SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

I'll enjoy listening to your tears of u fathomable sadness. And when u lose money it'll make it even more sweet. How much are you gonna lose?

 

No sadness, I will win around $450.00 with SSM being legalized. I have to hand it to the cons that I have bets with, at least they are willing to put their money where their mouth is unlike most cons I know.

I'll see you in the threads the day after the ruling, I'll be busy celebrating SSM being legalized across the U.S. with friends the day of.

 

It harms it through outright invalidation. Once marriage can be defined as "Boy X boy, or Girl X girl", it is no longer a marriage from a heterosexual, christian perspective. It is, as Congressman Paul illustrates perfectly: A glorified Social Union, called a "marriage". All you REALLY have to do, to end this argument(and what Paul proposed) is to give Social Unions the same federal benefits as married couples, which is the only real contingency.

Marriage is a civil issue, the definition of Marriage reflects the outlook of society. Changing that outlook, just due to political activism will cause MAJOR problems, as past social upheaval attempts have failed miserably at bringing social justice.

 

The 14th amendment applies to the states. The states can define marriage but within constitutional bounds. State bans on same sex marriage violate the 14th amendment. That's why it's in court, and virtually every court both conservative and democrat has ruled to overturn the bans.

There is no way the scotus is going to overturn all the district courts and invalidate thousands of legal marriages.

 

If they all married traditionally what would be any different? What money would be saved?

 

I hope you're right. Most of today's issues should be up to the states to decide anyways. Let the people vote. If a majority of America is for special privilege marriage like all the supporters say then it shouldn't be a problem leaving it up to the states.

 

Got any facts, or just your opinion to base that on?

 

There is so much wrong in this post it's hard to know where to start. First of all your premise is flawed. They are NOT engaging int he same behavior. If they were the rate of std transmission wouldn't be so ABSURDLY lopsided. BUt they aren't because they are NOT engaging in the same behavior.

But regardless you and I both know that's not how it works. If your position was not fundamentally flawed we couldn't target gang members instead of choirs because they BOTH have people in them that do the same behavior (commit crime) but one just happens to do it a lot more than the other. That's ridiculous and so is your point about a state being able to take into consideration the ABSURDLY high rate of STD transmission when determining whether they should allow a behavior or not.

As far as your "Philia" argument, I can show how ABSURD your argument is. Prove to me that someone is a pedophile (or any other philias) without depending completely upon the honest answers of a child molester.

What is dishonest is the person who is attempting to group all people who have sex with underage people as being in a certain philia category while doing ZERO evaluations on them and declaring them as NOT being homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) simply because of you do it makes homosexuals look absolutely horrible.

It's very telling that this argument about pedophilia was COMPLETELY nonexistent until the numbers for homosexuality and child molestatiin started to become prominent. It's nothing more than an excuse.

Btw calling someone deceitful is not respectful.

 

Homosexuals and their supporters attempted to go with civil unions first - I have always thought this was be the best way allowing religious proponents to have a religious rite while also allowing homosexuals and heterosexuals the ability to sign a non religious protective document - unfortunately, this was shot down very early on with states passing laws prohibiting the recognizition of civil unions as well as "marriage like" contracts.

It wasn't about the sanctity of marriage then - it was about discrimination. Social conservatives won that battle but they started a war - a war they now seem to be so clearly confused about.

 

Unless the district courts themselves invalidated the Constitution. The 10th is superior to the 14th. The rights not enumerated to the U.S Federal Government is instead in the hands of the States, or the People. Period. That's why we have Civil Laws, which Marriage STRICTLY falls under.

All the 14th does is essentially say: Any privilege or right just rewarded to the people, should be rewarded to all. It was an amendment to outlaw Slavery. Marriage, as a right is guaranteed to ALL US Citizens. It's just, Marriage is not DEFINED(at least not by all) as Homosexual.

Which is why Justice Kennedy pointed out that it's not "joining the fraternity" of married couples, it's changing the definition of marriage in order to do so. And that definition, is a State constitutionally protected right.

The Court isn't about to change the definition of marriage, just to include ONE group(homosexuals) in that fraternity. Your case isn't only a losing case, but a laughable one. Privately, I'm sure some of the conservative judges would say the District Courts ruled unilaterally, beyond their scope.

Instead, I see the Court either A: Ruling that its entirely up to the States or B: Ruling that Federal Benefits must be awarded to same-sex couples, but that's as far as it goes for responsibility. The moral and social definition of Marriage shouldn't be overturned by political activists, but instead by the people.

 

Mmhm, I'm sure you'll have a very sore neck.















from all the dancing.

 

Why would you call something two different things if legally they have the same protection legally. You will have a divorce but they can only have a breach of contract?

If anything the government should consider all contractual obligations of this type Civil Unions, and if a couple decides to have that union ratified in a religious context, then it can be called a marriage by the Church of their choosing.

So at the end of the day everybody gets what they want and what has changed? Not a damned thing because there will be Churches (eventually however non traditional they might be) that will recognize them as marriages for the couples who want to be married in the eyes of God. Christians still will not have the control they want to have, and the terminology will still be the same.

 

Not a chance. Or they would have granted stays.

 

Depends on how you are looking at social unions.

If you are looking at social unions as something where the government gets entirely out of marriage and gives no government (state or federal) benefits to any couple, well.....that simply isn't going to happen. Couples, straight (and probably gay), are not going to agree to having their benefits taken away and you are not going to get the majority of congress to agree to it. That's a pipe-dream solution and I have a better chance at winning the lotto right now than that happening anytime soon.

If you are looking at social unions where any couple gets federal benefits, you are not going to get hard-core conservatives to agree to ANY couple now getting extra government benefits just because they want it. Again, it's a non-starter for the majority of congress.

If you are looking at social unions where still only a certain group of couples get benefits, all you have done is changed the word marriage to civil unions and you still haven't really solved the problem of "who" is allowed into this "civil union" circle so to speak. And of course there will still be religious folks that believe "gay couples" do not deserve the state/federal recognition of "civil union".

So pretty much all those solutions of civil unions are non-starters in congress IMO.

 

Amounts to the same thing, ultimately. At that time I'm sure Conservatives didn't want to recognize anything BUT the union of a man and a woman as a marriage.(And the economic arguments that TheImmortal points out certainly rang as well). But times have changed, the political activism and the hyper charging of this issue does require a just solution that both sides can be happy with.

And a legalized Social Union with Federal Benefits, is the perfect solution to the problem. Hence, I can see the Courts ruling that way on it, which will cause some very perplexed faces for both the pro and anti-SSM crowd. Me? I'll be happy, because that'd be judicial activism the right way. If the Court does that, or leaves it up to the States, we'll be in a good place.

 

They're not going to grant an indefinite stay in the hopes they got presented with a winnable case. Lol what are you talking about.

 

It's left up to the state but must still comply with the US constitution. The state bans violate the 14th amendment.

What precedent are you referring to?

Marriage is left up to the states, but they are still subject to constitutional provisions.

 

Some folks fall victim to their emotions and wishful thinking. That impairs their cerebral faculties.

The case before the Court hinges on the its interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection and due process of law.

With well over 50% of Americans supporting same-sex marriage rights, most also living in states that have abandoned gender discrimination - the 36 states that now recognize equality in marriage contracts - would the Court ignore the clear majority opinion of Americans in the absence of demonstrable adverse effects suffered by the complainants, and wreak legal havoc on so many extant, now legitimate, stable American families?

Competing rights as usual:

"Heterosexual married couple opposed to gender equality in marriage contracts, how exactly is your family adversely impacted by the marriage of a same-sex couple?"

"Same-sex married couple, how exactly would your family be adversely impacted by us declaring it no longer legal and without the rights a heterosexual couple enjoys?"​

Anything is possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

See Loving v Virginia.


.

 

What are you even talking about. How a heterosexual marriage will be effected is COMPLETELY irrelevant. What's relevant is how the STATE determines whether or not they want to sanction and provide legal recognition to a behavior.

The STATE simply has to show that they feel the behavior is detrimental.

Kennedy ALREADY told you this in the DOMA decision. You folks ignored it at your own peril. But I told you that you shouldn't b

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Loving v Virginia was a problem because it was ILLEGAL to engage in interracial marriage. That means if I saw an interracial couple in the park getting married I could call the cops and have the marriage broken up and the participants punished criminally

That is NOT what is going on with homosexual marriage. Show me ONE place in the use where I could have a gay marriage ceremony broken up and the participants charged criminally.

 

Uh, no it isn't. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the constitution, particularly amendments work.

All of which is subject to the 14th amendment.

And the legal issue is equal protection violations. If John can marry jane, but he can't marry Jason that is discrimination based on gender, and not permitted.

It's subject to the 14th amendment.

Of course they are. They are bound by the constitution.

Yea, the anti interracial marriage crowd used to say the same thing.

It isn't being overturned. Nothing at all is happening to traditional marriage.

 

The lack of understanding the difference between legal recognition and social recognition is baffling. ANYONE can get married, even including Gays. It's just, there would be those States who would vote(or did vote, before the Judicial Courts started acting as though they were also voters.) whether or not to include homosexuals in the definition of Marriage.

The very best you'll get, and that we can do, is to strengthen Civil Unions with Federal Benefits. And if we included provisions to promote responsible sex behavior, it might even make the LBGT group safer as a whole(as well as lower costs).

 

What indefinite stay? There have been close to a dozen petitions in the last 2 years to hear a case. They've waited until there was a split in the districts. All the previous districts ruled against state bans, and the court refused to take a case to overturn the districts. They are not about to intentionally allow tens of thousands of marriages to take place just to overturn them. Lol

 

I tend to agree, I have always assumed the SCOTUS would rule in favor of gay marriage since they took that power away from the states and its legislatures and voter initiatives like in Iowa. Up and until that time the states were in charge of marriage, not any more.