SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

And neither is a same-sex relationship unless a state chooses to make it one. See? You do understand!

LOL. OK, professor.

 

It's not analogous. A better example would be MALE athlete is a legal status but female isn't.

I didn't think so.

 

With the United States about to join Canada and Mexico in ending gender discrimination in marriage law, how far behind could Cuba be?

Will it persist as an anomaly in North America and be as adamant as Islamic theocracies in proscribing such contracts, or will it join it's more advanced neighbours?

I anticipate progress, but am uncertain as to its timetable.

 

or Africa, Christians there are not treating gays very well either

 

But the question isn't about letting people be gay, it's about recognizing same sex relationships as legally (and morally) equivalent to marriage. A state can protect people's freedom to be gay without doing that.

Fair enough. But who gets to define "family" in terms of the law? Right now it's the state. You want the federal government - the court, even - to usurp the state's authority to do so. Based on what? How could any self-determined relationship be denied that equal protection?

This is grossly overstated. Many conventional couples today live together, have kids together, and care for one another without ever getting legally married. Somehow they navigate all the "legal hurdles" just fine. The "impediments" argument is just a tool being used to advance an agenda.

Right, but living with a partner is a behavior.

This isn't about treating individual citizens equally, it's about treating self-determined relationships equally. I don't see how you argue that using U.S. law.

Nonsense. My unmarried cohabiting friends mentioned above are not considered "permanent legal children" by anyone.

How do single people survive in this society that is so hostile to the unmarried?

Are single people not "fully realized adults" in your estimation? That is a strange view to hold indeed. What about single people who want to be married, but can't find a suitable partner? Should the government offer matchmaking services to help these people get hitched? Where do you draw the line for the government's duty to help people "fulfill" themselves? Call it what you want, it's not something the government is obligated to provide anyone.

 

True. South Africa was way out in front, and I'm unaware of progress elsewhere on the continent, regardless of the religious heritage of the nation.

 

<cough> Loving v Virginia </cough

 

As far as I know it isn't a new type of relationship. It seems to be as old as humanity.

 

It is a new type of legally-formalized relationship. Funny that if someone points out that incest and underage marriage are as old as humanity it doesn't hold water for legally recognizing those relationships.

 

<cough> Baker v. Nelson </cough>, addressed by the same court, and after the Loving/I] decision. Nevermind, you're so far behind in this thread, that was all addressed pages ago.

 

Legal does not equal moral. There are many things people do that are legal that many don't find moral. Here's a good example. Take a look at some of the celebrity marriages, there are MANY people that find them immoral because of the reasons they get married (see Kim Kardashian's first marriage). However, it IS legal. So SSM is the same thing, some are not going to find it moral. Having SSM legal does not make it automatically "moral" to everyone.

Easily, nothing is really changing except for that gender is not a requirement for marriage.

Was it a behavior when a black person lived with a white person? The same rules were around for a white person. They had the right to marry but only another white person.

Sure it is, because once legalized you to can marry someone of the same sex. Equal.

 

The OP is one of the few opponents of SSM that is absolutely and positively SURE that the SCOTUS is going to uphold the State gay marriage bans.

Many of the others have already given up hope.

 

What about Loving and Baker?? Selected excerpts from just one of many cases that have cited Loving and brushed Baker aside:

 

Legal doesn't always equal moral, but sometimes it does. For example, the government's position on racial discrimination has had a tremendous impact on the U.S. cultural views toward minorities. This is a good thing, of course, and even though there were/are also practical reasons for equal treatment across the races, you must recognize the moral aspect to it as well.

In a way this makes my point. The law requires us to treat a second or third Kardashian (or Liz Taylor) marriage as equally valid as that of a couple who's been faithfully married for thirty years. Things like this and no-fault divorce have totally changed the perception of what marriage is. The long-term effect has been to make marriage less about commitment and stability and more about status and momentary happiness. The moral views toward marriage and parental obligations have absolutely been warped by how the institution is legally administered.

That's only if it's by a state's legislative process. If by Supreme Court mandate, it changes more than that.

The behavior there was marriage, and marriage was a behavior states had decided to formally recognize and endorse. Race cannot legally be a factor; gender inherently is.

Equal is already here. The same legal definition applies within the state regardless of people's sexual orientation.

 

Baker was not addressed by the Supreme Court.

 

This segment didn't work for interracial bans either.

 

Yes I have no doubt that the first citation you used represents some of the justices' position - maybe even 5 or more of them. But that citation isn't the final ruling, so it's all speculation at this point. Ultimately it comes down to whether anyone at all has a "right" to have their marriage legally recognized. Still strikes me as a silly idea.

I don't think any of the rulings since Baker speak to that case since none of them were about marriage.

 

It is not designed to is my point. Something can be made legal and yet not moral. There are people to this day that still think interracial marriage is wrong, they are just not able to do anything legal about it. The same will be for SSM in the regards that there will be people that think it is wrong, but they too won't be able to do anything about it.

I

Well conservatives didn't rally and cry about making any of those illegal when they happened. The conservatives of this country have not rallied to make divorce illegal, they have not rallied to change no-fault states, etc. So they reap what they sow in that regard and I have no sympathy towards any conservative mindset that goes against it now.

Nothing more than what interracial marriage did. There were conservatives that used religious arguments in the SCOTUS case regarding interracial marriage.

Marriage is not a behavior it is an action. Marriage does not make you moral in and by itself. I know people who are not married that are more committed and have been together longer than some married people.

[/quote]

It is not equal as a man cannot marry another man like a woman can. Sorry, not equal. But after SSM you too will be able to marry the same-sex.

 

And somehow it does for recognizing marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Technically speaking it was, but only as a matter of mandatory review that doesn't exist anymore. It "addressed" it with a one-line statement. Current members of the Court have opined that Baker's precedential value is limited, and even superseded by subsequent changes in law and policy making.

 

How's that? All these relationships have been around for a long time. But states elected to formally recognize one of them, marriage between a man and a woman. Not because they hated gay people, not because they were promoting a religion, but because those relationships were of public interest. Now we have SSM advocates arguing for the court to mandate the states' treatment of same sex relationships not because they make sense, but under the pretext of equal treatment when what it's really about is special treatment - pushing a moral view that these relationships are equal to traditional marriages. The equal treatment pretext opens the door to "legalizing" those other relationships, but since what they're really after is special treatment they say it doesn't.

 

I'll agree with this much: interracial marriage bans were rooted in a moral view that the white race was superior, and that's why it was struck down. Likewise, the SSM advocates' position is rooted in a moral view that all self-determined relationships are equal, which is why a nationwide mandate to legally recognize same sex marriage should be rejected.

 

That is an incorrect statement in the bold right there. That isn't the argument of why SSM should be legal, but nice try.

 

They two are identical. Both bans are based on bigotry, and both bans violate the 14th amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

Giving a couple the identical rights of another couple isn't special treatment. It's equal treatment.

 

Nobody as of yet has explained this special treatment, so any time I read this in a post it's just parroting regurgitated nonsense.

If we ended special treatment for opposite sexed couples this argument would be over. The public interest was to make sure parents were accountable for their children and men accountable for their wife. Since paternity testing is available there is no need for the former any longer and since women's suffrage has occurred, women are accountable for themselves. Currently all marriage is legally speaking is one umbrella contract that only one man and one woman can sign. That is a special treatment. I'm perfectly happy with simply doing away with legal marriage, but as long as people insist that it exists gay people, polygamous couples, and incestuous couples should force the state to extend to them the same exact privilege. Equal protection under the law is in the constitution. Any state that violates that needs federal intervention.

The law really needs to get out of it. Legally recognized marriage it's anachronistic and pointless. It was made so largely by heterosexuals. 100% of all divorces in states banning same sex marriage were heterosexual.

Why do we give the state this authority? Further why is it considered conservative to take power from the people and give it to the state? I don't think we need government meddling in our lives on that level.