SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[nehalem256]

Which honestly is a good enough reason. The onus is on the people who want to take away a right to show it is in the best public interest. That by removing this right we make us safer, more secure, and prevent harm to others. If they can't do that then we deserve to keep that right.

The problem is that no such right to SSM existed. If a right does not exist it cannot be taken away.

EDIT: And in fact the SC didn't say a right to SSM existed. If it did SSM would now be legal in every state by decree of the SC.

 

[sourceninja]

The problem is that no such right to SSM existed. If a right does not exist it cannot be taken away.

EDIT: And in fact the SC didn't say a right to SSM existed. If it did SSM would now be legal in every state by decree of the SC.

You have a basic lack of understanding how rights work. A right to SSM has existed from the moment the concept of marriage was invented. You always have a right to do anything. Rights are taken away by the government not granted. In most cases we willingly give up those rights for the greater good. Some rights we enshrine as being so important you can never give them up to the government, even willingly. Others are in a gray area where we must evaluate and protect them.

The government can't just decide things are illegal. They have to show there is a damn compelling public safety reason. If not they are violating the trust we have given them with the constitution.

 

[nehalem256]

You have a basic lack of understanding how rights work. A right to SSM has existed from the moment the concept of marriage was invented. You always have a right to do anything. Rights are taken away by the government not granted. In most cases we willingly give up those rights for the greater good. Some rights we enshrine as being so important you can never give them up to the government, even willingly. Others are in a gray area where we must evaluate and protect them.

The government can't just decide things are illegal. They have to show there is a damn compelling public safety reason. If not they are violating the trust we have given them with the constitution.

Pure grade-A bullshit.

And in fact as per the recent SC decisions no right to SSM exists now. If there were the SC would have decreed that SSM was legal in all states.

Instead they issued a much narrower opinion.

You always have a right to do anything. Rights are taken away by the government not granted.

Pure grade-AAA gold plated bullshit. You cannot have a right to a government recognize marriage unless government grants that ability.

 

[sourceninja]

Pure grade-AAA gold plated bullshit. You cannot have a right to a government recognize marriage unless government grants that ability.

This is why this country is failing. So many people don't have a understand of the role of government. The government can never ever ever give you a right.

It doesn't matter if the government respects your right to do something. In fact you can damn well almost always be sure the government will try to tell you that you don't have the right to do something. The government has the role of taking away rights.

You have to fight and protect your rights. Which is what gays are doing right now. Having a right and having the government recognize that right are two different things.

 

[nehalem256]

This is why this country is failing. So many people don't have a understand of the role of government. The government can never ever ever give you a right.

It doesn't matter if the government respects your right to do something. In fact you can damn well almost always be sure the government will try to tell you that you don't have the right to do something. The government has the role of taking away rights.

You have to fight and protect your rights. Which is what gays are doing right now. Having a right and having the government recognize that right are two different things.

Then there can be no right to government recognized marriage. Government recognized marriage cannot exist unless government creates it.

I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding this.

 

[fskimospy]

Then there can be no right to government recognized marriage. Government recognized marriage cannot exist unless government creates it.

I don't know why you have such difficulty understanding this.

I have to admit, it takes some real balls for someone who has been shown to be as massively ignorant about how government and marriage interact to try and attack someone else for their lack of understanding.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think the 3rd is true. For instance see this article


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...constitutional.html?google_editors_picks=true

Basically, DOMA was struck down because Kennedy said it was mean to gay people. Which when you think about is really what the liberal argument for SSM boils down to.

It's the same thing. For instance, preventing men from marrying six year olds is mean to pedophiles. It is also perfectly acceptable because there is a compelling societal interest here - protecting children too young to give informed consent. Gay marriage simply has no such compelling societal interest, so as Sourceninja points out, that it is mean to gays (whether or not it is intended to be mean to gays) is a good enough reason to strike down the ban under the equal protection clause.

Which honestly is a good enough reason. The onus is on the people who want to take away a right to show it is in the best public interest. That by removing this right we make us safer, more secure, and prevent harm to others. If they can't do that then we deserve to keep that right.

Agreed. Honestly, I can't think of another issue with so little of a down side. Any societal damage one can imagine from gay couples is already here; they are free to openly live together. On this issue, conservatives are attempting to keep away the things we purport to value - marriage, commitment, family values - from millions of Americans.

 

[fskimospy]

Agreed. Honestly, I can't think of another issue with so little of a down side. Any societal damage one can imagine from gay couples is already here; they are free to openly live together. On this issue, conservatives are attempting to keep away the things we purport to value - marriage, commitment, family values - from millions of Americans.

That is another thing that has seemed to strange to me. Conservatives are generally all about family. Allowing gays to create more stable households/families should be something that conservatives inherently value.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is another thing that has seemed to strange to me. Conservatives are generally all about family. Allowing gays to create more stable households/families should be something that conservatives inherently value.

A lot of them are religious, and that doesn't allow them to support same-sex anything regardless of potential benefits.

You don't have to respect that, but at least acknowledge it. Just because a 5 year old can properly shoot a gun doesn't mean we allow 5 year olds to own guns.

Just sayin'..

 

[fskimospy]

A lot of them are religious, and that doesn't allow them to support same-sex anything regardless of potential benefits.

You don't have to respect that, but at least acknowledge it. Just because a 5 year old can properly shoot a gun doesn't mean we allow 5 year olds to own guns.

Just sayin'..

Even that doesn't make sense to me. Gay people are gay regardless of whether or not they can get married. So if you have a bad situation (from their perspective) of someone being gay, why not at least have them in a healthy and stable relationship?

 

[soulcougher73]

A lot of them are religious, and that doesn't allow them to support same-sex anything regardless of potential benefits.

You don't have to respect that, but at least acknowledge it. Just because a 5 year old can properly shoot a gun doesn't mean we allow 5 year olds to own guns.

Just sayin'..

I have a gay christian cousin who goes to an openly accepting gay christian church. But let me guess.."they are not true christians"?

 

[Retro Rob]

Even that doesn't make sense to me. Gay people are gay regardless of whether or not they can get married. So if you have a bad situation (from their perspective) of someone being gay, why not at least have them in a healthy and stable relationship?

This is the reason why religion should have never mixed anyway -- they think God condemns homosexuality, though the actual word wasnt coined until the 19th Centrury, but I think at least SS relationships are condemned several times in both the Hebrew and Greek Bibles.

I don't think they have a problem with gay people as people, the relationships is what they will not be a party to, stable or not.

 

[Retro Rob]

I have a gay christian cousin who goes to an openly accepting gay christian church. But let me guess.."they are not true christians"?

So?

Thats their choice as a church. Doesn't have any bearing on me. I'm not a member of that Church...

 

[nehalem256]

It's the same thing. For instance, preventing men from marrying six year olds is mean to pedophiles. It is also perfectly acceptable because there is a compelling societal interest here - protecting children too young to give informed consent.

Except that the opinion by Kennedy essentially says that if a state recognized marrying 6 year olds the federal government would have to recognize the marriage as well.

Gay marriage simply has no such compelling societal interest, so as Sourceninja points out, that it is mean to gays (whether or not it is intended to be mean to gays) is a good enough reason to strike down the ban under the equal protection clause.

Except he doesn't strike it down because of the equal protection clause:

In a remarkable opinion for the majority, Justice Kennedy manages to hit on all these theories without really endorsing any of them. After a long peroration on the importance of federalism, he disclaims it as a basis for the opinion—for the reason, I suspect, that if the unconstitutionality of DOMA is based on federalist principles, this case will not be a precedent that can be used to strike down state laws that refuse to recognize same-sex marriage in the future. He then vaguely invokes both due process and equal protection, without explaining how he overcomes the limits on those doctrines that I describe above. He does not, for example, declare homosexuals a suspect class, nor does he (or could he) claim that same-sex marriage has roots in history and tradition. In the end, he seems to hold DOMA unconstitutional because he is convinced that the purpose of the statute was to stigmatize gay people, and indeed there is some precedent for the idea that statutes based on animus are unconstitutional. But he does not provide a very convincing account of the motives of the legislators. Isn’t it possible to oppose same-sex marriage without hating gay people?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...constitutional.html?google_editors_picks=true

Kennedy appears to be engaging in a lot of legal rambling to hide the fact that he has no real basis for overturning DOMA. His actual basis is probably more along the lines that SSM is becoming more popular and he is swaying with the winds.

The SC is clearly not endorsing a right to SSM, or SSM would be legal in all 50 states now.

Agreed. Honestly, I can't think of another issue with so little of a down side. Any societal damage one can imagine from gay couples is already here; they are free to openly live together. On this issue, conservatives are attempting to keep away the things we purport to value - marriage, commitment, family values - from millions of Americans.

The downside is redefining marriage to be nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk. The liberal claim is that marriage has nothing to do with commitment, family, or values. That is in fact central to their argument in favor of SSM.

 

[nehalem256]

That is another thing that has seemed to strange to me. Conservatives are generally all about family. Allowing gays to create more stable households/families should be something that conservatives inherently value.

But I thought marriage was just a contract to get government benefits? What does that have to do with creating stable households/families?

There is no requirement for people getting married to live in the same household or create family

 

[werepossum]

That is another thing that has seemed to strange to me. Conservatives are generally all about family. Allowing gays to create more stable households/families should be something that conservatives inherently value.

Agreed.

A lot of them are religious, and that doesn't allow them to support same-sex anything regardless of potential benefits.

You don't have to respect that, but at least acknowledge it. Just because a 5 year old can properly shoot a gun doesn't mean we allow 5 year olds to own guns.

Just sayin'..

But as Eskimospy points out, gay people remain gay if their marriage rights are removed. They don't become nice, hetero types; they just remain less secure, financially and socially. Anything bad one can imagine due to homosexuality is the same either way; the only difference is whether we allow them to enjoy the same rights, security, and respect under the law as the rest of us. We as individuals remain free to reject gay marriage either way - admittedly, with the notable exception that one cannot unlawfully discriminate on the basis of that rejection. But that's the same with everything. One can despise fat people at will; one cannot refuse to sell them sheets or bread or flowers based on that hate.

If we support marriage, love, and family, then absent some great specific societal ill we should want those things to be as widespread as possible.

Except that the opinion by Kennedy essentially says that if a state recognized marrying 6 year olds the federal government would have to recognize the marriage as well.

Except he doesn't strike it down because of the equal protection clause:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...constitutional.html?google_editors_picks=true

Kennedy appears to be engaging in a lot of legal rambling to hide the fact that he has no real basis for overturning DOMA. His actual basis is probably more along the lines that SSM is becoming more popular and he is swaying with the winds.

The SC is clearly not endorsing a right to SSM, or SSM would be legal in all 50 states now.

The downside is redefining marriage to be nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk. The liberal claim is that marriage has nothing to do with commitment, family, or values. That is in fact central to their argument in favor of SSM.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the decision, but it seems to me that laws against gay marriage will have a very hard time existing under this ruling. I certainly would have preferred a more strongly worded decision to make this plain.

As far as the liberal concept of marriage, my understanding of the argument is that marriage has everything to do with commitment, family, security, and values for hetero and homo couples, and that it is therefore immoral to deny whatever benefits accrue with a good and compelling reason. This is much the same as blacks' struggle for civil rights; that benefits accrue does not mean that the struggle was at its core a struggle for basic human rights and equality.

Honestly, this is shit we're supposed to learn in kindergarten if our families haven't taught us before that. Be nice. Be fair. Don't hurt people. For all the problems I have with the proggies, they are often markedly better at this than we conservative Christians. It's like we too often feel like obedience in Christianity is more important than love.

Would you die (or send your only child to die) for someone to command obedience, or out of love?

And on that note one day before Independence Day, a big thank you to those who have personally made that choice. Freedom isn't free, and some of those who obtained and who guard our freedom make the ultimate sacrifice while doing so. If that is you or your family - thank you and G-d bless.

 

[nehalem256]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the decision, but it seems to me that laws against gay marriage will have a very hard time existing under this ruling. I certainly would have preferred a more strongly worded decision to make this plain.

The SC had ample opportunity to declare SSM to be a right. They did not.

As far as the liberal concept of marriage, my understanding of the argument is that marriage has everything to do with commitment, family, security, and values for hetero and homo couples, and that it is therefore immoral to deny whatever benefits accrue with a good and compelling reason.

No. Liberals are the ones that repeatedly say that marriage is just a contract to get government benefits. They even explicitly said that in Discussion Club.

EDIT: The SSM movement has never been about arguing what marriage is because that would clearly be conceding that they are changing the definition of marriage. And if they are saying they are changing it then they are essentially admitting there is no right to SSM.

This is much the same as blacks' struggle for civil rights; that benefits accrue does not mean that the struggle was at its core a struggle for basic human rights and equality.

The civil rights movement and gay rights movement are incomparable. Are gay people prohibited from eating in restaurants and drinking from "straight-only" water fountains.

Marriage isn't about equality. It is fundamentally about creating inequality.

And there can be no equality between same-sex and opposite-sex couples because they are fundamentally unequal. A fact that has been recognized for centuries.

 

[sourceninja]

Except that the opinion by Kennedy essentially says that if a state recognized marrying 6 year olds the federal government would have to recognize the marriage as well.

And?

While I find the concept horrifying the fact is that if a state population changed their age of consent laws there is nothing in federal law to prevent said marriage. So it should be respected by the federal government.

The feds are not nannies. Their powers should be extremely limited and legislating morality is not be one of them.

So if by some insane chance an entire state goes pedo (nice straw man) then there is really nothing they can or should be able to do about it short of stopping all federal benefits for marriage.

It appears we as Americans have a cognitive dissonance between how this country was founded and what it was designed to be and our own fears and morals.

 

[nehalem256]

And?

While I find the concept horrifying the fact is that if a state population changed their age of consent laws there is nothing in federal law to prevent said marriage. So it should be respected by the federal government.

The feds are not nannies. Their powers should be extremely limited and legislating morality is not be one of them.

So if by some insane chance an entire state goes pedo (nice straw man) then there is really nothing they can or should be able to do about it short of stopping all federal benefits for marriage.

It appears we as Americans have a cognitive dissonance between how this country was founded and what it was designed to be and our own fears and morals.

I was addressing Werepossum's claim that the federal government could intervene in marriage laws so long as there was a compelling interest.

According to Kennedy that is not the case.

 

[sourceninja]

I was addressing Werepossum's claim that the federal government could intervene in marriage laws so long as there was a compelling interest.

According to Kennedy that is not the case.

And Kennedy is for the most part correct. The feds shouldn't have much to do. 95% of most issues should be purview of the states.

The more impact a law has on the general population, the more local the branch of government that implements that law should be.

 

[zinfamous]

The problem is that no such right to SSM existed. If a right does not exist it cannot be taken away.

EDIT: And in fact the SC didn't say a right to SSM existed. If it did SSM would now be legal in every state by decree of the SC.

Pure grade-A bullshit.

And in fact as per the recent SC decisions no right to SSM exists now. If there were the SC would have decreed that SSM was legal in all states.

Instead they issued a much narrower opinion.



Pure grade-AAA gold plated bullshit. You cannot have a right to a government recognize marriage unless government grants that ability.

wow, you really don't want to udnerstand how this works, do you? If you bothered to give a dick about the concept of "natural rights" and the actual role of government in terms of protecting/taking away rights, then you would realize that sourceninja is 100% correct.

SSM marriage has always been the right of any free hominid for as long as any ganglion-twitching hominids said "fuck you all, I'm gonna do whatever the fuck I want!"

That is, essentially, the fucking point of the US constitution. This is the concept of "natural rights." How many godfucking times are you on these pages trying to defend your natural right to own a firearm and defend yourself, demanding that government not take that suppose "natural right" away?

The entire point of these redneck states passing amendments is explicitly to remove a right that once existed--for SS couple to be married. You can not possibly argue your way out of that.

Does it not register with you that "pursuit of happiness" was indeed left intentionally open? I'm glad the forefathers were smarter than you. And you should be, too--you're dream to one day marry your toaster may, indeed, come to pass....

 

[lopri]

The problem is that no such right to SSM existed. If a right does not exist it cannot be taken away.

EDIT: And in fact the SC didn't say a right to SSM existed. If it did SSM would now be legal in every state by decree of the SC.

Jesus Christ. There is such right (and following obligations) in 12 states. That is why DOMA was challenged in the first place.

Given the majority opinion, it seems to me that SCOTUS actually went beyond that. By giving an equal protection opinion rather than pointing out the glaringly obvious 10th Amendment violation, didn't the justices prevent Congress (and by extension the states) from making any arbitrary law restricting marriage rights, including traditional definitions? Seems to me that SCOTUS really did three things here:
1. Force the Federal government into recognizing marriages sanctioned in states.
2. Force the states into recognizing marriages sanctioned in other states.
3. Prevent the Federal government from placing restrictions on marriage rights without a compelling societal reason to do so.

Am I wrong? If not, doesn't the third thing also prevent states from using such arbitrary definitions? States have no greater latitude in violating the equal protection than does the federal government.

The opinion is remarkably vague and evasive, but probably you are not too far off. An apt analogy would be whether the federal government could recognize only intra-racial marriages when there are states treating inter-racial marriages equally to intra-racial ones. (say, in 1960's)

The court said that the federal government cannot do. The underlying equal protection analysis surely can be applied to states but the court left open that question without saying anything, for states may be able to put forward legitimate justifications for the discrimination. (unlikely, but theoretically)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That rich, and I didn't expect you to stoop to this level of blame shifting.

So we're the blame for gays leaving women standing at the church, or for their bastard children, or their contribution to HIV cases -- we forced them to do that? Really?

John --

This isn't a gay AIDS rant, nor about Christian persecution, its about a group of people, or one person in this thread, who feels the need to castigate "religiotards". In fact, I never mentioned AIDS, but again, thanks for your daily contribution of lying, John... you never disappoint.

Wow... just fucking wow.

YOU think you have earned the right to adress me while activelly blaming women for hurting women?

Here's quick hint, you or the Taliban are having the same ideas. it's HER children eh? and if she realizes that your ugly daft arse don't want it and have an abortion... all the more reason to hate her...

You are one of the most pathetic human beings i have ever come across.

 

[werepossum]

Jesus Christ. There is such right (and following obligations) in 12 states. That is why DOMA was challenged in the first place.



The opinion is remarkably vague and evasive, but probably you are not too far off. An apt analogy would be whether the federal government could recognize only intra-racial marriages when there are states treating inter-racial marriages equally to intra-racial ones. (say, in 1960's)

The court said that the federal government cannot do. The underlying equal protection analysis surely can be applied to states but the court left open that question without saying anything, for states may be able to put forward legitimate justifications for the discrimination. (unlikely, but theoretically)

Agreed, the opinion is horrid, but one can see why. The clearest grounds for overturning DOMA is the full faith clause and its restraint on 10th Amendment powers, but that ruling would at least imply that gay marriage bans themselves are Constitutional and all the Justices know that will not long stand. Gay marriage WILL be the law of the land. I really wish Kennedy had explicitly ruled given equal protection (or at least 5th Amendment) rationale. He seems (to a non-lawyer anyway) to be concerned that gays are not a sufficiently disadvantaged group to warrant special protection. I don't disagree, but we are all individuals, not groups, and the most privileged individual in the country deserves the same equal protection as the most abused group. Even if gays had never faced any other discrimination, that should not be grounds for this discrimination. Perhaps the court was wishy-washy to avoid the appearance of being activist, but protecting human rights is probably the most important part of judging Constitutionality. If they can explicitly protect the rights of people who band together in corporations, why not those of people who want to band together in marriage?

I also like this from Emily Bazelon: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ice_gets_right_and_wrong.html?wpisrc=obinsite

Scalia also rips into Kennedy for failing the constitutional law test. That’s because, as you said, Eric, Kennedy didn’t make entirely clear the basis for his holding. It’s about equal protection under the law, which is rooted in the court’s cases about the 14th Amendment, except Kennedy talked about the Fifth Amendment (which is where the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process comes from). Kennedy also didn’t make clear whether he was striking down DOMA because it failed the rational basis test—Congress had no good reason for it—or because it failed to pass the higher bar of heightened scrutiny. You know what? Good. I’ve been tired of these tests and tiers since law school. In fact, Scalia doesn’t like them either. I think what really matters is that Kennedy’s opinion passes the common-sense test. The government can’t single out a group of people for second-class treatment because it just finds their behavior yucky or unfamiliar, when what they’re doing turns out to be perfectly harmless (and even a social good).
Scalia wants to show that it’s possible to oppose gay marriage without hating gay people, accusing the court of turning all opponents into “enemies of the human race.” Eric, you asked a related question. And I do think that in this transitional moment, when a lot of people are still adjusting to what has been an amazingly rapid shift in opinion and social mores, the answer is yes, it is possible to do that. But I do think the roots of that opposition lie in some sense of basic antipathy and resistance to change. It’s like the debate over interracial marriage: For a long time, it seemed just fine to stand against white people marrying black people—and then it seemed racist and odious. The Supreme Court’s 1967 ruling striking down state bans on interracial marriage at once reflected and helped bring about that shift. Today’s ruling is less dramatic. But it will play a similar role in rapidly changing public opinion. That’s the real conservative objection to it, I think.

Part of being conservative is to resist change. But if we're going to avoid changing what is good about America, we have to be willing to change what is bad about America. There is no chance of preserving everything about America, and frankly no point.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I have to agree with Eskimospy here. I suspect most families have sufficient genetic diversity that a single incestuous marriage probably presents no great genetic risk.

You think there is enough genetic diversity in a family?

WOW, you really have no clue, do you?

Genetic diversity works BECAUSE people of one family do not procreate but as soon as anyone does, you have a problem...

Seriously, you think that families that are biological families cna have more or less genetic diversity?

Just a FYI, that isn't how that works. Genetics do not diversify in a family tree of incest and that is the fucking point.