SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

I respect the consistency of how you're applying the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" here. But the case argued before the Supreme Court was only to mandate expanding marriage to same sex couples, not those other relationships you mention. That's where the "special treatment" is coming from. Most of the SSM advocates are quick to divorce themselves from your position, even if it is more logical.

I think there was more to it than that. The state wanted to encourage men and women (without kids) to marry and make babies, increasing the population, but in a way that promoted a stable society. For some reason we now assume that stability is a given, but it's actually a byproduct of public policy.

Ha ha. Not all dissolved relationships are heterosexual.

Why do we give the state the authority to offer incentives on fuel-efficient cars or energy-efficient appliances? Why do we have public schools? The answer is for the common good. If we didn't have such state incentives then some people would still buy energy-efficient cars and appliances., some would still get a good education, and yes, some would still commit to marriage, have babies, and properly care for them (after all, many were doing it long before the U.S. came along and offered state recognition). But when the state encouraging these things, they become more prevalent and society as a whole benefits. It's not meddling, it's encouraging certain decisions and behaviors.

 

It is if you're still not giving those identical rights to other couples.

 

Those other couples aren't part of the question before the court. They can't rule on them. They are not relevant to same sex marriage.

Giving one couple the exact same rights as another couple isn't special rights. It's equal rights.

 

If the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" is used to force states into legally recognizing SSM, then those other couples are part of the question.

Not if you continue to exclude other couples from those rights.

 

No they aren't. There are 2 questions before the court. Can states ban same sex couples from marriage, and do states have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. Those are the only to issues the court can rule on, in this case.

Please try to focus. Giving one couple the identical rights as another couple isn't special rights. It's equal rights.

 

Sorry you don't understand. The only thing before the court is SSM. That's it. Not polygamy, not incest, not bestiality, nothing else. Those groups if they want to change their legal status will have to go through the courts like same sex couples did.

Now they "may" try to use the same sex ruling case as an argument and then from there who knows. However, the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage doesn't automatically make incest and polygamy legal.

That can be determined with other court rulings but they are not made automatically legal. They will have to fight the same way the same sex couples did.

 

I really don't believe what I'm seeing here. How can anybody believe that. My guess is that they don't. It's just shameless fear mongering and an appeal to ignorance.

 

No wonder you're so confused, you don't know what the questions are. The two questions before the court are:

1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

If the Fourteenth Amendment requires this licensing based on "equal protection," then it is impossible to argue that a state is not required to license those other relationships as well, because "equal protection."

If you have ten kindergartners and you give candy to the blond-haired kids, it's special treatment of blond-haired kids. If you then offer to give candy to the black-haired kids, too, it's not suddenly "equal rights." It's still special treatment until you include the brown-hairs, the red-heads, the kids with hypotrichosis.... "Equal treatment" for a select few is special treatment.

 

Is there some kind of newsletter that's been circulated about this question? Because you all come back with the same dodge: "The only case between the court is SSM." No. The question is about the breadth and applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment. If it's so broad as to require that states license SSM, then it's broad enough to require licensing whatever relationships special interest groups want "equally protected."

It's not a matter of it being automatic, it's a matter of it being inevitable. To this point, the states have had the authority to recognize relationships as they see fit. They can sanction opposite-sex and same-sex relationships while rejecting other oddball combinations based on public interest and the state's power to administer legal marriage. But once you strip the state's power to define marriage because of "equal protection," well there goes the baby right along with the bathwater.

 

For a state to give licenses only to heterosexual couples is special treatment.

 

1. 
   This is what I just said.
   
   
   And that may very well be argued if another type of couple goes to court. But the case before the court is not and will not be addressing that.
   
   
   
   
   Of course it is. Especially if the black haired kids are the only ones asking for candy.
   
   
   Giving someone the same thing as someone else is equal, not special.

 

This is a really creative argument. If two people are treated precisely equally, they are still NOT treated equally if some third person is treated differently! And since there will always be a third person, I suppose there's actually no such thing as equal treatment, everyone is special. And since everyone is special, it's just dandy to deny rights to those we dislike (but won't admit it).

I marvel at the truly mind-killing power of prejudice.

 

It's special treatment of a behavior, which is rather common in law. That's what I was getting at it in the post you responded to while completely ignoring the content.

 

With all the comparisons to the Loving case, it's interesting to consider how many people are sitting around waiting for this decision, and at some point it will be instantaneously accessible all over the world. Anyone can read the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion without waiting for a reporter to summarize it in print. How much coverage did Loving get on the 1967 evening news? Even if it was well covered, you get the impression this one has far more interest.

Which brings up another remarkable observation: there is a small group of people who already know what the decision is! I mean for real, not all the smack-talk going on in forums like this. And by what margin. I'm amazed that nothing has been leaked from the courthouse in that regard. It is impressive in this era.

Earlier today the decision came out on Texas v. Sons of Confederate Veterans. Not only was the ruling itself a surprise to those heavily relying on the First Amendment, but the ruling itself had Clarence Thomas siding with Bryer, Alito, Kagan, and Sotomayor. Who saw that coming?

One legal analyst made this remark about that decision: "When the government is withholding support, rather than threatening punishment, the rules are very murky." Hmm, sounds awfully familiar...

 

These are the questions before the court. Where does it say anything about polygamy or anything else beside SAME SEX MARRIAGE?

 

I would note even if the Court rules for SSM that doesn't mean for now they have to allow same-sex couples to adopt children and they can always eliminate marriage thereby removing the legal issues entirely.

 

No it doesn't mean that they have to allow adoption, that's a separate issue. However, adoption by gay people has been way out in front of marriage in terms of acceptance. I do believe that all states already allow adoption by individual gay people and that many states allow joint adoption by a married same sex couple. New Jersey has allowed joint adoption by same sex couples since 1997.

Eliminate marriage? Ya think that there might be a backlash about that ?

 

No state is going to remove marriage. None. There simply isn't a majority approval (even by opponents of SSM) to eliminate marriage entirely from the state. What we are seeing now is states where anti-SSM sentiment is strong, they are trying to say the state will only recognize "religious" marriages. However, even that will backfire if SSM is made legal because there are churches that WILL marry gay couples.

 

Indeed, it appears Michigan is going to try this now. It will probably blow up in their face like Indiana's attempt did.

 

Wouldn't work anyway......atleast one church in a state would exist (or be established) that would perform SSM.

So what would be the opponents' NEXT move?.....say that the STATE decides what is a "real" church and what is not???

So much for the Right's claim to "religious liberty", huh?

 

How about opposite-sex marriages performed by judges? Imagine the process steps:
IF you and your partner are the same sex, then
IF you are married, then
IF you were married in a church, then
IF you were married in an approved church, then
IF your marriage has not been contested by the courts, then
NO, you're not married.

Sounds like it's going to be fun.

 

It is special treatment based on sex. We are talking about same verses opposite sex. nothing about behaving this way or that.

 

It's only gender-based special treatment in the way evolutionary biology has issued sperm to males and ova to females and requires the two to be combined in order to produce offspring. It's idiotic to think we can legislate away every single difference between the genders.

 

Legal contracts with governments have nothing to do with biology.
Gay people can and do reproduce.

 

You guys funnel everything toward one of your three arguments: it's about equality for gay people, gay people can produce children and be parents, and (ironically) marriage has nothing to do with producing children and being parents. When one fails, you dodge to the other argument, when that fails you parry to the third, and when that one fails you circle back to the first again. None of which have anything to do with federal interest in the states' administration of marriage. There is no federal prohibition on acknowledging biological realities in law.