturg33]

Another baffling decision... when did the federal government rule on marriage?

Has the 10th amendment been abolished?

[Hawk]

I feel like the country has changed so much in the past week.

For the better I believe, hope.

[50PoundHead]

Another baffling decision... when did the federal government rule on marriage?

Has the 10th amendment been abolished?

Just guessing, but I'm thinking this is about the 14th amendment in the court's eyes. Don't disagree with your point to the extent I don't know why the government is in the marriage business at all except to enforce the contractual part of the equation.

[sturg33]

Just guessing, but I'm thinking this is about the 14th amendment in the court's eyes. Don't disagree with your point to the extent I don't know why the government is in the marriage business at all except to enforce the contractual part of the equation.

I support gay marriage... but how does this even get heard in the supreme court?

[50PoundHead]

I support gay marriage... but how does this even get heard in the supreme court?

I don't disagree. Why the government is in this debate at all is a head-scratcher to me. The only thing the law should ensure is that each party in a marriage relationship should receive the proper level of material benefit in the event the contract is dissolved.

[Hawk]

This should answer a lot of questions (Kennedy's affirming opinion):

[AerchAngel]

I don't disagree. Why the government is in this debate at all is a head-scratcher to me. The only thing the law should ensure is that each party in a marriage relationship should receive the proper level of material benefit in the event the contract is dissolved.

You are right, let the states decide how divorce is handled, just like heterosexual marriage. Why do they get SPECIAL treatment?

But next is them assaulting churches in making them recognize their marriage. Last I heard, all churches are different due to their cultures, forcing them to upset their culture is a wrong message.

[weso1]

I don't disagree. Why the government is in this debate at all is a head-scratcher to me. The only thing the law should ensure is that each party in a marriage relationship should receive the proper level of material benefit in the event the contract is dissolved.

For benefits and stuff like that. Some states wanted to recognize gay marriage and some didn't (l.e. not all marriages received the same benefits). The reason it went as high as it did is because some see it as a human rights issue backed by the constitution.

I personally didn't see it that way and I think it should've been left up to the states. I support gay marriage and eventually every state was going to allow it anyway. I am a huge believer in states rights though, and I think this decision is another slippery slope that erodes the rights of individual states. Liberal judges are much more inclined to take away the idea of individual state rights.

[zitothebrave]

I support gay marriage... but how does this even get heard in the supreme court?

Just a guess, 16th amendment and Obamacare. Married couples are afforded certain rights that dating couples are not.

I just wish government was out of the marriage game.

[Dalyn]

I just wish government was out of the marriage game.

There's profit in it. Same reason religion has been in the marriage game for so long.

[goldfly]

I support gay marriage... but how does this even get heard in the supreme court?

oddly enough, it's first steps that helped make this happen were republicans so scared of losing elections, they put this on a ballot in swing states and their conservative base states to bring out their base to vote that denied rights to other people and by putting it into state law etc, it could then be challenged in court and we are here today on this historic day where loved ones can now marry each other.

the same people that hate that this happened can only blame themselves for allowing this to get here. to quote V for Vendetta:

truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror

[AerchAngel]

Hmmm Palin did not renew at Faux and now her daughter came out being pregnant to a person she is not married to. Coincidence?

I see a reality show "The Palins" coming soon. Now that would be pure comedy.

[AerchAngel]

to enforce the contractual part of the equation.

The only reason I would agree with. But forcing churches to marry, they better leave it alone.

[50PoundHead]

The only reason I would agree with. But forcing churches to marry, they better leave it alone.

I agree. I believe in a very high wall between the church and the state and no church should be forced to perform a same sex marriage. Churches are exempt from a number of laws and they should be exempt from this as well.

[goldfly]

Another baffling decision... when did the federal government rule on marriage?

Has the 10th amendment been abolished?

well, one of the top of my head that made one of the justices marriages legal is a case that the federal gov't ruled on marriage

it was in 1967 and was Loving vs Virginia



oddly enough, the case that allowed Thomas to marry the woman he loved ruled in the dissent in this case

[striker42]

Scalia gets a bad rap for his fiery dissents. The media loves to pull lines from them because they're often sensational. Close followers of the court know this isn't really fair.

First of all, Scalia is brilliant. All 9 justices are extremely intelligent. Scalia is absolutely no exception.

Second, when Scalia is writing the majority opinion, he's much less colorful. Scalia believes majority opinions need decorum while dissents can contain more rhetoric.

Third, Scalia is an originalist. People who don't get him usually don't understand this. Scalia's school of thought is that the Constitution does not change over time. The divisions of power and guarantees made were agreed to by the states under a certain understanding and you can't change that. If you want to change the constitution you amend it, you don't change the meaning of the words that are there.

So Scalia big question is "what did the section of the constitution mean when it was adopted?" Naturally this puts him at odds with the doctrine of substantive due process the court trotted out yesterday.

One more thing about the court people don't get is that in spite of their fierce disagreement at times, these people don't usually let these disagreements affect their interpersonal relationships. Ginsburg and Scalia are best friends. There's a difference between debate and argument that some people don't get. Lawyers usually enjoy debating issues and don't take disagreement personally.

[zitothebrave]

I think Scalia gets a bad rap for 100% voting pro-republican. I mean he's not Thomas of course or even ALito, but he's not roberts who's gone a few different ways at times. I'd say he's more Breyer than Ginsberg to go the other way.

[AerchAngel]

So Scalia big question is "what did the section of the constitution mean when it was adopted?" Naturally this puts him at odds with the doctrine of substantive due process the court trotted out yesterday.

.

Bingo. This is really dangerous precedent that can open ugly doors.

Innocent until proven guilty and they have to have their due process is Goldlfy's favorite blanket statement.

I am glad a lawyer on the site sees it like me. Ramrodding or strong-arming our founding document to suit a need without going through the proper process. Our Civil Right Act went through the proper process to get pass. You can say well it should never been an issue in the beginning. Well the Founding Fathers never knew that slaves wanted freedom, it was accepted back then, same as same sex marriage or polygamy was not. Times change, if it change for one, it should change for all but do it the right way like they did in 1964 or let the 10th Amendment be applicable and not just shat on.

The only good part about it, this is a non issue when presidency comes up and I don't have to hear about it or ACA.

[striker42]

you know it was created to be a document that changes, right?

cause if you don't think that, then you are 3/5ths of a person


to quote a guy who had a little something to do with that document:

That picture is from the Jefferson Monument I believe and is one of his quotes. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, Madison was the mind behind the Constitution.

You're arguing the Living Constitution theory. That's one theory that some legal scholars ascribe to. Usually the liberals.

Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap. If you look at how the Constitution came about you see that you had sovereign states coming together to create a federal government. Since these states were all sovereign, they had all the power. They decided to create a federal government but one if enumerated powers. They only turned over a limited amount of power to the federal government.

The federal government was not supposed to be able to grab more power from the states. The states remained sovereign.

Knowing the constitution might not work forever, a method of changing it was built in. The states could amend the constitution to give power to or take away power from the federal government.

The idea that the amount of power given to the federal government changes due to an "evolving understanding" flies in the face of what the states were doing in creating a federal government of enumerated power.

Where things get really, really shaky is the doctrine of incorporation. Incorporation is where some, but not all, of the amendments are applied to state governments. There is no legitimate basis for this idea. A court decided it should happen and it's been that way so long people just assume that's how it works. It's not.

The constitution spells out the powers of the federal government. The amendments put some restrictions on the use of those powers. You even have the words "Congress shall make no law..." Which is clearly applying the amendment to the U.S. Congress.

The idea that the state were binding themselves with the amendments is ridiculous. It goes against the whole structure of the document!

I actually had a super liberal constitutional law professor that clerked for O'connor that had incorporation as a pet peeve. He thought it was a good idea but would require the states to amend the constitution for it to be valid.