Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

And over time, via the 14th Amendment, the federal judiciary is now empowered to overturn state laws that run afoul of the US Constitution, and has been doing so for nearly a century. Good luck in getting that genie back in the bottle...

 

Sure they did.

Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id., at 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," id., at 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id., at 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," 316 U.S., at 541 . ...
It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. ...
Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374

 

Not sure how providing a quote proving my point helps you. Like I said, the court made no such distinction.

 

I read the entire decision. I stand by what I wrote. You can believe what you wish, and I'll go with the decision that was issued. Deal?

 

Yosh didnt make any assertiion as to the effects of same sex parents. The studies show that the mother and father working together to raise their children in the home is the ideal when compared to all other children who do not have both parents. AND that WOULD include many children with two parents who are not both their biological parents. So its not just a comparison of 1 or 2 parents.
Its just that the most frequent alternative to children being born into a home with both their married mother and father, is being born into a home with a single mother and an absent or even unknown father. Thus the entire history of human civilization of either requiring or encouraging heterosexual couples to marry. Birth of a child only obligates two people in the world. The mother who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so, presumed to be the husband when she is married. Without them the child has only the hope that someone will voluntarily step forward and assume that obligation. Which doesnt always happen, frequently requiring government assistance.

 

Pick a century to discuss, but the context of my post was the reason the judiciary was established. You are bouncing between the 18th century and the 20th century. If you want to make your argument in the context of the 18th century, fine, but if you want to discuss the incorporation doctrine, that is fine as well, but they are mutually exclusive.

 

I read the decision as well. I stand by what I stated. I will believe what I wrote and you believe what you wrote: that is what makes the world go round, and makes for a spirited debate.

It is nice to interact with someone who understands dictum, and knows that there is much pointless clutter in Supreme Court rulings.

 

Only seems that way to you because you dont understand the meaning of words like "procreate", or "traditional family". Youve convinced yourself that two gay guys can procreate.

 

Nope. Im just pointing out that you were, as usual, incorrect.

 

No, I understand the meaning of the words just fine. Two gay guys cant "procreate"

 

Yep. That is what I said.

 

One gay guy can procreate. One gay women can procreate.

 

So old people who cannot procreate should not get married either let Dixon try and explain that one.

 

But of course, procreation has nothing to do with your argument.

 

Still, I would like to see how you could possibly come to your interpretation. In a nutshell, Windsor was legally married in the state of New York, and by law should have inherited the property of her spouse. The IRS disagreed because the DOMA, section 3, said they weren't married in the eyes of the Federal government, including the IRS. Windsor sued, and finally the Supreme Court ruled in Windsor's favor, that if someone is legally married in a state that permits such marriages, then the Federal government can't refuse the benefits of marriage according to due process and equal protection. The decision carefully did NOT say that same-sex marriage is constitutionally protected, only that where it's legal it must be regarded as a genuine marriage for Federal purposes.

There was a zillion-page thread on this here at the time of the decision. One of the canards that kept popping up and being debunked in a permanant game of whack-a-mole was the argument that the Court had essentially given the states a blank check to define marriage however they damn well pleased. The Loving case alone is enough to show that this isn't correct. The principle that states cannot overrule the US Constitution was not being challenged in this case. The power of a state to prohibit same-sex (or any other sort of nontraditional) marriage was also not at issue. The issue was, if Windsor was legally married in New York, does she or does she not enjoy the Federal protections and benefits of marriage. The Court ruled that she does.

Now subsequently, like last month's Utah case, the judge seems to have reasoned that if the Feds recognize it, it must be a right. And if it's a right, Utah can't deny it. I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning, but I think we really do need a definitive decision of some sort. I understand that most of these hasty state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage had to go further and say that not only would their state not do it, but couples legally married in other states would magically become unmarried if they moved into Bigotland. Otherwise, people would just go get married where permitted, and then return.

But this leads to another issue the Court must address. For example, some states have lower ages for issuing drivers' licences. So if a teenager with a legal licens in state A drives across into state B where the age is higher, does he lose his licence? Could he be arrested for underage driving? Generally, the Federal government has stuck with a policy that says you don't lose legally granted rights by crossing state lines. Will this remain true with marriages? We need to know.

 

Nope, you claimed

When in fact they are studies of 2 biological parents compared to any and all other alternatives. Many of which are one biological parent and a step parent.

 

Actually, it has everything to do with procreation. Marriage has been limited to heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples procreate.

 

???? Windsor DID inherit the property. She wanted a refund of a couple $100,000 she paid in estate taxes on her millions of inheritance.

 

Actually, it is correct if you are going to cite that case. Loving vs. Virginia was about interracial marriage. In the context of race as a protected civil right, as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then yes marriage is a fundamental right...in regards to race. Homosexuals were never a factor in that case. You don't just hop on the exclusive civil rights bandwagon as it passes you by. It either has your name on it or you don't get a free ride.

Without even taking part in that "zillion-page thread", I can already tell that people were shooting your argument down left and right. Homosexuals are not a race of people. If the law doesn't apply to you, then you're just assed out.

 

Complete arrant nonsense. Dead wrong. Stupid wrong. Please return to the real world. You might like it here.

 

No he won't. The real world has been increasingly accepting of gay marriage.

 

I usually allow the courts to explain it.

 

There is a principle that states cannot override the US Constitution. Now, the question is whether the US Constitution protects marriage. If it does, then states can't override it. If it does not, states can prohibit any sort of marriage the majority of voters decide they do not wish to extend to a disliked minority.

I would not expect ANY court at this time to recognize and respect any sort of consensual relationship between any number of adults. As a society,we're not quite that mature yet. (I mean, mature in being willing to recognize these. We are fully mature enough to engage in these, and we do). So I expect it will continue to be piecemeal - granting marriage despite racial differences, and then granting marriage despite orientation differences.

 

Youre so full of yourself you think YOU know whats included in my argument while I do not. What silliness.

 

What decisions are you quoting? If there's a link in there, I can't find it.