I challenge anyone to argue that SCOTUS will establish gay marriage as a right

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by Troianii, May 20, 2014.

  1. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not American. I am just speaking of the trending of these issues.
    All of the above, some time in the future, will invoke this clause. And why
    not, gays did it successfully.

    Re Roe vs Wade. Women's rights to abortion were protected. Babies
    right to life wasn't protected. It's who has the numbers or who shouts
    the loudest that ultimately counts in the Supreme Court.
    And given that this court is tilting conservative, are the liberals going
    to respect its rulings as they expected conservatives to?

    I am not sure what "equal" and "rights" even means. Very subjective
    words. In the end everything boils down to politics - politics dressed up
    in high sounding phrases.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
  2. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male



    ''I am not sure what "equal" and "rights" even means."


    OK. As a law school graduate and student of Constitutional history, I fully understand court rulings and the stated rationale behind them. According to the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, the states are enjoined from denying people equal protection under the law. In other words, the law must treat everyone equally. If the state is to discriminate for any reason it must demonstrate that there is an over riding interest on the part of the state over the specific class's interests.

    Those who argue against same sex marriage failed to demonstrate an over riding interest in keeping gays from marriage among themselves. This is why the courts have ruled SSM is legal.

    As for abortion rights, I have address that issue on other threads. Since it is not relevant here I will not address that part of your post.
     
    Football likes this.
  3. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Re abortion. Just so long as we appreciate that one person's rights to life have been extinguished.
    I have no real issue here - just using this as a example.
    And re polygamy - that the current fashion against multiple marriage hasn't quite swung far enough
    for the law to "notice" it (it will, polygamy is the fastest growing moral issue. Gallop Poll. 7% - 19%
    increase in approval over 15 years.)
    In the case of abortion the Supreme Court "found" abortion in the Constitution where no-one had seen
    it before. It will do the same for polygamy. Our law makers will "see" that "equal protection" applies to
    polygamists also.
    "Equal protection" is a highly political and subjective term. I don't see it as being in the law.
     
  4. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    click on search for my earlier posts on the subject
     
  5. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Dear @Troianili

    I believe the correct ruling should be that beliefs about marriage are protected as part of free exercise of religion, there should be no discrimination by creed, and govt can NEITHER ESTABLISH NOR PROHIBIT beliefs about marriage.

    I don't think the SCOTUS Justices are able to make such a statement though.

    I think the impetus to recognize political beliefs have to come from the people, and then the parties and govt will follow.

    I asked two Constitutionalists, one a law professor and one a board member of a nonprofit defending First Amendment free speech, and both advised that this would not come through Courts. The correct place to establish such an agreement on policy would be on the legislative level or a local agreement among people or parties. The most Courts can do is rule yes or no but are not authorized to write out changes to laws, such as clarifying how political beliefs and creeds should be managed with respect to First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and protections. That is a legislative or legal process, and since it involved BELIEFS, then responsibility resides with the people or states.

    I think we can best approach this issue by party, and in the process, will effectively screen out which party leaders are not able to put Constitutional duty to all citizens above their own partisan beliefs, and which people should take leadership who can respect and protect interests and beliefs of all citizens equally. See also www.ethics-commission.net
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
  6. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Dear @61falcon and @Shiva_TD cc: @Troianii
    So instead of stacking financial equal protections on top of marriage policies through the state,
    because marriage beliefs are outside govt jurisdiction, the opposite should happen.
    The financial issues should be separated from any marriage policy that involves beliefs.
    It's fine for the states to govern SECULAR financial and legal contracts concerning custody, estate, property etc.

    But BELIEFS about social benefits, BELIEFS about what constitutes valid marriage partners
    all that should be REMOVED from the equation
    in order to keep the contracts SECULAR and NEUTRAL of beliefs.

    These should only be about the financial and legal terms of contracts.
    Not about the social relations and beliefs if govt should provide social welfare or not to which people based on which criteria or terms.

    This is NOT the role of govt or courts to decide this level of policy.

    Perhaps citizens can agree how to write out NEUTRAL policies through their state legislatures or
    through districts, or by parties and/or collective memberships like union benefits
    which the people/members elect FOR THEMSELVES in order to respect their own beliefs.

    But it isn't for govt much less courts to dictate for the people.
     
  7. Football

    Football Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Female
    Great post
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  8. emilynghiem

    emilynghiem Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Dear @Mr_Truth and @Football
    While I agree that BANS on gay marriage are unconstitutional
    as prohibiting free exercise of religion,
    the First Amendment also bars govt from ESTABLISHING religious belief or bias. Certainly it is not the Court's jurisdiction to establish beliefs about marriage,
    but only to bar laws that are AGAINST or BANNING equal free exercise of such beliefs or creeds.

    Would you agree if laws were to remain NEUTRAL
    and thus neither establish nor prohibit the exercise of marriage beliefs?

    Wouldn't the most consistent way to follow this law be
    to keep state laws and govt focused on just the financial and legal contracts
    or terms of "domestic partnership" and not attempt to regulate the
    PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP between financial or legal partners?

    That way, any people who want to opt into practicing their own beliefs
    about marriage or benefits, they are always free to contract and manage
    that through the institution of their choice. On a local, state, national or even
    international level, as other church or nonprofit programs operate.
    But not force all other taxpayers to implement this and endorse their marriage
    beliefs and practices through govt.

    We don't require people to register their baptisms through govt
    for these to be official. And certainly don't take conflicts over how baptisms
    should be conducted, and demand that govt settle these disputes.
    Why shouldn't marriage and benefits be up to the people so
    all have equal choice of their own beliefs?
    Does this really necessitate going through govt to manage collectively?
    Why can't it be organized by free choice, in keeping with
    Constitutional laws against establishing or prohibiting religion
    and requiring equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2018
  9. slackercruster

    slackercruster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't it something reading these old threads and how far off they were in their predictions.

    When it comes to homosexuals and guns, the lady SCOTUS justices will always vote 'for' promoting homosexuality and 'against' gun rights.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    18,913
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Merca the insurance company!
    "Under" the law, laws they create at the drop of a hat.
    The law does, the 'interpretation' of the constitution and law is another story, its always maximized first and foremost to state interests, constitutional or not..
    Take the mormon case, us v sullivan, there was no bonafide state interest to violate the mormons religion, but they did, how about the klien case, bankrupted.

    Just wanted to point out its all about the interpretation and the legal industry does not interpret the constitution in the same language the average person does, in fact its often convoluted from its most obvious interpretation.
     

Share This Page