How big of an issue is same sex marriage to you?

The Goodridges of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health in Massachusetts, the first court case to create a right to marriage, didn't even make it 2 years before they broke up.

 

Perhaps you could provide us with some factual and objective information about Canada's 14 year experience with marriage equality. What, social, cultural, and legal issues have arisen that concern you? Some statistics would be nice.

 

I think Alberta is the only area that had back in 2003 what one might call "Marriage Equality". Rest of the country was more concerned with promoting respect for homosexuality, at the expense of equality, like 13 states in the US.

"adult interdependent partner is the new name in Alberta for a common-law spouse. However, the term encompasses more than heterosexual common-law relationships. It includes same-sex relationships, as well as two non-conjugal persons who live together in a relationship of interdependence. In some circumstances it could even include two members of the same family, or two friends who live together."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_...in_Alberta#Obligations.2C_rights_and_benefits

Then the civil marriage act came along in 2005 making marriage available to gay couples while excluding closely related couples.

 

One of the last things I said to my brother James, who was gay, and was emotionally hurt from people like me and my dad, was "(*)(*)(*)(*) you (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)." I will never forget it as long as I live because it is so hateful and disgusting, and probably one of many things that contributed to the night he decided to kill himself. But it taught me a huge lesson in empathy and understanding. What those in the gay community have to go thru because of the ignorant prejudices of people like me and others who don't understand their struggle is unacceptable. I just wish it didn't come to that to understand. But I have become the strongest ally to the gay community because of it. You can't change the past but you can learn from it.

 

Thank you. That was extremely unhelpful and has nothing at all to do with my question. Now let the person who I was addressing answer if he can

 

You didnt ask a question einstein.

 

Given the fact that there has been much misinformation concerning Baker v. Nelson and its significance being bandied about of late, I thought that I would devote a thread entirely to that case. It is only fitting since I find it to be not only a significant case, but a fascinating and complex one in both its origins and subsequent application. Let me start by saying that I-The Progressive Patriot- have been among those who initially did not get it exactly right. Yes, despite what many might think, I am not infallible. I did in fact, say that the case was not binding and did not set a precedent regarding the right to same sex marriage because the SCOTUS did not actually hear the case. I was mistaken for reasons that will be explained below. However, those arguing that it did in fact set a precedent-while closer to being correct in their assertion-glossed over some important facts, facts that diminish the rulings impact on current case law. In addition, they have chosen to ignore the historical context and the impact of subsequent rulings. I will also make the case that SCOTUS is moving in the direction of overturning Baker

Read more at _ http://www.politicalforum.com/showth...post1063604125

Follow the above link for a good read and a glimpse of the future. For those of you who want a relatively quick Fix, here it is:

“New York Law School Professor Art Leonard says:
“Many lower federal courts have cited Baker v. Nelson as precluding any federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage”. He goes on to say “This was before the modern gay rights movement really got going in the courts, before we won Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, before the establishment of a growing body of case law protecting gay rights. Clearly, what was not a ‘substantial federal question’ in the 1970s is today a ‘substantial federal question.’” I would add: It is quite conceivable that the language of a majority opinion-in which the court said “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.” -today would be very different given rulings on subsequent cases .

In December of 2013 US District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah’s Amendment 3 banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, violating protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. In his ruling, he focused on several views of the subject, mostly focusing on decisions in Baker v. Nelson and Loving v. Virginia. While both have relevance, to some degree, Shelby drew from the Loving case to decide that the amendment passed by Utah voters by 66% violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. That same month the New Mexico Supreme Court, overturning a statute banning same-sex marriage.

Reading the decision, two points become clear in that the court, at that time,( of Baker v. Nelson) relied on archaic language relevant at a time prior to two key decisions that have helped shape the national conversation on LGBT rights, Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans. The former struck down Texas’ sodomy statute and decriminalized homosexuality. The later provided protections for gays and lesbians in that a state could not target and deny rights to a particular class of individuals. Western State University College of Law professor David Groshoff argues, “Baker’s relevance in this debate more or less disappeared in Minnesota in 2001, and several years later nationwide, when sodomy laws no longer applied to consenting adults.” http://www.concernedinsa.com/2013/12...eally-applies/

So what will it take to overturn Baker? How might that come about? The answer lies in the status that is afforded same sex couples and if same sex marriage-not just marriage which has been well established as a right- becomes a right in and of itself. Let’s return to the often aforementioned and often references Loving case.

There are two differences between Loving case, and same sex marriage cases. One is that the right to same sex marriage has not yet been established to be a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment. Secondly, homosexuals have not yet been established to be a “suspect class” as are racial minorities which would afford them the right to strict scrutiny and thus compel the state to prove a compelling government interest in denying gays the right to marry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny However, both of those factors can change:

In the Loving case. In 1967, Chief Justice Earl Warren scribed the unanimous opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court. In it, he declared that, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” If the highest court in the land defining marriage as one of the “basic civil rights of man” doesn’t qualify marriage as a legal right, I don’t know what would.

Loving is actually one of Fourteen cases since 1888, where the SCOTUS has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-...amental-right/

It is not a major stretch of the imagination to see how, at some point SCOTUS could view gays in the same light as those racial minorities and declare that same sex marriage is a right as is inter racial marriage today and thus requiring strict scrutiny of any laws denying them equal rights including the right to marry as some lower courts have already shown a propensity to do.
The other road to strict scrutiny would be to establish homosexuals as a suspect class. To apply strict scrutiny on the basis of class, the class must have experienced a history of discrimination, must be definable as a group based on "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics," be a minority or "politically powerless," and its characteristics must have little relationship to the government's policy aims or the ability of the group's members to contribute to society.

If either of these developments occur, and I think that they will Baker will be history, as it should be.
In conclusion, I say to the opponents of same sex marriage, Baker is not carved in stone and that time has not has stood still since 1972. The Supreme Court’s stance on gay rights has clearly shifted since Baker v. Nelson. It may be settles law, but on a very narrow basis, and the bedrock is developing fault lines.

 

Oh, I think the fact that gay marriage was nonexistant, it is in fact NOT "fundamental to our very existence and survival.” . Not to mention their selective editing of the quote. What the Supreme court said was-

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

Marriage was "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" because sex between a man and woman was illegal without marriage. Their SELECTIVE use of constitutional law reveals their dishonesty.

 

Talk about being selective! As usual, you are to intellectually limited and lazy to respond to my post in it's entirety. Rather you cherry pick some part of it that you think that you can poke holes in. And "Marriage and Procreation" does not mean that procreation is a condition of marriage as you would have us believe, and furthermore, gays do procreate.

 

As opposed to you ignoring my entire post, failing to even address a portion of it other than crafting your next strawman. NO ONE claimed procreation was a condition of marriage and no one said gays cant procreate. It is gay COUPLES who cannot procreate.

 

SO WHAT !! What does that have to do with marriage, especially if now your claiming that you never said procreation was a condition of marriage

Now see if you can address my analysis of why Baker is of limited relevance now and likely to be overturned in the near future. Before answering, you might want to read the long version of the post which I provided a link to. Try to concentrate and absorb it. There's a lot there

 

DIG DEEP for some remaining shred of integrity. Copy and paste any quote of mine that even suggests that procreation was a "condition of marriage".

 

Dig deep and try to muster the brain power to address the main points of my post on Baker

 

Actually, that's what I did above, and as we can see, there really isn't any point in doing so. You don't do well with challenges to your assertions. They cause you to grasp for strawmen and personal attacks against the challenger, with nothing relevant to the topic of discussion.

 

OMG!! You really think that you addressed Baker in any meaningful or substantive way??!! If so you are truly delusional and worthy of pity. Go ahead and run away from this, just like you ran away from analysis of DOMA. I spent hours on both of those topics in order to better understand them myself as well as to try to enlighten other. For your part, all you do, indeed all that you are capable of doing is to take pot shots at a passage or two, here or there. Stop wasting my time

 

I'm reading a book called Kindly Inquisitors, it's quite brilliant actually and the author dedicates his book to the efforts of the man Dr. Franklin E. Kameny- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kameny

Here is an article on gay marriage by the author...

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/2008/06/gay-marriage-is-good-for-america.html

He has my ear.

Here's the author himself,

[video=youtube;12NwBXFu1Ic]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12NwBXFu1Ic[/video]

It's a great book so far btw.

 

Will this be the one that overturns Baker V. Nelson?

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wrote that the constitutional right to equality should apply to all, including same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses.

"Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us," wrote Wright Allen, an Eastern District of Virginia judge in Norfolk. "While ever vigilant for the wisdom that can come from the voices of our voting public, our courts have never long tolerated the perpetuation of laws rooted in unlawful prejudice. One of the judiciary's noblest endeavors is to scrutinize law that emerge from such roots."

Wright Allen stayed her order to allow an appeal, meaning nothing immediately changes for same-sex couples in the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_4785530.html

 

Havent read her decision but I bet it contradicts her claim of "all" and instead claimed that marriage only need be extended to gays.

 

Keep it up....read my post on YOU

 

"Similarly,in Zablocki, the Court upheld the right of prison inmates to marry,while
acknowledging domestic relations as an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
province of the States."

This lady has no business writing court decisions. Zablocki had nothing whatsoever to do with prisoners.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (197, was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zablocki_v._Redhail

Wonder if its dishonesty or incompetence.

 

Really nothing to address. I said its US Supreme Court precedent you denied it, and now admit you were wrong. Just as you were wrong about it being overturned.

 

Dumbing it down as always. You cant even begin to appreciate the complexity of the case can you?

 

Actually, the case is very simple and straight forward.

 

The case may be but the historical context is not and apparently lost on you