SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Good news indeed!

 

And you haven't presented a basic right being denied, only an entitlement.

Again, it doesn't bother me if that's what a state decides. What bothers me is a federal court mandate for states to sanction/endorse/incentivize them.

I see you are already preparing to dismiss their opinion based on your presupposition of their religious influences.

 

I've been arguing for equality under the law. You have apparently seen no value in such equality.

So you really don't care what decision is made, you only care who makes it. And if this means constitutional guarantees are trampled at the state level, you're fine with that. Which is great, except this has not been the flavor of your complaint.

I'm willing to accept due process of law. The Court makes a lot of decisions I disagre with, but I have never "dismissed" any of them. YOU, on the the other hand, have made it clear that you are willing to dismiss any uncongenial decision they make because someone else didn't make it (and very clearly, make the decision you prefer).

The point I was trying to make is that whether this decision is made by referendum, by state legislature, by Congress, or by SCOTUS, very few if any of these folks are making any pretense of a LEGAL decision. They are all pushing agendas, regardless of which way they decide. Only the Federal courts at lower levels were concerned with the legalities. And maybe you're right, this ought not be a legal decision. Maybe what's called for in this case is a national popular vote. I personally think some national policy on something as basic as marriage, whatever that policy might be, would be better than a mosaic of confusing conditions.

 

The federal courts (in this case SCOTUS) are not mandating that they sanction/endorse/incentivize same-sex marriages. They are stating that sexual-orientation is not a valid reason to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

 

I love it when certain people use "incentivize" that way. Gay people need an incentive? For what? To be gay? Do they think that if same sex marriages are not recognized, and if gays don't get the benefits of marriage, they will decide not to be gay?? Bet that's it!

 

Wrong. A gay man can marry a straight (or gay) woman and the marriage will be legally recognized. There are plenty of documented cases proving this.

 

Flavor of my posts? That's the whole point of the thread! Not what states should do, but what does SCOTUS have to do with it. And if same sex marriage is a constitutional guarantee then I will be genuinely shocked.

I'm in the minority here. The "pro" side has been claiming victory since the day the court took the case. Many said the oral arguments were a mere formality. I'm simply offering an alternative view to prepare people for an unexpected (yet possible) decision.

The popular vote can (and for a time did) happen at the state level. It it can also happen by constitutional amendment, but that seems unnecessary.

 

OK. I got the impression that you did not approve of same sex marriage, regardless of where the decision was made.

Yet you were critical when I said I wouldn't be surprised if the decision was 5-4 against, along religious lines. Which would also just happen to be party lines, making it ambiguous in that respect.

I agree it's unnecessary. But I feel that marriage, being a condition and not an event, would be excessively clumsy and raise a lot of protests if it's found to blink on and off like a lightswitch as one crosses state lines. And I think people would be confused if they were married (federal level) but unmarried (state level). Would that mean they'd be required to testify against their spouse in state courts but not in federal courts? Would they be able to visit their spouse in some hospitals but not others depending on the source of funding?

 

This is why I think the justices will compromise and split the decisions. On question #1, they will affirm the state's authority to define, regulate, and administer marriage, upholding the opposite-sex limitation. On question #2, they will rule that one state's marriage is valid anywhere in the U.S., regardless of the local laws, meaning same sex marriage is technically legal nationwide. Both sides will claim victory when in truth neither side will have gotten what it wants.

 

I don't understand SSM critics I thought most of you were PRO-MARRIAGE if gays do it than maybe it will rub off on couples shacking up out of wedlock with kids they spawned so they also want to get married. More marriage would be overall a good thing.

I agree they will likely split the voting so its allowed to be banned in States but the marriage must be recognized across State lines it will be sloppy but everyone wins something.

 

And with SSM legalized you too can marry someone of the same sex.

 

The SCOTUS has already said that if Question 1 is answered that "States can have SSM bans" they will not answer #2. Therefore it is an all or nothing situation for the SCOTUS decisions. That is why I think they will answer that states SSM bans are unconstitutional.

I wish they would answer both questions regardless because like you I think that would be a good compromise, but that isn't the situation with these.

 

Yeah, I know that they Court is going to try as hard as it can to find some sort of narrow interpretation. Clearly, they didn't want to have to get their hands dirty with this issue, and they were just fine until the damn 6th circuit decided differently from every other circuit, and they were forced to do something. Until then, they wouldn't even grant stays, they just wanted to disassociate themselves from it.

What you predict may be how they decide, but I would expect such a decision to be unstable in the sense of being contested right and left, resulting in another maze of inconsistent decisions.

 

Question 2 is moot if they decide that the bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional. However, they do need to answer Question 2 if they decide the bans are constitutional. And if they do decide that the bans are constitutional and that states have to recognize that out-of-state same-sex marriages are valid, it sets up a bit of a conundrum, one that was brought up in oral arguments: that a state can have it's marriage laws dictated by another state. What's the point of having a ban on same sex marriage if you can go to a neighboring state to get married and then come back and force the state to recognize it.

I think if SCOTUS splits the baby in this fashion (state-level bans are constitutional, but states have to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages), same-sex marriage supporters get a much bigger win than the opponents of same-sex marriage. Sure, their state gets to ban it from being performed in-state, but what's the point if you have to recognize an out of state same-sex marriage? Of course, maybe that will force them to repeal the bans because they're otherwise pretty toothless...

 

Interesting point and basically true, but it is still inequality. Same sex couples will have to go out of state, possibly at considerable expense and inconvenience. Opposite sex couples will not.

 

If that happens, I'd like to have the wedding chapel franchise on the state line.

 

Hogwash! That is not equality!

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. 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:

 

You have to wonder if he'd feel he were treated equally, if he were only permitted to marry someone of the same sex, just as gays could. And then the gays could say "you have the equal right to marry any man of your choice, haw haw haw."

 

Where/when did they say that? I don't remember seeing it.

 

It's equality in the sense that where only traditional marriage is legally recognized, it is recognized regardless of sexual orientation; and likewise, just because someone is straight does not mean they're given special permission to have a legally recognized same-sex marriage. The law is applied equally.

This goes to a fundamental view of government. I really wouldn't care what the government said about my relationship choices as long as it left me alone to have them. As it is, I make lots of personal choices that the government does not prohibit, nor does it legally endorse or sanction. So what? The college degree I hold is from a private college; I'm not upset that all those other public-university grads get a degree from the state while I don't, or that their college educations were subsidized by public funds while mine wasn't. I play in adult sports leagues; I don't care that the government has not endorsed that decision or legally recognized me as an "athlete." All the legal protections I want can be obtained through wills and powers of attorney and other legal mechanisms. I don't need the government to "approve" of my life choices in order to feel dignified or "equal" to people who've made other life choices. I find it a gross abuse of power that some are trying to manipulate state law in order to do just that.

 

I clearly explained in my previous post why it is NOT equal treatment under the law. If you cant that that through your head it's not my problem. You simply take a narrow, impersonal view of marriage to justify discrimination. Got news for you, no one including the courts by that bigoted bovine excrement

 

How very selective of you. So if you were required to testify in court against your partner (whom you were not permitted to marry), while gays were not required to do so (since they are married), you're fine with this? No power of attorney can override this, you know. Same with hospital visitation rights - the hospital will laugh at your power of attorney, which is not binding on them at all. The thousands of laws and regulations concerning marriage are real, they are not idle, and they cannot be entirely imitated with powers of attorney. In some states, even ATTEMPTING to mimic marriage using powers of attorney is illegal. Not to mention that a marriage licence might cost you $25, while those powers of attorney, incomplete as they are, will cost you thousands.

But I do have to laugh at your laundry list of things irrelevant to marriage. A comical attempt to pretend you don't know what you're talking about.

 

To be honest, if my partner did something illegal and I have knowledge of it, then I have no problem testifying to that fact. I'm not a fan of loopholes that protect criminals, even if I'm related to the criminal. And if my partner is innocent, then my testimony would bear that out.

You're making that up. Health care proxies are just for this sort of thing.

Such as...? I mean, please name such a state and reference its law.

And you are citing a laundry list of things that anyone can do without a legal marriage. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with any of that. It's about using the power of law to impose a moral belief on people who don't share it.

 

Clearly, you aren't married. The key to a marriage is loyalty. If you have none, don't assume everyone else is like you.

If they are honored.

You are unable to find a single law that regulates marriage? Seriously? Do you also want me to document that the atmosphere has air? Playing stupid doesn't become you.

Ah, finally. You admit it has nothing to do with the law, nothing to do with courts or state legislatures. You find it morally offensive.

And your complaint makes no sense, of course. Nobody is imposing any beliefs on you at all. Nobody is doing anything that will affect you in any way. Anymore than granting certain churches tax benefits IMPOSES those beliefs on me or you.

But anyway, thanks for finally admitting what's been obvious all along. You are a bigot.

Next!

 

Nice that you have that choice.

Which is instigated at the discretion of the Doctor not the proxy:

"There is a term called “invoking the healthcare proxy.” The invoking of the healthcare proxy is done by a doctor, indicating in the chart that the patient is not capable of making medical decisions. "

http://healthcarewhisperer.com/heal...-respect-or-why-do-medical-staff-ignore-them/

(please visit the link, it is very informative).

Virginia was pretty draconian:

"State recognition had been prohibited by statute in 1975, and further restrictions were added in 1997 and 2004, which made "void and unenforceable" any arrangements between same-sex couples bestowing the "privileges or obligations of marriage"."

You're entitled to retain any "moral belief" you choose, you just can't impose that on other citizens that are causing you no provable harm.