SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Edits in red.
I am sure the irony will be lost on you. Do you find it interesting that the same reasons for banning interracial marriages (with the exception of direct procreation) are now being used against same sex marriage? And before the "race isn't orentation" excuse begins I am talking about the arguments (perpetuated by religious social "conservatives" - not the movement itself.

 

Making it personal again? Whatever makes you feel more smug. The key to a criminal partnership is loyalty. Marriage is about trust, and if that trust morphs into asking your spouse to help cover a crime, then it's no longer a marriage but a criminal partnership.

Oh for the love of god, if a hospital isn't going to honor one legal measure why are you so confident they're going to honor another? What a lame counter.

There are no laws that punish people for using powers of attorney to replicate the relational rights conferred in marriage, as you so erroneously claimed. You make a claim like that, you back it up. I'm not going to wast my time on a wild goose chase for you.

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) you are thick sometimes! I've said multiple times I am morally indifferent on the whole thing. Marriage laws have nothing to do with morality or religion. Nothing! Why do you keep bringing them up? What's offensive is that you are trying to use the force of law to normalize a behavior that people find offensive. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about it, but that isn't what the law is there for. States should be encouraging and discouraging marital behavior on pragmatic grounds, not moral grounds. You guys are trying to impose your moral view that homosexual behavior is equivalent to heterosexual behavior. Let people form their own moral views on that.

Once again you resort to name calling, which only exposes the weakness of your argument and how you've failed to view the issue objectively or with an open mind.

 

Unless of course that moral belief is that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships, in which case it apparently is okay to impose that belief on other citizens by force of law, right? The air stinks with the hypocrisy.

 

What's apparently lost on you is the difference between race and the fundamental relational building block of every society since the dawn of man. The government should be indifferent to the former, but has a legitimate interest in the latter.

That's funny, I read the briefs for the Loving case and the current case and you know what? None of the arguments were the same! Not one! So you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*)! The only case that bears any resemblance to this one is Baker v. Nelson. I know, I know, you gotta sweep that one under the rug with some legal arm-waving. But anyone with half a brain can see through that.

 

how is that belief imposed on you? Are you forced to marry someone of the same sex?

- - - Updated - - -

What interest is served by denying same sex couples?

 

I was reading an interesting discussion among legal analysts. They were saying that there are four conceivable things the Court might do:

1) Kick the case back to the 6th circuit on some technical ground, leaving everything in limbo. Considered highly unlikely.

2) Decide that gay marriage is a fundamental constitutional right in the US, requiring all states to both perform and honor it. Considered most likely.

3) Decide that states don't have to grant such marriages, but do have to honor those performed in other states. Considered dumb, representing a one-time inconvenience to make a wedding trip.

4) Decide that it's entirely up to the states whether to both perform and honor any marriage. Considered the "nightmare option" where a couple is married for some tax purpose but not others, married in some court cases but not others, and an invitation to endless litigation.

None of these experts could think of any conceivable grounds for discovering a national prohibition, banning gay marriages nationwide, and retroactively declaring couples unmarried.

So it seems the best-case scenario for the conservatives is the "nightmare option", where people are kind of half-married, and rights guaranteed in one building are disregarded in the building across the street. About the only thing worse would be a decision stating that it's up to individual judges, probate officers, tax preparers and assessors, etc. whether or not they wish to honor a marriage.

Note that this discussion was of possible alternative decisions, and didn't address the merits of the two cases being considered, much less the merits of the issue in general. I found it interesting that none of these law experts even considered the law itself. It was couched strictly as a matter of politics.

- - - Updated - - -

What I don't understand is how you impose a belief on someone. It's one thing to require someone to do something they don't believe is right, and something very different to require that they believe it's right.

 

Unlikely, but not inconceivable. They could remand the case back to the circuit with instructions concerning the level of scrutiny to be applied. It would be a delaying tactic.

As worded, that would make "gay marriage" a separate right from "straight marriage". The real question is whether same-sex couples' unions are a marriage; marriage is the right, and its denial has implications for infringing other rights (due process, equal protection).

"Gay marriage" is a misnomer. The restriction imposed by the states is predicated on the parties' sexes, not their orientation (though it is arguable that homosexuality was the real target of these laws, with the characteristic of the couples' sexes serving as its proxy.) A same-sex couple could be of any orientation, not just gay.

Agreed. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say the states don't have to create those marriages if they're going to have to recognize them anyway after the couples go out of state to be married and return home as a married couples, since the effect on the state ends up being largely the same. Recognition of a marriage > creation of a marriage. I think states would rightly see this as an attempt at symbolic placation without any real practical effect.

I think this could lead to states passing laws that attempt to criminalize the action of a same-sex couple going out of state to be married, then returning home to force the state to recognize their marriage. We already know how that game ends.

The situation we're largely in at present.

 

Nope you can still believe they're not equivalent. Nothing is preventing you from holding that viewpoint. I'm sure many people share it but you need to come up with a rational basis if you want that to continue to be codified into law. So far nobody seems to have done that.

I'm of the mind that, if you were gay, you'd probably think your relationships were equivalent to heterosexuals'?

People only have one life. I'm sure most of us do our best to live life to the full. For me that's the commonality and that's the equivalence. Who am I I to tell others that their lives aren't being fulfilled according to my personal standards?

Not at all, Your beliefs are your own and always will be.

 

Actuaries.

You obviously skipped over my reference to Virginia:

"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"."

 

That was my wording, and I can see that it was ambiguous. I don't have the quote in front of me, but it did not draw any such distinction. It basically said that same sex marriages should be regarded the same as any other marriage.

Again, this is shorthand and not intended to be misleading. The basic idea was that marriage should include any two single, consenting adults (and it would remain up to the states to define "adult" and degree of consanguinity, etc. Generally these would be expected to remain unchanged.)

I think that's not really feasible. Marriage isn't like abortion, where cranking up the hassle factor to force expenses and delays has a time limit. Abortion is an event, marriage is a condition. States cannot legally refuse to allow people from other states to cross their state lines.

And which isn't stable.

 

If you hold that personal belief while the government requires you to recognize and treat these relationships as something you believe they are not, then you are in fact having a moral view forced on you. The government should be indifferent to behaviors that are otherwise inconsequential to society. If the government is endorsing and encouraging certain behavior - like, say home ownership - then it should be because that behavior contributes to the general good of society, not because owning a home is morally superior to renting.

I don't even know what this statement has to do with the issue. Last time I checked, the SSM advocates are the ones telling you that their lives aren't being "fulfilled" unless their relationships are publicly recognized and codified by law. That is silly. It goes to a fundamental misconception about what government is here to do. It is here to protect our common society and your freedom to do what you want, but it isn't here to make you feel "fulfilled."

 

The state is forced to treat as marriage a relationship that it does not equate to marriage. For what? To make the participants in those relationships feel "dignified?" Is that the government's job?

That's like asking what interest is served by the state denying me the legal status of "athlete." I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the state sanctioning my personal relationships or hobbies. Of course, if having legal "athletes" was somehow valuable to society, then maybe my state would create such a legal status for athletes. But since such a connection is difficult if not impossible to argue, I do not have a bee in my bonnet about not being recognized as a legal athlete.

 

Not true. The latest polls show that 63% of Americans are in favor of SSM.

 

Maybe so...maybe not.
I take polls with a grain of salt.

 

Let me ask you a question. Why do you care? If you don't like SSM, don't get one. But why do you think your opinion should apply to other people?

 

That's dependent on your seeing this as a question of morality. I don't, I see this as a recognition of fact, that being that some people are born gay.

But people having their families recognized by law is not inconsequential to themselves. It is and can be highly consequential and that is why governmental recognition is important. It is government that creates many of the hurdles that the lack of such recognition can impart. Government burdens taxes, healthcare, immigration, estate planning. If gay people were able to manage these legal hurdles without the governmental recognition of their families we might not be having this conversation. However it is policy that creates the impediment and therefore only policy can successfully remove such impediments.

A person's state of being is not a behavior and the greatest good our society can impart through policy is the equal application of the law to all it's citizens absent provable harm which mere "offence" is not.

That's because without legal recognition of their families they are not fulfilled. I'm not talking about a feeling here I'm talking about a right to family. Without recognition of marital kinship gay people are permanent legal children more closely related (in law) to their parents and siblings than to the adults they live and share their lives with. This is unacceptable.

Well government does a lot of things to people as listed above. If gay people could just ignore all the laws with regard to taxes, healthcare, immigration, inheritance etc. because so doing would be "inconsequential" to society then everything would be fine and dandy but they can't. They're expected to live by the rules but not avail themselves of standard legal reliefs which are open to straight people for no other reason than the way they were born.

As I said before, I'm not talking about fulfillment in the sense of a "feeling". Perhaps a better choice of words would be fully "realized" as an adult. There's no reason why governmental policy should impede that especially when its effects have been pointed out and there is no rational basis to continue the discrimination.

 

You are correct. I don't like the idea of SSM! With that said am I going to lose sleep over what SCOTUS decides? Not in the least! ...but it sure doesn't mean I can't have my "Own" opinion on the subject.

 

You didn't answer my question. Why do you care about what other people, virtually all of whom you don't know, get same sex married?

 

they are forced to because their prohibition violates the 14th amendment. Now try answering the question I asked.

Well no, as athlete,isn't a legal status.

This is entirely irrelefant to my question. Perhaps you should actually read what I posed and respond intelligently.

 

I thought I did. I don't care from a personal standpoint. I won't be affected one bit because of it ...now if you ask me if I find SSM the same as "Marriage" ?... then no I don't. As well as the fact a huge "can of worms" will be opened because of it! ...but as mentioned before ...not my problem per se. SSM is an issue that the Government will have to sort out!

 

We both live not only in the same state, but the same city. I'm sure you know that SSM has been legal here for 3 or 4 months. If the news hadn't told me that, I wouldn't have noticed. Have you?

 

You're right I wouldn't have noticed.
Interesting you live in Tampa also. Actually I just moved over to Oldsmar (from Tampa) but not much of a difference for me since I previously lived close to Westchase.

 

What do you expect to be inside that can? What worms do you anticipate. After all, most of those marriages so far do nothing more than grant legal recognition to relationships that have already existed for some time. So it must be the legal recognition you think will be a problem. But how so? What is your prediction?

 

Okay lets look at a narrow ruling the US Constitution grants equality it doesn't remove equality and all decisions so far is to give more both by adding amendments or interpretations expanded human rights so it would go against all precedent to allow discrimination show me one case where we said to a minority NO in a fundamental way as a society in the modern age 20th Century and on. Which we would do by not allowing SSM. It would be the same as not allowing women to vote or saying to a black man you can't marry this white woman you love. The SAME to me.

 

Speaking of women's right to vote, states had the authority to restrict that right until 1920 (you know, the 20th century). And do you know how women did gain nation-wide suffrage? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the 14th Amendment.

It's difficult to argue that the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize a new type of relationship when it didn't even have the authority to require states to allow women to vote. (It wasn't enough to require states to allow blacks to vote, either. That protection also required a separate Amendment.)