Same-Sex Marriage is now a Right

weso1 said:
Good thought, but I disagree with your premise. The mob boss always knows he could be put away. I think in 5 years this decision has the potential to make a major impact. I know I have said it way too much, but I am a supporter of gay marriage, I voted for it in the last election for my state. I don't support this court decision and I honestly think a lot of you have a big problem with it as well, but are unwilling to admit it. I just don't want Americans to take for granted the importance of our system of checks and balances. I see young folks who see the importance of freedom, but I fear they don't understand the importance of our system.
Click to expand...
How did the system not work? There was a case, the court heard arguments on both sides and a vote was taken. The way it always happens. If Kennedy had written a less sentimental and more clever rationalization for his opinion, how does that change anything? People on the losing end always say the same thing: This is revolutionary and changes everything.

I'm not a law student, but I believe the court will always need a majority.
 
Sorry, didn't see you ask that.

Brown is a case where I agree with the result but the court definitely stepped outside their bounds in the reasoning. What comes down to is that they disagreed with the law so they held it facially invalid. They could have easily held the law invalid as applied and had better footing but it wouldn't have had the same dramatic, sweeping effect. It would have been more of a slow crawl towards desegregation. But that's actually what the courts are set up for.[/QUOTE]

And that may be what has happened here.

I, too, worry that the high court has been legislating because it can cut both ways (read: Citizen's United). But subverting the process generally means the Court is mirroring the overall culture and when the culture is in the midst of a paradigm shift on an issue, the Court often jumps ahead of where a significant portion of the population is at. In religion, that's very problematic. In the secular world, somewhat less so (at least to me). That said, the Court shouldn't legislate and both sides of the spectrum have increasingly expected the Court to do so because the legislative branch has become dysfunctional. Same thing goes for the Presidency and the increasing use of Executive Orders and signing statements. If Congress were doing its job, we'd see less of this. But I would argue that Congress likes the current trend. They don't have to take responsibility for anything and can complain about either the result or process and stay in their respective corners. There was a great exchange between Lawrence Tribe and Mark Tushnet on this issue in Dissent about a decade ago, where Tushnet argued (and I agree with him) that ultimately judicial review is adverse to liberals and that it erodes democracy (and I believe Tushnet is a liberal). Tribe took the opposite side. But the big problem is our legislative system has become dysfunctional. In an ideal world, the majority would rule (within reasonable confines). That's not where we're at right now.

The Hobby Lobby case is far more narrow than this case, but it could also have a marked effect on the application of law in the future. It could be construed as an even larger foundation upon which further decisions can be built, but let's wait and see. To me, it's almost like playing Rock-Paper-Scissors when anticipating the decisions of the Roberts' court. My basic position is that if order is maintained and decisions tip toward greater personal liberty, I'm fine with it.
 
weso1 said:
I need you to expound on this point. To me the supreme court made the right decision in regards to segregation. In fact from my understanding it was a unanimous decision. What are your arguments that they messed up? My opinion is that the constitution gives equal rights to all Americans.
Click to expand...

There are two ways to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, "facially" and "as applied". Facial challenges are where you say a statute is invalid on its face. As applied is saying the statute is unconstitutional in its application in the particular situation of the case.

Facial challenges are much more extreme and the courts are supposed to be very, very hesitant about holding a statute invalid on its face. As applied are supposed to be the preferred way.

Brown was a facial challenge. The law was invalid on its face. I think it was more invalid as applied. I think you could have accomplished the same goal with as applied challenges, it just would have taken longer. But I think it would have been the more valid way of going about it.
 
For the record, my position on gay marriage is that there should be no state recognition of gay marriage. There should also be no state recognition of straight marriage.

If you want to enter into a domestic property contract, go right ahead. It will be enforced like and other contract. I don't think the state has any business giving you a legal status change based on a religious rite.

I'm married and if my marriage license had no legal meaning, I wouldn't consider myself any less committed to my wife.

Let anyone have a ceremony and marry anyone or anything they want. The state has no business being involved in it.
 
striker42 said:
For the record, my position on gay marriage is that there should be no state recognition of gay marriage. There should also be no state recognition of straight marriage.

If you want to enter into a domestic property contract, go right ahead. It will be enforced like and other contract. I don't think the state has any business giving you a legal status change based on a religious rite.

I'm married and if my marriage license had no legal meaning, I wouldn't consider myself any less committed to my wife.

Let anyone have a ceremony and marry anyone or anything they want. The state has no business being involved in it.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, what about Polygamy and it's ilk, or marrying your siblings or family(is there a law)?
 
Runnin said:
How did the system not work? There was a case, the court heard arguments on both sides and a vote was taken. The way it always happens. If Kennedy had written a less sentimental and more clever rationalization for his opinion, how does that change anything? People on the losing end always say the same thing: This is a revolutionary and changes everything.

I'm not a law student, but I believe the court will always need a majority.
Click to expand...

Further, the people wailing about the court having irrevocably changed seem to discount our ability to ultimately reverse any decision via constitutional amendment. It's a lengthy and painstaking process, but we've done it before, and it is the ultimate balance. Personally, as your average citizen, I'm content with that fail-safe measure.

Examples of SCOTUS just getting it wrong and (eventually) being told where to put it: Dred Scott v. Sandford / Plessy v. Ferguson
 
AerchAngel said:
Oh boy, what about Polygamy and it's ilk, or marrying your siblings or family(is there a law)?
Click to expand...

Marry whoever you want (adult). The marriage gives you no special status. You want to marry 3 men, 4 women, and a dog. That's your business. What do I care if you swear eternal love and devotion to a bunch of people. Call it marriage, call it unions. Call it smismaring if you want. I really don't care.

As far as incest, there are issues of consanguinity there. You don't want a bunch of hemophiliac kids running around.

But otherwise I don't see any reason the government should be involved in domestic relationships and especially not when what the government is trying to regulate something growing out of religion.

Ultimately I find the whole concept of government recognition of marriage to be an impermissible establishment of religion.
 
striker42 said:
For the record, my position on gay marriage is that there should be no state recognition of gay marriage. There should also be no state recognition of straight marriage.

If you want to enter into a domestic property contract, go right ahead. It will be enforced like and other contract. I don't think the state has any business giving you a legal status change based on a religious rite.

I'm married and if my marriage license had no legal meaning, I wouldn't consider myself any less committed to my wife.

Let anyone have a ceremony and marry anyone or anything they want. The state has no business being involved in it.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much where I am at. I honestly wonder why the state is in the marriage business. I think it has a legitimate stake in the dissolution business to make sure all parties are treated fairly if the contract ceases to be in effect, but any good set of lawyers putting together a union of this type would likely include the framework for dissolution in the original contract.

PS--As for the beastiality angle, if cows can somehow learn to grasp a pen with their cloven hoof and legibly write their name, have at it. I suppose we could require cows to have last names, seeing a "Bossy" may be fairly easy to learn.
 
Hawk said:
Further, the people wailing about the court having irrevocably changed seem to discount our ability to ultimately reverse any decision via constitutional amendment. It's a lengthy and painstaking process, but we've done it before, and it is the ultimate balance. Personally, as your average citizen, I'm content with that fail-safe measure.

Examples of SCOTUS just getting it wrong and (eventually) being told where to put it: Dred Scott v. Sandford / Plessy v. Ferguson
Click to expand...

I think the thing to remember though is that over 600,000 soldiers died (and countless others wounded and massive amounts of property damage) for the whole Dred Scott thing to be put to bed and it was approximately 60 years before Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. I frankly don't think the US Constitution will be amended again in my lifetime (I probably have a good 20 years left in me).
 
50PoundHead said:
I think the thing to remember though is that over 600,000 soldiers died (and countless others wounded and massive amounts of property damage) for the whole Dred Scott thing to be put to bed and it was approximately 60 years before Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned. I frankly don't think the US Constitution will be amended again in my lifetime (I probably have a good 20 years left in me).
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree. Nevertheless, my point was that it is a protection that exists. The message being promulgated in some circles, painting the court as an almost dangerous tyrannical force, is a bit reactionary/overblown.
 
you keep saying this isn't part of the process and something about checks and balances

i have yet to see how it isn't part of the process or isn't exactly what the checks and balances was meant for

Kennedy didn't just go off emotion. it's in the text

Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitu- tion protects, must endure a substantial burden.
Click to expand...

For some couples, even an ordinary drive into a neighboring State to visit family or friends risks causing severe hardship in the event of a spouse’s hospitalization while across state lines. In light of the fact that many States already allow same-sex mar- riage—and hundreds of thousands of these marriages already have occurred—the disruption caused by the recognition bans is significant and ever-growing.
As counsel for the respondents acknowledged at argu- ment, if States are required by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the justifications for refusing to recognize those marriages performed else- where are undermined. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 44. The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex cou- ples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
Click to expand...

it falls under Article IV, Section 1

i also don't care if this is quicker than you like or think it should be. i don't believe in a dream deferred for blacks, asians, latinos, gays, transexuals etc etc
 
Runnin said:
How did the system not work? There was a case, the court heard arguments on both sides and a vote was taken. The way it always happens. If Kennedy had written a less sentimental and more clever rationalization for his opinion, how does that change anything? People on the losing end always say the same thing: This is revolutionary and changes everything.

I'm not a law student, but I believe the court will always need a majority.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make, and I don't think I made it very well, was that everyone should care how this case was decided. I've heard too many people state that they don't care how it happened, they are just glad that it happened. Well, they should care how it happened. It's incredibly important to understand what types of judges you support. Many of us on this board know that when you vote for a president you're voting for certain judges. So my argument that the how is much more important than the actual result.
 
Governor Nathan Deal
✔@GovernorDeal

While I believe that this issue should be decided by states & legislatures, not the federal judiciary, I also believe in the rule of law.
11:04 AM - 26 Jun 2015


""The state of Georgia is subject to the laws of the United States and we will follow them," he succinctly stated, while making it clear that he feels the Supreme Court overstepped its authority on an issue that should be decided by states."

-----
Oh Governor, I wish you felt the same way about Obamacare. Instead you and your Republican friends in the State Legislature rammed down a law saying no sitting Governor of Georgia could accept expanded medicaid funding from the Federal Government without approval from the State Legislature.
 
Hawk said:
I don't necessarily disagree. Nevertheless, my point was that it is a protection that exists. The message being promulgated in some circles, painting the court as an almost dangerous tyrannical force, is a bit reactionary/overblown.
Click to expand...

Agreed on both counts. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "So it goes."

My ever-developing philosophical superstructure combines G.W.F. Hegel and Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn put the term paradigm into common parlance. I see the world as a constantly evolving set of dialectics that periodically come to an end point when the current paradigm dissolves. At that point, a new paradigm becomes established and dialectics similar to the previous paradigm are played out once again until a successive paradigm is established. Legislative and Executive branches generally do a pretty decent job dealing with the here-and-now dialectics, but really have trouble launching a new paradigm. It may not be the court's role to jolt society into a new paradigm, but there has to be a tool employed at some juncture to accomplish this. The populace itself should do that by pushing legislators and executives forward, but the sclerotic nature of our democracy is making it more difficult.
 
Just remember kids, if you don't bake a cake for a gay wedding, you will owe the couple $135K in damages, and the state can seize your home.

Link
 
sturg33 said:
LOL you've gotten so dumb over the years... You used to be somewhat insightful
Click to expand...

sure thing sturg

now, are you or are you not for states rights? they broke a state law. am i missing something?

you will owe the couple $135K in damages, and the state can seize your home.
Click to expand...

this isn't true btw. they would possibly go after the house if they don't or refuse to pay the fine

also, what the **** is poorrichardsnews.com?
 
goldfly said:
sure thing sturg

now, are you or are you not for states rights? they broke a state law. am i missing something?

this isn't true btw. they would possibly go after the house if they don't or refuse to pay the fine

also, what the **** is poorrichardsnews.com?
Click to expand...

I love states rights. That doesn't mean I agree with state laws that undermine personal liberty.

I find it hilarious that the fine for not baking a cake for someone is $135K. The thugs of the LGBT activist crowds will never quit though - so we better do what they say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top