Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

[fskimospy]

But it is arbitrary. The age of consent to marriage is an arbitrarily-defined phenomenon. Does it make sense that a five year old is incapable of understanding the ramifications? Yes. Does it make sense that someone one day, one week, or one month away from the age of consent is somehow incapable of understanding the ramifications of marriage but if they wait 24 hours or seven days they magically become capable? No, it does not. Even the soundness of mind test is arbitrary; two psychologists can easily disagree on the capacity of an individual.

That's the whole point: when a threshold is set it is done so at a point where most cases will seem appropriate but borderline cases will always be open for interpretation. That's pretty much the definition of an arbitrary threshold. (Where arbitrary is defined as: contingent solely upon one's discretion)

Arbitrary is defined as: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Choosing an age of consent at which point the state considers the vast majority of people to be mature enough to make that decision isn't arbitrary at all, it's selected for an explicit reason, and a sound one at that. Additionally, just because experts may disagree on whether an individual is of sound mind or not in no way invalidates the idea that the state would attempt to prohibit those who could not understand its terms from participating in it.

Neither one of those examples is arbitrary by any commonly understood definition of the word.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do we deny polygamy and incest marriages, other than for moral reasons?

Do you want to argue that moral reasons are arbitrary?

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure it is. This is also the same court that has made the Dredd Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board. It interprets the Constitution based on evolving standards of what is decent and reasonable. Anti-gay bigotry is swiftly becoming unacceptable, and the court will follow.

Why gay marriage bans are arbitrary has been done to death on here. There are many threads, some of which I have participated in, that spell it out in excruciating detail. Simply put, opposition to same sex marriage is based in arguments of tradition and moral objection to homosexuality. Neither of these is a constitutionally rational basis for discrimination.

I dislike the idea of an evolving Constitution, but I suppose there is something to be said for waiting until society can embrace something. It rankles when that something is so clear cut as our equal protection rights though.

I have mixed feelings about this ruling. It makes sense that the federal government not be allowed to be able to discriminate without showing a compelling societal interest that cannot otherwise be met - an example might be affirmative action, at least at its inception - but I also dislike the idea that states are free to define our basic rights. Shouldn't all Americans have the same basic rights? Regardless, kudos to the appellate justices for striking down the federal government using its power arbitrarily.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Do you want to argue that moral reasons are arbitrary?

Morality is arbitrary. If it wasn't, people wouldn't disagree on whether homosexuality was immoral and we wouldn't have this silly marriage debate in the first place.

 

[dmcowen674]

Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples, is unconstitutional.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-to-same-sex-couples-is-unconstitutional?lite

Nooooooooooooooo

Have to discriminate

 

[YoungGun21]

Why do we deny polygamy and incest marriages, other than for moral reasons?

They were viewed as savage and primitive practices, wildly unpopular, unChristian, and so were banned and made illegal.

Sorry if reality just fucked your argument.

 

[nehalem256]

They were viewed as savage and primitive practices, wildly unpopular, unChristian, and so were banned and made illegal.

Sorry if reality just fucked your argument.

So basically because people were bigots

 

[LunarRay]

Why do we deny polygamy and incest marriages, other than for moral reasons?

Each State's laws against polygamy are basically based on morality in My Opinion and that of many observers of Polygamy around the world...

I think it was Scalia who warned that Lawrence v Texas would open the door for challenges against the State Law regarding polygamy... I think he's right...

But be advised.... having two spouses is a sure sign of insanity and would there fore make null and void the second marriage because of the obvious incapacity.

 

[sportage]

You can remove religion totally from the issue of SS marriage simply because atheist can legally marry in all states without exception.
So there goes that "God's great intention" argument.

More noteworthy today was, once again, an unanimous ruling.
By both republican and democrat appointed judges.
Yes, yet another UNANIMOUS RULING !!!

When constitutional law is applied to the issue, SS marriage ALWAYS wins the day.
Republican ideology, democrat ideology, it doesn't matter.
The law is the law. Like it or not. And many do not when it comes to this issue.
Tuff nookies.
This is American. Period!

On to the Supremes where don't be surprised at another unanimous favorable ruling.
Sorry fundies.... Time to just give it up.

Bottom line conclusion...
Atheist legally marry every day.
The US constitution is the law of the land.

All u need to know to understand why SS marriage will be legal shore to shore.

 

[nehalem256]

You can remove religion totally from the issue of SS marriage simply because atheist can legally marry in all states without exception.
So there goes that "God's great intention" argument.

More noteworthy today was, once again, an unanimous ruling.
By both republican and democrat appointed judges.
Yes, yet another UNANIMOUS RULING !!!

When constitutional law is applied to the issue, SS marriage ALWAYS wins the day.
Republican ideology, democrat ideology, it doesn't matter.
The law is the law. Like it or not. And many do not when it comes to this issue.
Tuff nookies.
This is American. Period!

On to the Supremes where don't be surprised at another unanimous favorable ruling.
Sorry fundies.... Time to just give it up.

Bottom line conclusion...
Atheist legally marry every day.
The US constitution is the law of the land.

All u need to know to understand why SS marriage will be legal shore to shore.

If marriage being between a man and a woman is based on Christianity why is not same-sex marriage recognized in Japan? :hmm:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Except that be violate the constitution you mean states cannot define marriage in a manner that is "discriminatory". Of course any definition of marriage is going to discriminate against someone. --not true at all......

Which means the state cannot define marriage.

Then again if your going to get all crazy and include animals and other BS in the equation.........

 

[JEDIYoda]

There are more than 2 other combinations, unless you insist on restricting marriage to 2 people. But why not 1 or 3 or 4, defining marriage as between 2 people is completely arbitrary.

That is just ridiculous and ludicrous and you actually know it. But in your hidden zeal to deny rights to a group of people you are taking this to extremes.....
actually no, there are no other combinations.....
The combinations are simple when it involves one man and one woman....
In all cases one plus one equals 2.....1+1=2
woman and woman
man and man
woman and man

 

[JEDIYoda]

If marriage being between a man and a woman is based on Christianity why is not same-sex marriage recognized in Japan?

who cares?
Last time I checked this was the United states of America.....

 

[nehalem256]

That is just ridiculous and ludicrous and you actually know it. But in your hidden zeal to deny rights to a group of people you are taking this to extremes.....
actually no, there are no other combinations.....
The combinations are simple when it involves one man and one woman....
In all cases one plus one equals 2.....1+1=2
woman and woman
man and man
woman and man

Only because you are a bigot who wishes to deny equal rights to groups of people who you disapprove of.

who cares?
Last time I checked this was the United states of America.....

Well, since some people seem to think all opposition to same-sex marriage must be based on Christianity I was showing that is false.

 

[LunarRay]

If marriage being between a man and a woman is based on Christianity why is not same-sex marriage recognized in Japan? :hmm:

Huh?

 

[nehalem256]

Huh?

If the only basis for believing marriage is between a man and a woman is religious, and more specifically Christianity. Then clearly if we look at non-Christian countries such as Japan we should see support for same-sex marriage.

This is not the case.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Only because you are a bigot who wishes to deny equal rights to groups of people who you disapprove of.

oh really... I summarized it very well......this has always been about one man and one woman and the combinations,....such as man and man...woman and woman ....man and woman.....show me exactly where there are any other combinations being represented in any court in the United states......

This never was about disapproving of 3 women and one man....but that is your warped way in order to continue denying rights to a man and a man or a woman and a woman the same right to marriage as a man and a woman.....

talk about being a bigot...you have no clue what that word actually means.....

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Everyone with an opinion one way or the other can be called a bigot.....in general everybody is a bigot...so get over it.....

look in the mirror you being goofy and your arguments hold absolutely no water at all.....

 

[xaeniac]

marriage is a religious rite

 

[Atomic Playboy]

marriage is a religious rite

So the government shouldn't offer marriage licenses at all, correct?

 

[Sunburn74]

So the government shouldn't offer marriage licenses at all, correct?

I would be completely fine with that. The government offering marriage licenses is akin to offering holy communion licenses, or offering fasting licensing. In fact, for much of history in europe and america all marriage licenses were the sole business of the church. Only in the 1930s I believe did the government start to take over the business (mostly as a form of discrimination to prevent interracial marriage amonst other things).

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I would be completely fine with that. The government offering marriage licenses is akin to offering holy communion licenses, or offering fasting licensing. In fact, for much of history in europe and america all marriage licenses were the sole business of the church. Only in the 1930s I believe did the government start to take over the business (mostly as a form of discrimination to prevent interracial marriage amonst other things).

What would you propose the government offer instead as a contract to determine line of succession, custody rights, hospital visitation rights, shared benefit rights, joint tax filing rights or any of the other things that a legal marriage contract deals with now?

 

[Aegeon]

I would be completely fine with that. The government offering marriage licenses is akin to offering holy communion licenses, or offering fasting licensing. In fact, for much of history in europe and america all marriage licenses were the sole business of the church. Only in the 1930s I believe did the government start to take over the business (mostly as a form of discrimination to prevent interracial marriage amonst other things).

With regards to the "much of history claim" this certainly was not historically true if you go far back enough with it historically for instance being handled by the Roman state for example, and it definitely took a number of centuries for Christian churches to start becoming truly involved with the marriage process at all even when the church was well established.

In reality, at least in the U.S. there has always been a pretty clear distinction from religious organizations with regards to possible marriage options, with common law marriages being a well established and legally valid type of marriage in many states which didn't go away until in most states until the 1920s period you are talking about when other state alternatives became available. Crucially common law marriages in no way directly required the involvement of a church in the U.S.

The key is that the U.S. is purely involved with the secular legal recognition of marriage, and merely lets church members of the like potentially fill out the paperwork for the sake of convenience. The religious marriage is really a separate matter for the church or religious organization in question.

Having said this, one solution I would support is the government simply recognizing only civil unions for both gay and straight couples in order to eliminate any confusion that the government is somehow actually involved with the religious end of marriage ceremonies.

 

[shortylickens]

The Federal government shouldnt have ANY benefits for couples. It should not be involved in marriage at all.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The Federal government shouldnt have ANY benefits for couples. It should not be involved in marriage at all.

So every time a couple breaks up, they should go to trial to determine who gets to keep what of their shared possessions or who gets custody of the children? If someone dies, do all their assets go to the government, or do they need to have a will specifically set up to determine next of kin? When a couple decides that one of them will work and another will raise the children, how do we determine if the one who raised the children is eligible for benefits of the working partner?

We need government involved in the business of "marriage." We just don't need to use one religion's definition of the word to apply to all of them.

 

[LunarRay]

If the only basis for believing marriage is between a man and a woman is religious, and more specifically Christianity. Then clearly if we look at non-Christian countries such as Japan we should see support for same-sex marriage.

This is not the case.

Japan, if that is relevant to your premise that IF the only basis for marriage is religious, I'd make two points.

First, although Japan's Article 24 (as I recall) does, in application, restrict marriage to boy/girl they have moved to allow their citizens to marry - and it be valid - same sex folks in countries where it is permissible (or States in the case of the USA). The wording of Article 24 as translated is not clear but I'll assume it is restrictive.

Second, why do you think Japan is not religious.... Their religion, generally, is a sorta mix of many and they do support all religious beliefs... even Christianity. The majority practice what they call Shinbutsu or like that.

Marriage is controlled by the State in order to enforce the laws the State makes concerning marriage. Much like getting your driver license from the DMV versus the Church.
Marriage is a Fundamental Right like Voting or Eating Pizza versus Broccoli. Your point seems to find Marriage is a Religious Right and it may very well have been both Religious and Pagan... I'm certain folks who lived in countries long long ago where no religion was recognized but what the Pharaoh pronounced... I'm not sure how you'd characterize that but to me it is a religion too... and it became part of our Rights because folks did that sort of thing in 1787 ish without regard to religion if that is possible.