Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Nothing important, trust me.

 

As well as between two men or two women.

Denial of this fact won't change it.

 

Just a few counter points for now

1.It may or may not be strictly a 14th Amendment issue but the SCOTUS chose to rule on it based on the 14th and did so appropriately as explained in Justice Kennedy’s eloquent opinion

2.To offer the fact that we did not have same sex marriage sooner as proof that it is not strictly s 14th Amendment issue is a non sequitur. Cases make their way to SCOTUS as the result of the legal, political and social climate and not so much on their merits. SCOTUS was willing to -and in fact hoping to be able to allow it to play out in the lower courts, but felt compelled to act when there was a circuit split.

3.I don’t see any conflict or contradiction between Windsor (DOMA) and Obergefell. In the former case they basically said that if states see fit to legalize same sex marriage, the federal government should not interfere and limit the benefits of marriage for gay people. However, they never said that the state’s right to regulate marriage is absolute and we know from federal case law that it most certainly is not.

4. Simply granting reciprocity and not requiring the states to issue licenses would not have accomplished the same thing. Think about it. A gay couple living in a state that did not allow them to marry would have to move and possibly establish residence in a state that does allow them to marry. They would then have to move back to their home state. That is hardly equal treatment.

5. They could not have said that the bans on same sex marriage were unconstitutional AND have the states legislate it accordingly. It does not work that way. The only other thing that they could have done was to remain silent on the issue of Constitutionality and leave it up to the states altogether. However , that would have meant that it would decades longer before gays in all states had justice served
‘
6. Any time that a ruling is disagreed with, or when it is thought that the court over stepped their bounds, it is decried as legislating from the bench but those are just words. The fact is they simply invalidated state laws and that is what the court does. They did not alter or write new laws.

Thank you for your input ( I'm not a lawyer either)

 

14th amendment

/thread

 

it's always amusing watching bigots pout like children and pretend reality is somehow different than what it actually is, lol

It is demonstrably true that 2 men and 2 women can, have and do marry.

 

I appreciate your well written post- though I disagree with your conclusions.

If this were strictly a 14th Amendment issue we would have had gay marriage nationwide a long time ago but those cases weren't heard until recently so it wasn't that simple. Obergefell had several cases rolled into it but the two main issues were gay marriage bans and reciprocity.

This is not just a 14th Amendment issue- it is an issue of our right to marriage- and the 14th Amendment. Loving v. Virginia was similar- which was mixed race marriage bans- and reciprocity(the Lovings were married outside of Virginia). Just as Loving v. Virginia resulted in allowing mixed race marriages nationwide, Obergefell resulted in allowing same gender marriages nationwide.

I think that was wrong because they did the very thing they said couldn't be done when they overturned part of DOMA which is define marriage. I understand some people will disagree with me on whether or not what SCOTUS did was actually defining marriage but either way their order to issue licenses was essentially legislating from the bench and was in my opinion a massive overstepping of their bounds because ordering reciprocity would have accomplished the same thing without infringing on the state's ability to define marriage.

The Supreme Court of course didn't legislate from the bench- what they did was overturn State laws- in this case laws that specifically prohibited marriage between same gender couples. Just as the Supreme Court overturned Virginia's law against mixed race marriages. In neither case was the Supreme Court legislating anything- they were telling the states that they cannot violate the 14th Amendment. That is the Supreme Court's job.

The Court was set to rule on reciprocity- but again- like Loving- ruling that the marriage laws themselves were unconstitutional meant that there was no need to rule on the reciprocity.

but SCOTUS should have just said the bans were un-Constitutional and kicked this back to the states to re legislate but they didn't do that, they took it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.

Nothing the Supreme Court did prevents States from re-legislating their State marriage laws- but any re-legislation which prohibits mixed race marriages or same gender marriages will be unconstitutional. As the court has ruled.

How long do you think it would have been before they had to rule that anyone licensed to conceal carry in one state can now conceal carry in all 50 states? I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing any licensing issue could have been affected by that and I think they did this the way they did specifically to avoid setting a precedent they did not later want to deal with which means politics played a huge part in what should have been a fair and impartial procedure.

Different issue- and one I believe that has already been addressed by the courts before. Have you read Obergefell? I think it would answer many of your questions.

 

Do you believe I haven't?

 

And it was left to the states originally. 37 states declared same sex marriage legal before the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court basically had to decide because like it or not this is the UNITED States. Sure state law can differ some, but when 37 of 50 states have legalized something that's a majority so it needs to get looked at on a national level. Otherwise we might as well be 50 individual countries. You can't have two people legally married in Colorado then have to relocate to Alabama for some reason and suddenly their legally obtained contract is no good.

According to you. The OP is looking for factual evidence and information, and calling same sex marriage an "absurdity" is an opinion.

Now this is absurd.

Again, this is your personal opinion.

And once again this is your personal opinion, which I'm sorry to tell you isn't enough to govern a country on.

 

Not so much. What they said was this:

Calling this 'legislating from the bench' is mischaracterizing it. The Court's role is to interpret the law. The statement above tells us what their interpretation is - that this is what the Constitution's 14th Amendment requires as an application of its due process and equal protection clauses. The only means I see to argue against this is to claim that the 14th's clauses aren't applicable, and why. The rest of the ruling lays out why the Court thinks they apply.

I think you'll find people who will say the opposite - that even requiring reciprocity amounts to the negation of a state's power to regulate marriage.

SCOTUS didn't give us a definition of marriage via Obergefell. What they did affirm is that it can't be defined for the purpose of negating the due process and equal protection required by the 14th amendment. Rescinding a state's overstepping of its powers isn't the same thing as writing a new definition of marriage, regardless of opponents' rhetorical, contrary spin.

What effect does striking down the bans have? Does removing that impediment not in fact have the effect of requiring the states to issue the licenses? I don't see how you can say it does anything different. What do you imagine the outcome would be?

 

Not according to the Constitution, they didn't.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but it has no constitutional basis.

Happily, it's an opinion that is perfectly consonant with reality.

To be sure. The hell of it is, outrageous lies can be plenty sufficient to govern a country, at least in the short term.

 

Well actually they did because cases were appealed through lower courts until they reached the Supreme Court.

 

The fact is the constitution says what those nine blacked robed people on the SCOTUS says it says. I understand what you are saying. Deciding who can or can't be married is not one of the powers given to the federal government in Article I Section 8 either. Marriage is not addressed period. So if one is a strict Constitutionalist that power is left to the states and the people.

But that becomes irrelevant as we now go back to my first sentence.

 

That would make murder and theft by the government against the laws. Wheres the part that makes theft by an individual against the law?

He was referring to the Federal government and hasn't questioned the "governments" authority to do so, only the federal governments. But you knew that. That's why you want to change the subject because you cant provide a rational response to the actual topic.

 

Was the heights of hypocrisy for the Federal government to strike down the federal DOMA law arguing that it interferes with the states rights to define marriage and therefore unconstitutional and then a short time latter in the gay marriage cases, dictate to the states how they must define marriage.

 

That's what he just said

 

These bans you speak of have been in place since marriage laws were created in the US. They didn't pop up. And marriage limited to men and women isn't discrimination against a minority group.

 

When they are free to change their interpretation at any time, it becomes legislating from the bench.

 

Actually that's of no moment because the federal Judiciary has no authority in this matter.

Since when is "fact" a synyonym for "lie"?

 

Not 37. Many of those changes were mandated by federal courts

 

Then why did they only extend marriage to gay couples instead of all couples prohibited by law from marriage?

 

I see your point but I think there's a legal difference between not addressing a topic because it's self-evident and actually targeting a specific group of people.