What is wrong with the Supreme Court, another week of justice denied.

[DCal430]

Today marks another day the Supreme Court has failed to deny certification for Hollingsworth vs Perry (Prop 8 case). Each week they fail to deny certification is another week gays and lesbians and California are being denied a basic right. I shake my head at why the Supreme Court doesn't understand that justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[buckshot24]

Would you be ok if they decide that same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right?

 

[DCal430]

Would you be ok if they decide that same sex marriage isn't a constitutional right?

Obviously that is wrong. We know the correct thing to do in this case deny certification and thus prop 8 is struck down only in California.

 

[buckshot24]

Obviously that is wrong. We know the correct thing to do in this case deny certification and thus prop 8 is struck down only in California.

Allowing same sex marriage may be the right thing to do but I'm not sure that means that it is in the constitution. Although if abortion is in the constitution then gay marriage is.

 

[Demo24]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSBRE8AT09G20121203

There are multiple parts associated with this on hand for court review. My guess is they may look at doma first, then review prop 8. Could be wrong, who knows, I just hope the court will rule in favor of same sex marriages/unions so we can finally start moving forward with this issue.

 

[nehalem256]

And I shake my head at why liberals do not understand you cannot have a right to something that doesn't exist.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

And I shake my head at why liberals do not understand you cannot have a right to something that doesn't exist.

And the majority of the world shakes their head at why you don't just move to Iran.

 

[nehalem256]

Allowing same sex marriage may be the right thing to do but I'm not sure that means that it is in the constitution. Although if abortion is in the constitution then gay marriage is.

Abortion is about a private medical procedure.

Marriage is about having society(the public) recognize your relationship.

Abortion and marriage have nothing to do with each other.

 

[thraashman]

Abortion is about a private medical procedure.

Marriage is about having society(the public) recognize your relationship.

Abortion and marriage have nothing to do with each other.

The government provides rights and benefits to married couples. These include things like inheritance, end of life decisions, medical visitation and decision, tax benefits, etc. It doesn't matter if society recognizes it or not, so long as the government provides benefits for it, disallowing it violates the 14th Amendment.

 

[nehalem256]

The government provides rights and benefits to married couples. These include things like inheritance, end of life decisions, medical visitation and decision, tax benefits, etc. It doesn't matter if society recognizes it or not, so long as the government provides benefits for it, disallowing it violates the 14th Amendment.

Marriage is inherently about recognizing some relationships as being unequal with others.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think Prop 8 is Constitutional because this country was founded on the rights of free and independent States... the current supreme legislation is illegitimate and the 14th Amendment is something that's illegal under something illegitimate.

If they strike it down then it won't be through invocation of the 10th.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Marriage is inherently about recognizing some relationships as being unequal with others.

Don't worry, I'm fairly certain there isn't a woman on this planet that is desperate enough to marry you. Let alone any men.

 

[buckshot24]

Abortion is about a private medical procedure.

Marriage is about having society(the public) recognize your relationship.

Abortion and marriage have nothing to do with each other.

All I'm saying is that if the Supremes can shoehorn abortion into the constitution then they can shoehorn gay marriage. Personally I think the abortion case was a much larger stretch than same sex marriage.

 

[CycloWizard]

Please stop labeling everything you want a "right." They are not rights. They are social contracts. That said, if "traditional" marriage is legally recognized as a social contract then there is no legitimate reason for not recognizing same-sex marriage under the same contract. However, since it is a social contract rather than a right, it is the option of the people to choose the terms of the contract. As we all know, these terms need not be legitimate and it should be left to the people to decide. Thus, even if I disagree with the people, it is their RIGHT to vote as they see fit.

 

[werepossum]

Please stop labeling everything you want a "right." They are not rights. They are social contracts. That said, if "traditional" marriage is legally recognized as a social contract then there is no legitimate reason for not recognizing same-sex marriage under the same contract. However, since it is a social contract rather than a right, it is the option of the people to choose the terms of the contract. As we all know, these terms need not be legitimate and it should be left to the people to decide. Thus, even if I disagree with the people, it is their RIGHT to vote as they see fit.

I somewhat agree. However, I think a strong legal case can be made that prohibitions against gay marriage violate the Constitution based on the equal protection clause, which IS a right, simply because marriage offers certain government benefits and guarantees which are not available to homosexuals, or at least, not without making a travesty of marriage. (Homosexuals can marry heterosexually but that would hardly fit the spirit of marriage.) On a deeper level I think a ban on homosexual marriage violates the concept of a free society. Government should have to demonstrate a clear and compelling societal need before it is allowed to restrict personal liberty, and at the least, denying homosexual marriage arguably restricts personal liberty at a practical level by arbitrarily denying homosexuals the rights, benefits and protections enjoyed by heterosexuals and therefore making the pursuit of happiness more difficult.

Also, this is a right which the majority can deny at no cost to ourselves and those always require strict scrutiny as it's simply too easy to give ourselves advantages at others' expense.

EDIT: I also think the states should be allowed to differ economically, but that our basic rights should be the same through the nation.

 

[actuarial]

Please stop labeling everything you want a "right." They are not rights. They are social contracts. That said, if "traditional" marriage is legally recognized as a social contract then there is no legitimate reason for not recognizing same-sex marriage under the same contract. However, since it is a social contract rather than a right, it is the option of the people to choose the terms of the contract. As we all know, these terms need not be legitimate and it should be left to the people to decide. Thus, even if I disagree with the people, it is their RIGHT to vote as they see fit.

Would you apply the same rational if the terms of the social contract were based on race?

 

[nehalem256]

I somewhat agree. However, I think a strong legal case can be made that prohibitions against gay marriage violate the Constitution based on the equal protection clause, which IS a right, simply because marriage offers certain government benefits and guarantees which are not available to homosexuals, or at least, not without making a travesty of marriage. (Homosexuals can marry heterosexually but that would hardly fit the spirit of marriage.) On a deeper level I think a ban on homosexual marriage violates the concept of a free society. Government should have to demonstrate a clear and compelling societal need before it is allowed to restrict personal liberty, and at the least, denying homosexual marriage arguably restricts personal liberty at a practical level by arbitrarily denying homosexuals the rights, benefits and protections enjoyed by heterosexuals and therefore making the pursuit of happiness more difficult.

And what is the spirit of marriage?

Because I would say that allowing people of the same gender marry violates the spirit of marriage.

Would you apply the same rational if the terms of the social contract were based on race?

Would you say that race has been a fundamental distinguishing characteristic of marriage for the last 200 years?

 

[Darwin333]

Allowing same sex marriage may be the right thing to do but I'm not sure that means that it is in the constitution. Although if abortion is in the constitution then gay marriage is.

Pretty sure marriage isn't in the constitution at all so the bigger question is, is it legal for the .gov to get involved in who can enter into a civil contract (other than minors, mentally ill, etc..) AT ALL. Basically, what gives the .gov the right to regulate marriage at all?

 

[Darwin333]

Would you say that race has been a fundamental distinguishing characteristic of marriage for the last 200 years?

200 years from now or 200 years from when them black folk were "given" the right to marry white folks (or any race)?

And whose definition of marriage? Yours? The Muslim version? I bet the hindus have their own deal too.

 

[actuarial]

Would you say that race has been a fundamental distinguishing characteristic of marriage for the last 200 years?

What does tradition have to do with legality?

 

[Ausm]

And I shake my head at why liberals do not understand you cannot have a right to something that doesn't exist.

Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry? Why would you even worry about because it would not affect you in any way?

 

[nehalem256]

200 years from now or 200 years from when them black folk were "given" the right to marry white folks (or any race)?

And whose definition of marriage? Yours? The Muslim version? I bet the hindus have their own deal too.

Do Muslims allow same-sex marriage?

Do Hindus?

How does listing more groups that agree that marriage is between people of the opposite sex dispute my argument?

What does tradition have to do with legality?

If marriage is fundamentally a relationship than how can there be a right to same-sex marriage?

 

[Darwin333]

Marriage is inherently about recognizing some relationships as being unequal with others.

No it is not. Marriage, in this day and age, is inherently about a civil (some people call it social, meh) contract between two consenting adults.

Unless of course you are talking about sex then yeah, pretty sure the un-married folks are getting way more so you could call that unequal.

 

[Ausm]

What does tradition have to do with legality?

Now I understand why Rightists have a War on the female anatomy because they want them bare foot and pregnant ...you know just like Tradition.

 

[actuarial]

If marriage is fundamentally a relationship than how can there be a right to same-sex marriage?

I have no clue what you're asking me.