SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

I've stated countless times elsewhere: Marriage has only been ruled a right, under certain circumstances that no longer apply:

-Social theoretic that marriages stabilize families and homes, etc. While this is generally true, this is no longer a societal expectation and therefore, it shouldn't be held to "legalize" Marriage federally for that reason.

-The ruling for the legalization of marriage was also established on the basis of interracial couples. While today, there is no racial obstruction to marriage and therefore, marriage doesn't need to be federally recognized for that reason.

-The ONLY reason Marriage is to be federally recognized, is the federal benefits to married couples. That's IT.

That being said, why federally recognize the Marriages for the federal benefits? What you're really recognizing are said benefits, under the guise called "Marriage". Not the marriage itself.

Indeed, the way the court will(and should rule) is that Federal Benefits will be recognized by each State. But the stature of religion? HAH, hardly. You have about as much chance of winning this logically, as winning the lottery. Marriage is a "civil right"; not a national one. And this right has historically been defined by citizens, not by courts.

The attempt to turn this into a Federal Issue via the Courts, will fall back against the Gay Rights movement.

 

And that is a fallacy, appeal to tradition. Those states don't OWN the word marriage.

 

Can you please cite the ruling stating its no longer a right.

Both debatable points, but entirely irrelevant to the legal question before the court or whether marriage is currently a right. There is no debating that marriage is currently a right.

Religion is irrelevant. Because marriage is a right, it is subject to the 14th amendment.

You really need to read up on court precedent regarding marriage. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

 

I'll make it as simple for you as possible: I feel as though precedent regarding marriage is irrelevant, due to the various changing demographic views on marriage. Using a biblical reference, it would be like interpreting the bible through the Old Testament, instead of the New Testament. The Gay Rights movement cannot possibly expect me to interpret their cause through the Old Testament(former Marriage rulings) when they present an entirely new dichotomy.

This is a chance for us to properly and logically reclassify Marriage.(Though I'm fine if the Courts just enable States to decide). How can Marriage be a right, and divorce to co-side with it? Marriage should properly and logically be termed a privilege.

 

Then you have no business debating on a thread about a marriage court case.

 

I can debate as I well please, regarding the evidence involved of a topic. Just because I insist that the Court isn't bound by any former rulings in a case that has NOTHING to do with those cases, doesn't necessarily mean I have 'no business' debating it.

 

And the answer was 'no' in many states, mine included. The suggestion by some justices during yesterday's arguments that we should take a "wait and see" approach ignores the reality for many of us, because our states didn't "wait and see". They foreclosed the possibility entirely - including to 'separate but equal' alternatives like so-called "civil unions".

We know why some want a legislative solution, or to take a "wait and see" approach. The hope isn't for equality, but to cut if off entirely.

 

As was their right. Marriage is a Public Institution, and as such, it's going to be regulated by the Public.(Well, it's a Public Institution that for one moment, that single fleeting moment of marriage consummates public with private.) The decision to marry is a private decision that's taken, or not taken by the couple in question.

Some States, are going to recognize same-sex marriage, and some states aren't. I'm going to run on a Marijuana Legalization platform here in PA, since I think the outlawing of Marijuana is absolutely ludicrous and people sneak the stuff past your laws anyway. Might as well make a decent profit off of it and keep criminals off the streets. But until said legalization, my State's still behind the curve. That's the way it works in civics and government.

Especially since Marriage isn't a Federal, but a Civic Right. What the Justices should ask and what no one has asked, is who decided to propel what historically has been a Civil issue, into a Federal One?

The only thing that pertains is the Federal Benefits of Marriage. Good news: You'll get those(probably). I don't think the Court's prepared to unilaterally tell America "what is, and what is not a marriage."

 

States do not have an unlimited right to deny equal rights,

Bonauto stated it well yesterday:

States do have primacy over domestic relations except that their laws must respect the constitutional rights of persons, and Windsor couldn’t have been clearer about that. And here we have a whole class of people who are denied the equal right to be able to join in this very extensive government institution that provides for families.

​

 

All we can do is wait and see.

 

The fact that "gay marriage" is a meaningful and coherent phrase proves that the definition changed long ago. Words are just units of information.

 

So you would agree that states should not have been forced to give up their miscegenation laws via the Loving decision, then? The Loving case is different, because it was a criminal case involving the couple's prosecution, but recognition of interracial marriages would still be a civic right, as you've framed it here.

And before someone goes there, no - I'm not trying to compare race with same-sex orientation. I'm simply pointing out that if state's have such absolute control over marriage as a civic right, then surely they shouldn't have been forced to recognize interracial marriages, either.

How? Probably not, since my state has a constitutional amendment that limits recognition to an agreement between a man and a woman. Same-sex couples get nothing whatsoever under this law. My state has a Republican house, senate, governor, and court. I seriously doubt the Roman Catholic Church, its affiliates (Knights of Columbus, etc.), and wealthy members of the Dutch Reformed Church are going to allow their amendment, co-authored by the AFA, to be overturned.

It's a legal institution. Not so hard for them to apply the law, if they have the guts to do it. From what I've seen, they probably won't.

 

The profound difference with Interracial marriage being that White and Black Americans who wanted to marry, were human beings endowed with the same rights to "Life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness." There was no legitimate reasons to prevent Blacks from marrying Whites, or vice-versa. Except bigotry.

On the contrary, there is a religious contradiction as it pertains to SSM. And while one might say the State doesn't have a "legitimate"(IE: A crucial) interest in preventing SSM, nor does the State have a compelling reason to do so. With SSM, it is not a matter of human discrimination, but rather one of religious and economic considerations(The benefits).

SSM's main problem, is that it serves only its own interests, not the interests of the State, or of the well being of the people. In spite of the claim, the "fight" falls for short of civil rights for everyone. And since it serves its own interests, and since it would otherwise redefine a definition that's held by the States, and Churches. I have a VERY hard time seeing the SCOTUS saying "Okay, we'll give you, and only you this exception."

And you want me to be honest with you as a Heterosexual? I could care less if the State approved of my wedding or not. My wedding's between me, my wife and my family. I don't even need the preacher. All marriage is really important for is the marriage licence. The day's importance to me, is the ceremony.

And there's no law that stops anyone from the ceremony as far as I know.

So I would argue you could even have the ceremony for a civil union. Literally, the ONLY difference is that the Clergy, the official definition would remain unchanged. Hence respecting Traditionalist views.

Okay, I'll start by stating this is purely my opinion, based on everything I read and my faith in myself as an intellectual. But I see the Marriage Question as a two-phrased question: There's Marriage as an Institution, and then there's the Federal Rights that come with the Marriage Licence. To make it stupidly simple, Gays are obligated to the same 14th Amendment rights(Federal Benefits) as everyone else. Marriage, however as an institution is governed by the Church, by the clergy, by the general public. It's under the 10th Amendment.

Basically, they are governed under two different realities. It's like how you join the Country Club, but you didn't join "the benefits of the country club". I can see the Court mandating the federal benefits of all same-sex couples, but leaving the definition of Marriage to the State. So provided that definition isn't a big thing to you, you'll get what you want: Recognition. It just might not be public recognition(depending on the State of course).

 

You're saying that gay people aren't human beings endowed with these same rights? Revealing.

Which is my position with regard to same-sex marriage, as well.

Irrelevant. This is not a theocracy, and religious people don't have some special right to control the rest of us.

What was the specific, compelling reason to recognize interracial marriage?

I see, so I'm not even regarded as human.

Religious considerations don't enter into it. There is no legitimate reason that a religion should be able to decide who does or does not enjoy recognition of their marriage outside the religious context. None whatsoever.

So you think it's fine to harm same-sex couples economically, then?

I thoroughly disagree. Same-sex marriages serves the same interests of the state that opposite-sex marriage does.

Only some people are entitled to civil rights? Really?

Do states have absolute power to define marriage? If they do, then they can ban interracial marriage, inter-class marriage, interfaith marriage. They can ban any sort of marriage they choose. Is that your position?

As for Churches, the church doesn't get to define the legal institution of marriage. The Church's purview is strictly that of holy matrimony. The power of clergy to act on behalf of the state in creating a legal marriage is a privilege, a convenience. It is not a right.

That's your heterosexual privilege speaking. You apparently don't even appreciate what you have.

Meanwhile, mine is something that my fellow citizens apparently think is their right to ban. I have no doubt that if they could prevent us from living together as a married couple in all but name, many would do that as well. My state still criminalized our relationship as recently as 2003. They are only prevented from prosecuting us by deferment to the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence.

That's a very impoverished view of what marriage is. It is not the day, it is not the ceremony. It is the agreement that spouses make to commit themselves to each other, and the life they live together in expression of that agreement and commitment.

I don't need a ceremony. I need my legal equality.

Again, some would enact one if they could. Ministers were actually prosecuted in the state of New York for officiating at same-sex marriages, even though they weren't making any claims on behalf of the state - just conducting the ceremony. That prosecution failed, thankfully. But it illustrates just how far some people will take this.

No, what you want is not respect for traditionalist views, but subservience to them. I will not accommodate you in this.

The civil recognition of a marital union is already a "civil union". We don't need a separate word for it. My marrying doesn't change a thing for the clergy of your church. They aren't required to provide me the rites of holy matrimony, and I'm not going to ask them.

What makes you think your Church gets to dictate the rules for everyone else? Suppose one belongs to a church that is happy to marry same-sex couples? You would prevent them? Why does your Church get to dictate what marriage is, to the exclusion of other churches, other beliefs?

Marriage, as a legal institution, is NOT under the thumb of your church. You don't own the word, nor the laws attached to it.

Terrible, an wholly inapplicable analogy.

That would be a true case of judicial activism, legislating from the bench. The Court has no power to mandate benefits to same-sex couples, separate from any existing law that provides them access. That access is controlled by marriage licensing. The Court can't just make up a separate license and say that it entitles same-sex couples to everything that legal marriage provides, but excludes them from use of that word. What you suggest is utter nonsense.

Now you're really not making sense. Recognition in federal law is predicated on state recognition. It's why the relevant portion of DOMA was struck down in Windsor - Congress didn't have any legitimate power to create a legal definition of marriage separate from the states', nor limiting the effect of the state's exercise of its power in creating a marriage. The Court certainly doesn't have that power either. All it can do is interpret and apply the law. The Court can't limit what the state recognizes as a legal marriage, but it can interpret the Constitution's limits on state powers to withhold that recognition, accomplished through the creation of classifications in the law for a suspect purpose. Which is exactly what states have done in adopting these bans.

I have never bought this BS that the marriage amendments aren't about marginalizing same-sex couples - especially since I have it straight from the mouth of the co-author of my state's amendment as to what the real purpose was, and that was to ensure that same-sex relationships never enjoy any affirming legal or social status whatsoever. Maybe not all voters were motivated my anti-gay animus, but they were certainly misled concerning the animus toward gay people that was the amendment's origin.

 

How the hell did you make my post into an even bigger post? I'm not going to bother sorting through it all. But I will say this: If the SCOTUS doesn't have the right to mandate certain things in its ruling, why is there even an SSM challenge in the Courts to begin with? They can't mandate it, so the challenge itself has no baring.

We'll see whatever the SCOTUS rules, and I'll respect the ruling(I have no choice but to do so). I would much rather it be legislated by the American People. Or I'd rather see the SCOTUS be proactive. You're right, it would be judicial activism. The right way.

 

This would seem to indicate that you don't know anything about these cases. As I said in my post, the Court can interpret the law (in this case, the Constitution's 14th amendment) and ascertain whether limits to state powers set therein are applicable. Same-sex couples assert that they are similarly situated to opposite-sex couples concerning their ability to marry, have an equal liberty to marry the consenting adult partner of their mutual choosing, and that the restriction of marriage by the sex of the parties bears no rational relation to what proponents claim the law is meant to accomplish, and serves no compelling government interest.

It's a shame you can't be bothered to address my points, as there are several questions therein that I think deserve answers.

I would have preferred a legislative solution, but instead we've been foreclosed from any recognition whatsoever in my state. So we have no choice but to sue for redress, since it's beyond obvious that our fellow citizens can't be trusted to respect our rights.

There is no "right way" for judicial activism. Of course, some people abuse the term to mean any result they don't like. The Court should not be proactive - that isn't its role at all.

 

They don't have to own the word, just the legal definition.

 

Alot of the points are redundant and as such, it feels tiring if I were to type the same response to quite a few of them. So if you don't mind I prefer concise conversations like these. First off, I'd state that there isn't so much as a law prohibiting Gay Marriage, as much as there is the lack of martial definition(at least, certainly Federally since DOMA was struck down). As far as the State Laws(several of which, were overturned). I don't believe those necessarily stop gay marriages, as much as it "doesn't recognize them", which is entirely different.

Marriage, as a concept IMO is relegated to the 10th Amendment. Whether a person can marry heterosexually, homosexually or whatever is up to the discretion of the State.(Not even so far as they 'can', but rather whether or not the State would 'recognize' it as an action according to State Law.) In other words, you and your lover could get married in Michigan right now, it's just you couldn't get a licence from Michigan certifying it so.

Which in of itself would be fine, if not for the second component: The Federal Benefits associated with Marriage, which should rightfully belong to everyone via the 14th Amendment. I have never once argued against the right for you to receive these Benefits. I have argued, that it should be possible for couples to receive these benefits, while the right to "define" Marriage should remain with the public(the 10th Amendment).

Under my resolution, the right to "define" Marriage no longer has a lawful baring against you or your lover. Same hospital treatment as everyone else? Sure. Same benefits as heterosexual couples? Have at it. But Marriage as an institution still has a social hold on the people, its relevance means we don't just change it at the drop of the hat for anyone.

If it were flipped around, I'd be arguing to maintain the status quo of Gay Marriages, over the single inclusion of Heteros alone. My view on a middle ground solution is consistent.

 

Which they won't so hope you and others will enjoy gay marriage being legal.

 

Legal definitions are subject to change.

 

Apparently you are referring to some cases I'm not aware of.

The 4 cases that the SCOTUS denied cert to at the beginning of this term on October 6, 2014, were:

Kitchen v. Herbert.
Bishop v. Smith.
Bostic v. Schaefer.
Wolf v. Walker.

In all 4 cases, the plaintiff's prevailed at the district court level and the bans on same-sex marriage were struck down. And in all 4 cases, the states appealed their respective cases to their respective Circuit Court of Appeal. And in all 4 cases, the respective Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the lower federal court. And in all 4 cases, it was the states that appealed to the Supreme Court, and were subsequently denied. That had the effect of upholding the rulings, and creating binding precedent in the respective Circuit Court of Appeals, which led to a lot more than 4 states gaining marriage equality in one fell swoop. While the plaintiffs in all 4 cases did urge the Court to take up the appeals, they were not the ones who instigated the appeals, instead it was the states that pushed an appeal.

The Court had 4 chances to hear a case regarding same-sex marriage back at the beginning of the term. It only takes 4 Justices to vote to hear a case. The fact that 4 votes couldn't be found to hear one of these cases speaks volumes about what way the Court is already leaning.

The reason that the Court has taken up these 4 cases out of the 6th Circuit is because a split amongst the Circuits has been created by the 6th's decision. The Supreme Court could no longer punt on the issue by turning away appeals from the states when they lost. Nor could they let the issue continue to percolate amongst the lower courts. And it was not because they were waiting for a states rights issue to come before them. They already had ample opportunity to consider a state rights issue with the previous 4 cases and chose not to do so.

 

We do consider ourselves married, and have for nearly 14 years. We had a domestic partnership, recognized at the county level, and our state's amendment rendered it null and void. The state treats us as legal strangers, and forecloses any remedy.

I acknowledge what you're saying about it 'merely' being a lack of recognition. I could write volumes about the effect that has, but no one much cares.

That right there is the source of our disagreement. It isn't fine to treat your fellow citizens as second class, and burden their lives through irrational laws.

My state's amendment renders it impossible for us to receive those benefits, a situation we are powerless to alter.

Your solution has nothing to do with the reality of life in my state.

40+ years isn't the drop of a hat.

Pull the other one.

It consistently makes no sense.

 

The states have defined marriage for the U.S. since its founding, and unless the Supreme Court takes it from them they will continue to do so.

Yes, and some states have redefined marriage already, others haven't. Isn't America great?

 

We will have to wait and see what happens in the supreme court, the entire United states may offer same sex marriage benefits. Yes America is wonderful.

 

The Supreme Court wouldn't be taking the ability away from the states to define marriage. What they would be doing instead is stating that the 14th Amendment precludes the states from denying marriage rights to same-sex couples.