Poll: Who should have final say on gay marriage? Voters, courts or congress?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Who should have final say on gay marriage?

  • The people via referendum

  • the courts via judicial rulings

  • congress via legislation


Results are only viewable after voting.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
The majority will always win. This is not about what the majority wants, it's about what is fair, right and does not infringe a persons freedom.

If there had been a referendum after MLK's epic speech then nothing would have changed.

Maybe that's why he likes them.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
The key problem here is the trial was tried by a Gay Judge who simply used his Gay Bias to come to a gay victory. This is obviously a judicial failure. The judge had a legal requirement to recuse himself and he knew it. He should be replaced. If he had recused himself and the same decision had been reached, then the decision might have had a legal standing worth talking about. As it stands his decision will be vacated.

And all heterosexual judges should recuse themselves, too, right? Because if a heterosexual judge makes a "straight" decision, then that's obviously because the judge allowed heterosexual bias to influence the decision.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,513
16,235
146
The key problem here is the trial was tried by a Gay Judge who simply used his Gay Bias to come to a gay victory. This is obviously a judicial failure. The judge had a legal requirement to recuse himself and he knew it. He should be replaced. If he had recused himself and the same decision had been reached, then the decision might have had a legal standing worth talking about. As it stands his decision will be vacated.

Really? And a straight judge would be any less biased by his own sexuality?

Seriously? Did you actually THINK before you posted this?

By your failed logic, only a life-long eunuch can decide the issue. But no, you think only a heterosexual judge can because that is where your own bias lies.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
The same question would presumably be asked: what harm gives the state the right to limit the freedom of polygamists?

I think polygamists have an interesting case to make, but I want gay marriage addresses, not tied in with other issues; and I think polygamy may be one of those things society is not yet ready to accept, so that it remains too strong a societal view against it just as other prejudices have in the past, like homosexuality has. Maybe later. Rationally, it's hard to see the basis for banning polygamy so far. Interestingly, like gay couples, they actually can pretty much exist functionally, without the legal recognition of marriage.

The issues are not the same exactly between the two, and the is a lot of research on the allegations by anti-gay groups' allegations of harm that have been debunked.

The same has not been so thoroughly done for polygamy as far as I know - effect on the children in such homes, for example.

I agree with most of what you said, but had a few comments I wanted to make.

First, the "harm" to the state can be due to the legal aspects of having multiple partners who all are "equal." While this in and of itself doesn't mean they should not be allowed the right to marry more than one person, it WILL make it tougher to present a legal arguement for why they should be able to. Also, add in that it's socially unaccepted (by the vast majority) and there is a very small minority of people who are affected by this (or who would support it). We won't see anything like the gay rights movement for polygamy anytime soon (if ever).

Secondly, and the more important comment I wanted to make was in reference to your statement about children growing up in homes with multiple parents. There is no more harm in multiple parents raising a child than in a gay couple or a straight couple raising a child (outside of the legal arena where there are legal issues with polygamy like if one person leaves/divorces do they still have parental rights). If you look through history you will see attempts at "open societies" where sexually you have multiple partners and children are raised on a more communal basis then on just a couple basis. Nothing I have seen shows any harm in non-monogamous/polygamist parents, and I believe that it can help the child to become a much more well rounded individual due to being exposed to various views and thoughts. If you can show me any study that has been done, which I'm not holding my breath since I doubt studies on it have been done on the effects of raising children in a polygamist household, I would love to see them.
 
Dec 26, 2007
11,782
2
76
Federal government should recognize legal unions as a partnership between two consenting human adults. Nothing more or less.

If someone wants to get "married" that's between you, your partner(s), and your religious institution.

I completely agree.

I've said for a long time that the state has no business in a religious institution, i.e. marriage, and should instead call everything a "civil union". Two consenting adults regardless of age, sex, orientation, race, backgrounds, etc should be able to enter into the legal contract under whatever name it's called (marriage or civil union).
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Can't have bisexuals, because they partake in either form of marriage so they are twice as biased :p

Guess we'll need a robotic life form to make this decision. That, or an Alien from Stargate SG-1 that has ascended to a energy based existence.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
So ProfJohn, have you figured out yet that it's you who are the unAmerican?
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Simple question.

Who should make the final ruling on whether we allow gay marriage?

The people via a vote, the courts via rulings or congress via legislation?

Your question should be, "Are minority rights a Constitutional issue?".
 

Medellon

Senior member
Feb 13, 2000
812
2
81
If government is to protect the equal rights of citizens, it must offer every citizen the equal protection of the law. This kind of rule, and only this kind of rule - the rule of laws that offer equal protection - is compatible with the idea of human equality and equal natural rights.

I'm sure you supported Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. How do you square the last line you wrote with Sotomayor's "wise latina" et al remark?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
I voted against Prop 8 when it was first being voted on. I don't believe that heterosexuals have done such a great job "protecting the sanctity of marriage" themselves...why should gay people not have the right to fuck up their lives too...BUT, on the arguments being used here, if gay marriage is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, why hasn't this been decided by the USSC before now?

You'd think that IF this were a right with such strong guarantees as the US Constitution, someone would have challenged the "moral police" and their strict laws against gay marriage long ago.

IF it were a Constitutional issue, the USSC would have stepped in at some previous time in US history to guarantee the right.

IF it were truly a Constitutional issue, Congress would have passed the necessary laws to ensure that the rights of gay people weren't being trampled on.

I believe that the individual states should be the ones to make the decision whether to permit gay marriage in their state...HOWEVER, if a state does permit gay marriage, do the other states have to recognize it?

Do states have the right to legislate "morality?" Seems like that's a big part of what most state laws are all about...morality in one way or another.

IF this ruling stands with the USSC, I fully expect to start to see the same sorts of challenges by polygamists...after all, even though it's not the same thing...laws against polygamy are also just the majority legislating the morals of the minority...

:thumbsup:

It clearly should be a state issue as marriage is not a "right" - it's a status recognized by the gov't.
Also, there is no Constitutional way to force one state to recognize another's status recognition.

I say scrap the whole thing from a gov't standpoint, but that's just me and my "fringe" "less gov't" mindset.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
:thumbsup:

It clearly should be a state issue as marriage is not a "right" - it's a status recognized by the gov't.
Also, there is no Constitutional way to force one state to recognize another's status recognition.

I say scrap the whole thing from a gov't standpoint, but that's just me and my "fringe" "less gov't" mindset.
I'm all for scrapping government's power over marriage, especially since the Democrats are restoring marriage penalties whenever possible. But failing that, I'm more comfortable with national control over minimum rights and state control over fiscal matters. Instead we seem to be moving toward federal control over fiscal matters and state control over basic rights and privileges.

Courts have final jurisdiction over everything except Constitutional Amendments, which is why judicial activism is so destructive. On this issue in spite of my distrust of judicial activism overriding the will of the people I lean toward the courts deciding it as a matter of equal protection, but that's probably because philosophically I agree with the courts and not the majority, that government should not have the right to dictate who one may or may not marry.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Again this isn't an issue about marriage. People can get married in states that allow it. Government should stay out of that. However, government does have a right to deny these gay people federal handouts that increase the deficit and national debt. Increasing the strain on social security and other federal programs is the last thing we need right now.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,994
37,166
136
Again this isn't an issue about marriage. People can get married in states that allow it. Government should stay out of that. However, government does have a right to deny these gay people federal handouts that increase the deficit and national debt. Increasing the strain on social security and other federal programs is the last thing we need right now.

The government loosened it's purse strings to the tune of 1 trillion dollars for the continuing actions in Iraq/Afghanistan but the extra couple bucks the government might incur from having to recognize gay marriage on the federal level is just too much to bear?

Please.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Again this isn't an issue about marriage. People can get married in states that allow it. Government should stay out of that. However, government does have a right to deny these gay people federal handouts that increase the deficit and national debt. Increasing the strain on social security and other federal programs is the last thing we need right now.

So, gay married couples can have SS taken out of every paycheck they receive but not have the same opportunity to collect later that every other working American does? That's completely ridiculous.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
The government loosened it's purse strings to the tune of 1 trillion dollars for the continuing actions in Iraq/Afghanistan but the extra couple bucks the government might incur from having to recognize gay marriage on the federal level is just too much to bear?

Please.

Hey, I'm mad about the wars too. Two wrongs don't make a right. We can't afford anyone else putting their hands in the basket. We're already borrowing trillions from China.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
So, gay married couples can have SS taken out of every paycheck they receive but not have the same opportunity to collect later that every other working American does? That's completely ridiculous.

Gay people can still have social security. Just no survivor benefits or any of that stuff. It costs too much.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Nobody has a say on it. Gay marriage is allowed under The Constitution. They are afforded equal rights, and I'm embarrassed that this is even considered an "issue" in our country.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Gay people can still have social security. Just no survivor benefits or any of that stuff. It costs too much.

Not unless everyone else doesn't get survivor benefits.

It has to be either everyone gets them or no one does.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
:thumbsup:

It clearly should be a state issue as marriage is not a "right" - it's a status recognized by the gov't.
Also, there is no Constitutional way to force one state to recognize another's status recognition.

I say scrap the whole thing from a gov't standpoint, but that's just me and my "fringe" "less gov't" mindset.

Yes but a state can't pass a law that violates the constitution.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Not unless everyone else doesn't get survivor benefits.

It has to be either everyone gets them or no one does.

Well that would be the best case scenario(reducing the size of SS) but right now the fight is preventing more people from putting their hands in the cookie jar.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
Gay people can still have social security. Just no survivor benefits or any of that stuff. It costs too much.

Would you be making the same argument if it was "no survivor benefits for people who are married and from different religions"?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
Well that would be the best case scenario(reducing the size of SS) but right now the fight is preventing more people from putting their hands in the cookie jar.

Unacceptable. Either the benefit is there for everyone, gay married couples included, or it's not there at all. Period.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Would you be making the same argument if it was "no survivor benefits for people who are married and from different religions"?

Again, that would be the ultimate goal. We need to reduce the size of social security fore sure.