Same-sex marriage legal across US

[Ryan_m_b]

Yay :) The United States becomes the 21st country to legalise same sex marriage across the entire nation

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html

 

[Czcibor]

Yay :) The United States becomes the 21st country to legalise same sex marriage across the entire nation

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html

Time for Mormons? ;)

And more seriously - for me the way in which the US Supreme Court operate is a bit peculiar. For me that's mostly judiciary usurping power of legislature. (I mean concerning procedures, not the decision as such, I can't say bad word about Irish who legalized that after a referendum)

 

[nsaspook]

Time for Mormons? ;)

And more seriously - for me the way in which the US Supreme Court operate is a bit peculiar. For me that's mostly judiciary usurping power of legislature. (I mean concerning procedures, not the decision as such, I can't say bad word about Irish who legalized that after a referendum)

Yes, it's time for Mormons. Just as the court was right saying people of legal age can marry who they want it should also be OK to marry how many they want (and properly suffer the consequences). In this case the US Supreme Court decided the legislature has no say about the sex of whom can marry so it was always legal by default (in general rights are taken in the US, not given).

 

[gfd43tg]

Their interpretation of the constitution is quite a stretch

 

[nsaspook]

Their interpretation of the constitution is quite a stretch

I just don't see how.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were.
"Their hope," Kennedy wrote, "is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."
"

 

[gfd43tg]

marriage is not the business of the federal government and the constitution does not delegate any powers for this purpose

 

[nsaspook]

marriage is not the business of the federal government and the constitution does not delegate any powers for this purpose

Exactly, that's why I agree that the federal government and as a 'civil right' all governments should have no say in what sex can have 'legal' marriage if all other conditions are met.

 

[Czcibor]

Yes, it's time for Mormons. Just as the court was right saying people of legal age can marry who they want it should also be OK to marry how many they want (and properly suffer the consequences). In this case the US Supreme Court decided the legislature has no say about the sex of whom can marry so it was always legal by default (in general rights are taken in the US, not given).

Curious which other laws are being infringed now that we would learn about it in a century...

I just don't see how.

The problem is that US constitution is don't directly regulate such issue. So at least following any literal interpretation - it would mean that catch all category - state power. Getting a different conclusion seem to me as a usual replacing "rule of law" with "rule of lawyers". Maybe that's an idea for the US gridlocked legislature being replaced by legislative power overstepping its authority.

 

[nsaspook]

The problem is that US constitution is don't directly regulate such issue. So at least following any literal interpretation - it would mean that catch all category - state power. Getting a different conclusion seem to me as a usual replacing "rule of law" with "rule of lawyers". Maybe that's an idea for the US gridlocked legislature being replaced by legislative power overstepping its authority.

States still have the power to regulate 'legal' marriage, they just can't use sex if all other requirements are met in the same way they were stopped from using race to regulate 'legal' marriage in the south. IMO this is removing a legal restriction in the basic rights of people so the US constitution is supreme over state power in this case.

 

[SteamKing]

Waitin' for my state-issued spouse to arrive to keep me from bein' lonely.

The Constitution is now reduced to a self-help tome for the perpetually confused (I'm lookin' at you, Justice Kennedy.)

The next time a vacancy opens on the Court, might as well nominate Dr. Phil for the seat, since the law is now just so much flummery.

 

[Czcibor]

States still have the power to regulate 'legal' marriage, they just can't use sex if all other requirements are met in the same way they were stopped from using race to regulate 'legal' marriage in the south. IMO this is removing a legal restriction in the basic rights of people so the US constitution is supreme over state power in this case.

Honestly speaking I see such interpretation as very thin ice. And plenty of other possibilities. For example age of consent or minimum legal drinking age. Equal protection clause and age discrimination. And arbitrarily ruling a new threshold.

(actually in my country is 15 for sex, 18 for alcohol, so I'm not saying that from any ultra stick in the mud position)

EDIT: I think we're not touching the core of the problem. US constitution was written a while ago, when quite a few issues no one thought that shall be regulated. In a bit cryptic language, modern constitutions are usually longer. Now there is a game of planting "right" people to interpret it, to get desired result. And for me such game looks a bit against idea of rule of law.

EDIT2: I'm used to codex law, yes I know I may treat common law in a bit unfair way.

 

[nsaspook]

Honestly speaking I see such interpretation as very thin ice. And plenty of other possibilities. For example age of consent or minimum legal drinking age. Equal protection clause and age discrimination. And arbitrarily ruling a new threshold.

I know what you mean but in this case the threshold is something we are born with like race (but subject to some change with modern technology). That should have no bearing in a 'legal' contract with another person that the government can regulate by force of law.

 

[StevieTNZ]

More wonderful news for Americans!

 

[Tobias Funke]

Waitin' for my state-issued spouse to arrive to keep me from bein' lonely.

The Constitution is now reduced to a self-help tome for the perpetually confused (I'm lookin' at you, Justice Kennedy.)

The next time a vacancy opens on the Court, might as well nominate Dr. Phil for the seat, since the law is now just so much flummery.

Would you say it's time for us to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

 

[gfd43tg]

My suggestion is to remove the institution of marriage entirely from the public sector, and give it back to the church where its origins lie. Then same sex marriage becomes a non-issue like it should be.

 

[DavidSnider]

My suggestion is to remove the institution of marriage entirely from the public sector, and give it back to the church where its origins lie. Then same sex marriage becomes a non-issue like it should be.

That would be a real headache as marriage bleeds into all sorts of property laws. If your church allows polygamy... how does the estate get split up? how does alimony and child support get figured out? Does a child belong to his biological mother or to the group of wives who raised him?

 

[Evo]

My suggestion is to remove the institution of marriage entirely from the public sector, and give it back to the church where its origins lie. Then same sex marriage becomes a non-issue like it should be.

But people get married for legal reasons, those cannot be granted by a church. A church ceremony is not legal unless the person performing the ceremony has been granted the ability to file the paperwork with the court on behalf of the couple.

I am truly amazed by how many people do not realize that the church ceremony is not legal on it's own, it's just an optional ceremony you can ask your church to perform if you are religious.

http://info.legalzoom.com/make-marriage-official-21976.html

 

[SteamKing]

That would be a real headache as marriage bleeds into all sorts of property laws. If you're church allows polygamy... how does the estate get split up? how does alimony and child support get figured out? Does a child belong to his biological mother or to the group of wives who raised him?

No clear cut determination on that issue, otherwise child custody cases wouldn't be so contentious, even when only two parents are involved.

However, the U.S. Constitution was drafted to set up a government, not provide a Talmudic reference book for figuring out the solution to all of life's everyday problems.

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights (for some reason, law schools stop teaching the Bill of Rights at the Eighth Amendment) to ensure that the federal government would not get involved in areas where the Constitution was silent. Those powers were properly reserved to the several states or to the people, so that, for instance, you wouldn't get the federal government entangled in how one disposes of his property in a will, or who gets custody of the kids should a couple break up.

But, with the latest rumblings from Mount Scotus, perhaps it's time to bring back the Delphic Oracle, to be consulted in figuring out all of life's thorny issues. Certainly, the reasoning used by Justice Kennedy is better suited for printing in Cosmopolitan Magazine or Seventeen, than U.S. Reports.

 

[DavidSnider]

No clear cut determination on that issue, otherwise child custody cases wouldn't be so contentious, even when only two parents are involved.

However, the U.S. Constitution was drafted to set up a government, not provide a Talmudic reference book for figuring out the solution to all of life's everyday problems.

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights (for some reason, law schools stop teaching the Bill of Rights at the Eighth Amendment) to ensure that the federal government would not get involved in areas where the Constitution was silent. Those powers were properly reserved to the several states or to the people, so that, for instance, you wouldn't get the federal government entangled in how one disposes of his property in a will, or who gets custody of the kids should a couple break up.

But, with the latest rumblings from Mount Scotus, perhaps it's time to bring back the Delphic Oracle, to be consulted in figuring out all of life's thorny issues. Certainly, the reasoning used by Justice Kennedy is better suited for printing in Cosmopolitan Magazine or Seventeen, than U.S. Reports.

Who was suggesting that the constitution should be used in the way you describe?

 

[D H]

My suggestion is to remove the institution of marriage entirely from the public sector, and give it back to the church where its origins lie. Then same sex marriage becomes a non-issue like it should be.

This decision wasn't about the religious aspects of marriage. It's about legal discrimination.

My marriage is heterosexual. If I have a serious injury, my heterosexual spouse can approve the perhaps dangerous medical procedure that has a good chance of fixing me. If I die, my death benefits, life insurance, and lifelong earnings go to my heterosexual spouse. If I do something very bad that makes my spouse decide that living with me is untenable, our community property needs to be split.

That my heterosexual marriage has preferred legal status is quite untenable. There is no reason that someone with a seriously injured homosexual partner shouldn't be able to legally approve that risky medical procedure, that someone with a deceased homosexual partner shouldn't be able to legally receive the partner's death benefits, or that someone with a cheating/abusive homosexual partner shouldn't be able to sue to nullify the marriage contract.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I found this to be an interesting speech from the Honourable Maurice Williamson, when same sex marriage was being debated in the NZ House of Representatives -- http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/13407

It passed its third reading -- http://www.inthehouse.co.nz/video/13425

 

[SteamKing]

Who was suggesting that the constitution should be used in the way you describe?

Apparently Justice Kennedy thinks so, since he wrote the opinion for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, as the case is properly cited:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

[Note: This copy of the decision may not be the final published version, since it apparently is missing some citations in the text.]

 

[lisab]

This makes me happy.

I remember in the 1980s, the Moral Majority became a significant movement in the US. Their leader, Rev. Jerry Falwell, would rail against gays and lesbians, decrying their "gay lifestyle". Photos of gays living that "lifestyle" were circulated on media such as The PTL Club. Truth be told, many of those photos were taken at Gay Pride parades, and were no more an accurate depiction of the "gay lifestyle" than photos taken of straight people at Mardi Gras parades (overt sexual behavior is very common at Mardi Gras parades, for those of you who have not been to one - oh, what people will do for beads!).

But then a funny thing happened. Gays and lesbians began to demand the right to get married - how audacious!. Basically, they were asking for that good ol' fashioned "family lifestyle" Falwell loved so much! If he were a thinking man (and still alive), he may have seen this decision as a victory. That sentiment was in Kennedy's beautifully written opinion:

It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

But I doubt Falwell would see this decision that way.

I was in my car commuting to work when the news broke. I tried not to tear up, since I was driving! This weekend there will be a Pride Parade in Seattle. I won't be able to attend, but in my mind that Pride extends to my pride in my country today.

Cheers and rainbows!

 

[nsaspook]

Apparently Justice Kennedy thinks so, since he wrote the opinion for the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, as the case is properly cited:

I would ask you was the court meddling with states rights when it invalidated interracial marriage bans? I prefer to the keep the government out of the bedroom and gun closets as removing restrictions and invalidating laws is usually a good thing in this law crazy nation.

 

[gfd43tg]

But people get married for legal reasons, those cannot be granted by a church. A church ceremony is not legal unless the person performing the ceremony has been granted the ability to file the paperwork with the court on behalf of the couple.

I am truly amazed by how many people do not realize that the church ceremony is not legal on it's own, it's just an optional ceremony you can ask your church to perform if you are religious.

http://info.legalzoom.com/make-marriage-official-21976.html

I am aware of this. My point was that in my opinion, there should be no legal reason to get married, i.e. a marriage is just a non-binding agreement between two individuals that wish to espouse their love to each other. Call it a civil union or something if you want some sort of legal entity, and please keep it state-by-state. As far as I am concerned, "marriage" is a religious institute that has no place in the US government with that supposed "wall of separation between church and state". SteamKing already eluded to the 10th amendment and the obvious intention of the writers.

I know many people like to make this out as "you hate gays" if you are against this decision. I was for prop 8 in California, my state of residency. I oppose this supreme court ruling purely based on my political philosophy. From my view, the paradigm shift in our culture is to completely disregard the Constitution and put in whatever the new neo-liberal "moral majority" thinks is best. It is devolving to mob rule in my eyes.

 

[256bits]

It is devolving to mob rule in my eyes.

One aspect of a constitution framework is supposedly to counteract "mob rule" ie the will of the majority is always correct and supercedes the rights of an individual or minority group. In this case, the minority felt that their rights were being violated by the representatives of the majority, ie by the laws passed by the legislative representatives chosen by majority and they( the minority) won.

 

[Czcibor]

One aspect of a constitution framework is supposedly to counteract "mob rule" ie the will of the majority is always correct and supercedes the rights of an individual or minority group. In this case, the minority felt that their rights were being violated by the representatives of the majority, ie by the laws passed by the legislative representatives chosen by majority and they( the minority) won.

I'm curious whether you said that after Citizens United... ;)

That what you say only works on condition that "mob rule" contradicts itself or acts under a short lived mood swings, like speak one high minded idea while writing constitution, while during writing a law does not live up to those standards. In such case yes. If the majority has some persistent expectations - then just constitution is to be amended, or in case of documents as vague as US constitution - just nominate a new people to interpret it in the "right" way.

 

[256bits]

just nominate a new people to interpret it in the "right" way.

A theoretical assumption that may work in theory, but not necessarily in practice. Nominations may be based ( and usually are so as to supposedly stack the deck in ones favour ) upon past decisions, but within an independent body, the decisions within may not necessarily reflect the wants desired.

 

[Borg]

I believe that the blatent inequality that was occurring was most relevant to why the court decided the way that it did. Whether you like it or not, same-sex marriage was already legalized in many states. However these couples were restricted from even visiting another state for fear of having their rights abridged. I.E., be careful where you have a car accident, you might not be able to visit your spouse in the hospital. The fourteenth amendment is pretty clear in this regard.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What is the point in denying a specific class of people access to privileges such as inheritance, end of life decisions and child rearing that have been formalized in marriage law? Same-sex couples have all of these things as well. Why it's OK to pass a law that gives you certain rights but denies your neighbor those same rights?

I would ask you was the court meddling with states rights when it invalidated interracial marriage bans? I prefer to the keep the government out of the bedroom and gun closets as removing restrictions and invalidating laws is usually a good thing in this law crazy nation.

This was one of the main points in the decision - that the institution of marriage has changed as society has changed. For those who would keep marriage as it was, they would need to accept arranged marriages and coverture as well. I'm thinking that there aren't too many women who would accept either of those in the U.S. these days.

I saw http://www.shakespearetheatre.org/plays/evt_detail.aspx?id=412 last night - so appropriate. On the same day as the court's decision, this got one of the biggest laughs:

Dorine
Tell him that hearts don't fall in love at someone else's command; that you marry to please yourself, not him; that since you are the one who is involved, you are the one whom the husband has to please - and if he loves his Tartuffe so much, he should marry him.

Meanwhile in another universe, hetrosexual couples are celebrating the supreme court decision that gives them equal rights on an Earth where marriage was previously defined as a union between two members of the same sex. lisab was still trying not to tear up in her car.

 

[nsaspook]

I'm curious whether you said that after Citizens United... ;)

That what you say only works on condition that "mob rule" contradicts itself or acts under a short lived mood swings, like speak one high minded idea while writing constitution, while during writing a law does not live up to those standards. In such case yes. If the majority has some persistent expectations - then just constitution is to be amended, or in case of documents as vague as US constitution - just nominate a new people to interpret it in the "right" way.

I agreed with Citizens United and just about any supreme court decision that removes limitations on freedom and think there are good conservative reasons to agree with this decision.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html

 

[Czcibor]

I agreed with Citizens United and just about any supreme court decision that removes limitations on freedom and think there are good conservative reasons to agree with this decision.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html

One clarification, I'm not sure, whether my stances (second post) are clear to you. It's not against any gov recognition of any form in which people could live together. It's against judicial branch overstepping its authority. That's the part that I consider as dangerous, and is matter of rule of law and not any religious/conservative stuff.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the things that turned my opinion around on this issue was my sister's wedding. My sister is an athiest and I assume her husband is too. They were married by a justice of the peace, in a beautiful outdoor ceremony at the Boston Navy Yard. Their wedding and their marriage itself has nothing to do with religion.

From a functional standpoint, a marriage that does not involve God does not impact those who get married in churchs or those churches themselves (they are still free to choose who they will marry and who they won't). Indeed, the opposite (recognizing only church weddings) would be a violation of the 1st amendment clause on the establishment of a state religion. And it would make my sister's wedding/marriage invalid. So, since the principle argument is already invalidated by the fact that non-church/non-religious weddings already happen, it doesn't seem to me that that argument can be used to prevent gay marriage.

Also, at one time I had argued that "marriage" should be the religious thing and some other term like "civil union" should be used for non-religious weddings. But if, functionally, the different terms don't change anything, why bother?

 

[Czcibor]

From a functional standpoint, a marriage that does not involve God does not impact those who get married in churchs or those churches themselves (they are still free to choose who they will marry and who they won't). Indeed, the opposite (recognizing only church weddings) would be a violation of the 1st amendment clause on the establishment of a state religion. And it would make my sister's wedding/marriage invalid. So, since the principle argument is already invalidated by the fact that non-church/non-religious weddings already happen, it doesn't seem to me that that argument can be used to prevent gay marriage

I think that it would not need to establish a state religion. In my country in interwar period marriages were regulated by religious law, however gov was guaranteeing freedom of conscience. It was leading to a very limited number of divorces (RCC officially did not allow any divorce, but rich people were able to get their marriage declared null ab initio on very weird grounds) and very high number of religious conversion (mostly from RCC to Lutheran) that was ending prior marriage.

(yes, it was funny)

 

[SteamKing]

I would ask you was the court meddling with states rights when it invalidated interracial marriage bans? I prefer to the keep the government out of the bedroom and gun closets as removing restrictions and invalidating laws is usually a good thing in this law crazy nation.

It's not clear what you mean by a "law crazy nation".

Just as the Second Amendment protects your right to have a gun closet at all, and the First Amendment protects your right to write about it, so I should think proper deference be given to the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell case, Loving v. Virginia did not alter the fundamental definition of marriage as it was understood at that time, but invalidated the discriminatory laws which prohibited two individuals of different races from getting married. As far as the other restrictions which the states put on marriage, such as prohibiting incestuous marriages, the court's ruling left these undisturbed.

Now, there is to be a single federal marriage bureau, I suppose, for better or for worse, no pun intended.

The problem which many have with this decision, and some others in recent years, is that the court is taking on the functions of an unelected legislature.

When the Court doesn't side with the little guy, as happened in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), in which the Court expanded the definition of what constituted a "public purpose" for the state to condemn a person's property in order to benefit a private party, then the state legislatures must step in with new laws to give added protection to a person's property rights (which some did), so that you don't have to fetch the contents of your gun closet to protect your home from being seized and razed should a developer cast an envious gaze at it.

 

[nsaspook]

One clarification, I'm not sure, whether my stances (second post) are clear to you. It's not against any gov recognition of any form in which people could live together. It's against judicial branch overstepping its authority. That's the part that I consider as dangerous, and is matter of rule of law and not any religious/conservative stuff.

IMO 'overstepping its authority' is a dubious reason to oppose this decision (and the Defense of Marriage Act decision) when you have citizens with completely different rights in different states that also effects your federal status in something as basic as federal taxes and who can be buried next to you in a national cemetery with those federal taxes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/20/gay-married-vets-get-joint-plots-national-cemeteri/