Supreme Court to decide if states can ban gay marriage

[strigori]

Wow. Somehow the word "equal" does not seem to compute for some of you. How about before you go and run your mouths about "majority" or bitching about judges YOU READ THE F'ING CONSTITUTION. You know, that document you love to tout when you think you are right, and start babbling about 'majority' and 'dictatorships' when you get blocked from installing a theocracy.

The First.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty cut and dry. You can not use your favorite work of fiction , The Bible, as a guideline for any law. Period end of discussion.

The 14th.

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.

This states that all laws MUST treat all citizens equally. Meaning you can not assign a qualifier to a group of people and set laws. Thus you can not limit marriage by sex. But you can limit it by numbers.

If you dislike these foundations of our society, I welcome you to move to Russia, which really seems to meet more of the religious rightwing's sensibilities these days.

And while I'm at it, the whole 'tradition' surrounding marriage is strictly about inheritance laws in patriarchal societies. Which is every civilization at this point. That's it. It was a structure put in place so people could be sure their wealth, or more importantly titles, passed. This is also why adultery tended a death sentence for women, and little repercussions for men. Now the religions have done a fine job of hijacking this and turning it into a 'sacrament' thus controlling the people, by controlling how property and wealth could move.

 

[ZRod]

So polygamists won a cohabitation lawsuit in Utah, if that gets appealed up to the supreme court can they legalize polygamy next? Gay and Straight polygamy.

It may not be a popular opinion but I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as we're talking about consenting adults and not some dumb Warren Jeffs marrying 12 year old girls scenario.

Right, nobody wants that kind of crap. I just figure if a guy wants to put himself through that much hell with multiple wives, let him have at it. But it might raise interesting issues for benefits for spouses on insurance and such.

 

[T_O_Bull]

Well, if you follow the reasoning of T_O_Bull, Knapplc, Zoogies, tschu, Landlord of Memorial Stadium, and Dr. Mantis Toboggan, not only can they, but the constitution requires it. In fact, if you use their reasoning, almost all laws would be overturned, as every law "discriminates" against the people who want to act contrary to said law.

Balderdash on all counts.

T_O_B

 

[T_O_Bull]

So polygamists won a cohabitation lawsuit in Utah, if that gets appealed up to the supreme court can they legalize polygamy next? Gay and Straight polygamy.

And then the animals.

Well, if you follow the reasoning of T_O_Bull, Knapplc, Zoogies, tschu, Landlord of Memorial Stadium, and Dr. Mantis Toboggan, not only can they, but the constitution requires it. In fact, if you use their reasoning, almost all laws would be overturned, as every law "discriminates" against the people who want to act contrary to said law.

And finally, the lawbreakers!

I knew you would go there, I was seriously asking, as Zrod said, what is inherently wrong with polygamy?

Its spousal abuse for the guy.

T_O_B

 

[Dbqgolfer]

Wow. Somehow the word "equal" does not seem to compute for some of you. How about before you go and run your mouths about "majority" or bitching about judges YOU READ THE F'ING CONSTITUTION. You know, that document you love to tout when you think you are right, and start babbling about 'majority' and 'dictatorships' when you get blocked from installing a theocracy.

The First.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty cut and dry. You can not use your favorite work of fiction , The Bible, as a guideline for any law. Period end of discussion.

The 14th.

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.

This states that all laws MUST treat all citizens equally. Meaning you can not assign a qualifier to a group of people and set laws. Thus you can not limit marriage by sex. But you can limit it by numbers.

If you dislike these foundations of our society, I welcome you to move to Russia, which really seems to meet more of the religious rightwing's sensibilities these days.

And while I'm at it, the whole 'tradition' surrounding marriage is strictly about inheritance laws in patriarchal societies. Which is every civilization at this point. That's it. It was a structure put in place so people could be sure their wealth, or more importantly titles, passed. This is also why adultery tended a death sentence for women, and little repercussions for men. Now the religions have done a fine job of hijacking this and turning it into a 'sacrament' thus controlling the people, by controlling how property and wealth could move.

So, because I believe marriage should stay defined the same as it has been since, I would argue, the beginning of civilization, and certainly, the same way our founders defined it, I'm I right wing religious nut who should move to Russia? I'm quite confident that since I am defining marriage the same was as the writers of the constitution did, I'm on pretty solid ground here.

As I said earlier, my point in responding to the OP wasn't to argue the merits of the case, as I doubt we are changing each others mind, it is was just to state that I don't think the supreme court is wasting it's time with this issue.

I also think there is a lot of socially liberal group think on this board, and my hope is from time to time to provide a different perspective in what I believe to be a thoughtful manor. And for what its worth, I do try to thoughtfully consider what those with whom I disagree with have to say. So, thanks for the spirited debate.

 

[carlfense]

So, because I believe marriage should stay defined the same as it has been since, I would argue, the beginning of civilization, and certainly, the same way our founders defined it, I'm I right wing religious nut who should move to Russia? I'm quite confident that since I am defining marriage the same was as the writers of the constitution did, I'm on pretty solid ground here.

You can believe and define marriage however you'd like. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex . . . but it's pretty clear that you are in favor of forcing others to conform their behavior to your beliefs.
Appealing to the founders is a sad little exercise. The biggest tragedy of the analytical framework that Scalia (not the founders) created is that it allows a legion of armchair internet judges to claim absolute authority. Originalism is one way of interpreting law. (I'd also add that Scalia works backwards from his desired outcome.)

 

[VectorVictor]

Who cares who gets married? Answer: No one really cares, as long as they have an open bar at the reception.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Dbqgolfer]

So, because I believe marriage should stay defined the same as it has been since, I would argue, the beginning of civilization, and certainly, the same way our founders defined it, I'm I right wing religious nut who should move to Russia? I'm quite confident that since I am defining marriage the same was as the writers of the constitution did, I'm on pretty solid ground here.

You can believe and define marriage however you'd like. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex . . . but it's pretty clear that you are in favor of forcing others to conform their behavior to your beliefs.
Appealing to the founders is a sad little exercise. The biggest tragedy of the analytical framework that Scalia (not the founders) created is that it allows a legion of armchair internet judges to claim absolute authority. Originalism is one way of interpreting law. (I'd also add that Scalia works backwards from his desired outcome.)

Correct. And it is the way I believe the founders intended. You disagree and argue your point eloquently, I respect that. I'm not sure how that makes me any more of an armchair internet judge claiming absolute authority than you.

 

[carlfense]

And it is the way I believe the founders intended.

On what evidence do you base your belief?

I'm not sure how that makes me any more of an armchair internet judge claiming absolute authority than you.

I don't claim absolute authority. The big constitutional questions are almost always gray areas.

 

[zoogs]

So, because I believe marriage should stay defined the same as it has been since, I would argue, the beginning of civilization, and certainly, the same way our founders defined it, I'm I right wing religious nut who should move to Russia?

Food for thought: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/darwin-eternity/201109/why-we-think-monogamy-is-normal

https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf

 

[Dbqgolfer]

And it is the way I believe the founders intended.

On what evidence do you base your belief?

I'm not sure how that makes me any more of an armchair internet judge claiming absolute authority than you.

I don't claim absolute authority. The big constitutional questions are almost always gray areas.

As to your question, i think that it is self evident. If a group of citizens risk life, limb, property to form a new country and spend months & years hammering out the rules of how to govern the country (constitution), including ways to change those rules (amendment process), then it seems obvious to me that their intent is to have those rules followed as originally intended.

As to your point about absolute authority, I went back through the thread and you are correct. You have not stated an absolute opinion on how you think the court should rule that could be interpreted as thinking you have absolute authority on the issue. I apologize.

 

[carlfense]

As to your question, i think that it is self evident. If a group of citizens risk life, limb, property to form a new country and spend months & years hammering out the rules of how to govern the country (constitution), including ways to change those rules (amendment process), then it seems obvious to me that their intent is to have those rules followed as originally intended.

I don't think that is a very convincing argument.
If the founders wanted future generations to follow their intent (as you seem to believe) instead of writing the Constitution as a framework that facilitates a flexible discussion (as I believe on most days) wouldn't they have said so?

 

[StPaulHusker]

No union of love between consenting adults should be illegal in the US. Call it marriage, call it what ever you want. The government should have zero authority to determine what adults do in this particular arena.

Every religion has every right and protection to not recognize a marriage as valid if they so choose.

 

[sd'sker]

No union of love between consenting adults should be illegal in the US. Call it marriage, call it what ever you want. The government should have zero authority to determine what adults do in this particular arena.

Every religion has every right and protection to not recognize a marriage as valid if they so choose.

marriage in the eyes of the state should just be a contractual agreement.

 

[StPaulHusker]

No union of love between consenting adults should be illegal in the US. Call it marriage, call it what ever you want. The government should have zero authority to determine what adults do in this particular arena.

Every religion has every right and protection to not recognize a marriage as valid if they so choose.

marriage in the eyes of the state should just be a contractual agreement.

Exactly. That's why we have to pay fees to do it.