Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

it is in no way relevant to the post quoted, lol

 

DECADES from now, the Obergefell Decision will still be standing....100s of 1000s of gay couples will be getting or will be legally married...in all 50 states....


and dixon76710....will still be telling us "This isn't happening! This isn't happening!!!!"

 

I doubt that.

We've changed as a society. Lawsuits against unequal treatment of those who are same sex oriented became more likely to succeed. There were plenty of injustices before 1971.

In fact, that change of opinion probably motivated the whole DOMA movement - a legal defense not previously needed.

 

I'll give you credit for not resorting to using a wall of text to evade the point.

 

Do people really need the governments permission to associate with each other, modern marriage is only a means to get certain tax breaks as far as the government is concerned, all other matters of property division, child support, etc. are currently handled through the courts anyway, why should anyone receive a tax break for being with the one they "love", modern marriage is basically "going together" divorce is "breaking up".
As far as gay marriage goes, whenever anyone asks me I tell them to go ask someone who is gay, it doesn't concern me and it damn well shouldn't concern the government, marriage should be a personal commitment between two people and maybe whatever higher power they believe in.

 

Because of established legal precedent. Law is 100% decided on precedent. Once courts start ruling one way it, wouldn't be justice if a different court ruled the opposite way because they felt like it.

 

Best response ever.

 

Because that was what was before the Supreme Court. Now, if you want to get into say, polygamy, which I'm assuming is one of the things you could be referring to considering that is nearly always your go to, that is a separate argument considering it has more to do with tax breaks offered to married couples and you get into murky water with the way the government is involved in marriage right now and having multiple wives/husbands when dealing with how the tax code works.

 

Because the couples suing were gay. If other marriage structure groups want marriage equality they can fight for decades, sue and win. However, the ruling is not limited to gay people. I could marry my straight girlfriend if we wanted and no one could stop us. She isn't gay, but can still marry a woman. It's not about sexual orientation, it's about gender. Same gendered people can get married and no one will know if they're really gay unless they come out.

 

I asked you if you read Obergefel- and for the record you have yet to state that you have.

I will leave it at I think both Loving and Obergefel were Constitutionally valid decisions.

You think otherwise.

 

Tax breaks? I get a tax break from my kid, but not from my wife. It is a crap shoot whether we will pay more taxes or less taxes any given year for being married.

Marriage is a government recognized partnership between two people- to be partners in life. Since my wife and I are married, if I were to get ill, she automatically has the authority to authorize care for me. If I die, all of our property is assumed to be mutually ours- i.e. hers unless i specify otherwise. There are dozens of issues that legal marriage addresses.

You don't have to like it- but my wife and I have been married for over 20 years- marriage can be a very good thing.

 

No- the state bans were put up with the specific intention of excluding gay couples- they were deemed unconstitutional because couples were being denied equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Its cute when Dixon just ignores the facts and makes crap up.

I posted example of 4 or 5 states and when they specifically banned same gender marriage by statute or amendment. And he just pretends the facts were not shoved in his face.

- - - Updated - - -

'The Fed' did no such thing.

The Supreme Court just found that state laws that forbid marriage between two people of the same gender were unconstitutional.

Nothing more- nothing less.

 

All of this convoluted blathering about the role of government in our love life has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the legality of same sex marriage and the appropriateness of the courts Obergefell decision. The facts are these:
Before Obergefell, opposite sex couples were allowed to marry in all 50 states and to thus enjoy the financial, social, and legal benefits of marriage. At the same time, same sex couples were not able to do so in many places. Therefore, they were being discriminated against. Regardless of whether anyone thinks that the government should be providing those benefits-bringing it up is just a red herring and is irrelevant. In addition, there are intangible benefits that the government does not provide such as social status.

If benefits are provided to opposite sex couples they must be provided to same sex couples.

And no, we do not need the government to tell us who we can associate with...another nonsensical red herring.

 

The courts do not treat the break-up of roommates (or cases of death) the same as divorce (or the death of a spouse).

The fate of the children, support requirements, property division, debt responsibility, etc., etc. are VERY different and for good reason.

Also, divorce/death is only one area of law. There are thousands of lines of law dealing with marriage.

 

I have to wonder to what extent he believes the things that he says. Is it just the inability to be honest, or is it a far, far worse affliction?

 

Good for you, you and your wife apparently made a real commitment to each other that is what marriage is about, if you've been together past 20years then you should understand it's not the government piece of paper (marriage certificate) keeping you together, it's your own commitment towards each other that keeps you together,
All the legalities that you mentioned are court matters that don't require marriage.

 

Dishonest snippage of the context in which I explained the difference between the two isn't fooling anyone.

 

Actually all of them come with marriage- and would all require separate actions to accomplish if we were not married. Which is why a couple who lives together but decides not to marry does not have the same degree of legal protection of their partnership as a married couple has.

My wife and I do not need the legality of marriage to be together- but the legalities of marriage streamline everything that is legally assists our partnership.

What you are proposing is changing the system to make it more legally complex for couples to be in a legally binding partnership.

 

Which they aren't. But we're already well aware that you're a stranger to the truth.

 

I think if you were to read Kennedy's opinion, you'd find it explains why. It's like asking why it was necessary to have a ruling like Lawrence v. Texas overturn the one made in Bowers v. Hardwick, if the former reflects what the Constitution requires. They're called 'opinions' for a reason - they're the Court's opinion of what the law requires at a particular moment in time, based on what they understand at that time. It also matters what was actually argued - if you base your case on the wrong thing, the Court isn't going to just agree that you should get the result you were actually aiming at - they're going to address the point of law you're arguing and whether it successfully applies.

What you're going to find is that there are people who think the meaning and import of the words written in the Constitution are frozen in time; that we can't come to a deeper understanding of the law over time, as it applies to the times we live in; that we are bound to ideas from the late 18th century when it was written. I take the position that there is due caution required when interpreting and applying the law - which also answers your question (though not directly) of why this ruling didn't come earlier. It's very much because people saw a need to be cautious about interpreting the law in a way that might cause unrest and instability, and differing opinions about what is or isn't consistent with the Constitution. There are, in fact, people alive today who would and have argued those very things as a reason to still prevent same-sex couples from legal recognition of a marriage.

Because the Court did not "legislate" a new "law" that defines what marriage is. What they did was issue an interpretation of the law that finds definitions adopted by the states for the purpose of excluding same-sex couples to be inconsistent with what the Constitution requires. Contrary to what lying liars will try to tell you, laws expressly defining marriage as "one man and one woman" didn't begin to show up in the USA until the 1970s.

I say it is and was, and the Court agrees with me.

No, I won't spare you the reminder of opponents' rhetorical spin, because you've repeated it in your argument about not forcing a federal definition of marriage on the states. The Court did not define what marriage is. It has instead reaffirmed that states' powers to regulate marriage are not absolute, and must be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. Those are different things, whether some choose to see it or not.

That's a nice fantasy, but it's not the practical reality. Finding the bans unconstitutional - and the things the Court has held to be true as the reasons they are unconsitutional - does not leave any room for identical sex-defined impediments to stand. The justices realize that by removing the barriers imposed by the bans, no others that rely on the same basis can ultimately survive. Rather than allow confusion to reign, they've been clear about that effect of their interpretation of the law. Bear in mind that the Court has no power of enforcement. It relies on other courts and the rest of government to respect its rulings and avoid chaos.

If the bans are unconstitutional because they unduly burden same-sex couples by depriving them of due process and equal protection, then so do any other state laws that discriminate on the same basis and with the same effect. How do you imagine those survive as part of some reset? The Court clearly doesn't see any difference between depriving same-sex couples of marriage recognition via popular vote versus legislative efforts - and that's precisely because of why both are unconstitutional. That they were adopted through different procedures doesn't make any practical difference in their effect.

What you would end up with is people suing to overturn the legislation that prevents recognition of same-sex marriages, and the same result. Plus being forced to go out-of-state to marry, followed by laws that criminalize such actions, at which point we end up right back at a place that gave us the Loving v. Virginia case. Why would the court issue an interpretation of the law that encourages a repeat of such chaos? To do so would not have been an exercise in due caution.

 

Homosexuals were never banned from marriage, because they can all marry someone of the opposite sex.

Nice of you to make it plain that as far as you're concerned, the Constitution is irrelevant.

 

Perriquine gave a good explanation of caution as a reason that things didn't necessarily happen much sooner. For sake of stability and respect for the institution and rule of law, courts are often very cautious to make profound changes and to overrule precedent. But I think there's more to it than just that in this case.... caution only goes so far when a courts primary responsibility is to rule on the facts, and not on "caution"... Perriquine actually kinda glossed over what I beleive is the main reason: "they're the Court's opinion of what the law requires at a particular moment in time, based on what they understand at that time".


To quote one of the many rulings on the subject:

"The Constitution is not
so rigid that it always mandates the same outcome even when its principles operate on a new set
of facts that were previously unknown:
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth
Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its
manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume
to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later
generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only
to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke
its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

And to quote from the Lawrence decision:

"Here, it is not the Constitution that has
changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore the
fact that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate relationship with a person of the
same sex but not with a person of the opposite sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this
changed understanding"


Homosexuality was regarded as a mental disorder and criminalized for most of the history of the country... under that understating, states could easily (and rightfully) treat homosexuals different despite the 14th amendment. One would be naive to think the 14th amendment was a perfect catch-all for all such situations... the reason it is not is because at no given point in time can we be said to have a full understanding of everything around us... we can only act on the knowledge that we have. Just as Loving vs Virginia took almost a hundred years, it should not be surprising that (unfortunately) these things can and do take time.

 

which is just as stupid a statement as "interracial couples were never banned from marriage, because they could all marry someone of the same race"

you should actually try reading it some time.

 

That is about as ignorant as it gets. Can you do anything other than repeat the same well worn equine excrement that has been put out there a thousand times?

When one makes the absurd statement that “gays already have equality “because they can, like anyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex, they are presuming that a gay person can decide to live as a straight person and have a fulfilling life with someone of the opposite sex. The other possibility is that you do not believe that fulfillment or love in marriage is a right or a reasonable expectation., at least not for gays. In any case they are in effect dehumanizing gay people, portraying them as being devoid of emotion and the ability to love and desire another person as heterosexuals do.

In addition, they are reducing the institution of marriage to a loveless business arrangement while for the vast majority of people it is much more. It devalues marriage in a way, much more profoundly than feared by the anti-equality bigots, who bemoan the demise of traditional marriage simply because it is being expanded to include gays.

Heterosexuals are able to choose a marriage partner based in part on sexual attraction and romantic interests. That is a choice, that gay people do not have, if denied legal marriage. Sure they can choose to forgo marriage in order to be with the person who they desire, but to do so would require that they forfeit the legal security, economic benefits and social status that goes with marriage That, is really not much of a choice at all and many courts have agreed.

One of the best illustrations of that is the opinion of the 10th Circuit Court of appeals ruling to uphold the lower court which invalidated Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Selected passages follow:
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH (D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00217-RJS)

Kitchen V. Herbert http://www.scribd.com/doc/231295932/Utah-Gay-Marriage


On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. It concluded that “[a]ll citizens, regardless of their sexual identity, have a fundamental right to liberty, and this right protects an individual’s ability to marry and the intimate choices a person makes about marriage and family.” Kitchen v. Herbert, 961 F. Supp. 2d1181, 1204 (D. Utah 2013).


Two landmark decisions by the Supreme Court have undermined the notion that the question presented in Baker v. Nelson ( which was overturned by the Obergefell decision) is insubstantial. Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held that “intimate conduct with another person . . . can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.” Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, (pg. 17)

Windsor is the other case referred to above

DOMA “impose[d] a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages . . . .” Id. The statute “undermine[d] both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages” by telling “those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition.” Id (pg.21)

It is already apparent that the courts see marriage as much more than a impersonal business arrangement. Even prisoners have the right to marry:

The Turner Court’s description of the “important attributes of marriage [that] remain . . . after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life,” 482 U.S. at 95, is relevant to the case at bar: First, inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment…………. (pg 29)


We must reject appellants’ efforts to downplay the importance of the personal elements inherent in the institution of marriage, which they contend are “not the principal interests the State pursues by regulating marriage.”

We nonetheless agree with plaintiffs that in describing the liberty interest at stake, it is impermissible to focus on the identity or class-membership of the individual exercising the right. See De Leon, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26236, at *58-59


A state “cannot define marriage in a way that denies its citizens the freedom of personal choice in deciding whom to marry, nor may it deny the same status and dignity to each citizen’s decision” (quotations omitted)). “Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.” Pg.37)
In summary, we hold that under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

 

Well, there is the glaring fact that sexual orientation isn't mentioned anywhere in the statutes and the fact that the limitation to men and women predates the invention of homosexuality. Would be like claiming NY states limitation to one marriage per person, dating to the 1700s, was intended to exclude the Mormons who didn't exist until the 1800s. What absurdity.