SC paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Silhouette, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    The ban on same sex marriages was not lifted because it made someone happy or unhappy. It was lifted because it did not provide equal protection under the law. Limiting the size of a marriage has no such conflict.

    If you say a LLC can only be composed of white guys, or say a C corp must have at least one Jew, or say a marriage must have one man and one woman you are distinguishing (discriminating) between your citizens based on their religion, race, or gender. That's not allowed. If you say a S corp cannot have more than 20 stock holders or a marriage cannot have more than two partners, you are not.

    And exactly when did it become me denying someone anything? If you really have an issue with this law, go explore it. I'm not stopping you. But don't pretend removing one bad law removes all laws. It doesn't.




     
  2. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Its more complicated than that, so no the sky will not fall in. If the state discriminates in statute, and the state discriminates against a suspect class( one with a long. pervasive history of suffering from social animus or bigotry) and the state discriminates in way that impacts the due process fundamental rights of that suspect class, it simply means that the state has the burden of proving that it has a compelling governmental interest at stake ( beyond the fact that the class is either unpopular or or less worthy) that obliges the discriminatory treatment of the class, and that the statute is drawn narrowly, and in the least restrictive fashion and still get the job done that needs doing.

    In other words it has to have a really good reason to treat them different in law , and no better obvious options to solve the problem presented by equal treatment.

    The problem with gay marriage bans, is that the Courts did not believe that the govt really had a problem it could point to, as serious enough to warrant this deprivation of rights, meaning it was probably just about protecting tradition or dislike of the group and that's just not good enoug

    If the govt can make a convincing case for why it needs to stop polygamy or incest or whatever, because x,y and z will result if they don't, they will win the right to keep discriminating as long as the law is written carefully enough so that it does not take away more rights than it needs to.

    Of course other groups will try win marriage rights using these arguments but just because the Govt could not come up with a scary enough x, y, or z for gay marriage, does not mean it can't for something else.

    Its going to depend on the reason they give.

    .
     
  3. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    By limiting the size though you are also limiting the abilities of people to have equal rights in terms of marrying. So they want to marry more than one person, what does that have to do with their access to the same rights that straights or gays have?

    Your going to deny them the right to be happy because of some legal aspect? That is exactly the same thing we were saying about homosexual marriage.

    If by limiting the size of a marriage you are denying the rights of people to be happy and marry who they want, you are violating the same rights that gays used to gain access to it.

    How do you not see that?

    And quit bringing up corporations as if that is in any way relevant to anything.

    So what you are saying is, "yes we understand that you three are in love, your legal adults of sound mind, and you all want to spend your lives together but we have decided you don't belong with each other."

    We will forbid you to have the same happiness that gays or straights have.

    Good luck with that.
     
  4. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113

    let's try it this way. why do you want to limit marriage to two people. What bad will result for polygamy?
     
  5. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where did I say I wanted it limited to two people?
     
  6. Cdnpoli

    Cdnpoli Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2013
    Messages:
    6,013
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haha. It took like 14 years or so for the gay marriage cause to get this far in the US. Right now there is no movement or majority for polygamy to be legalized.
    No worries my yankee doodle friends polygamy is still at least 20-30 years away from legality.
     
  7. AKRunner88

    AKRunner88 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do we, in 2014, still have these discussions? Isn't it embarrassing to declare to the world that your intellectual prowess is severely lacking? Or does the anonymity of the internet make you feel invincible?
     
  8. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry I misunderstood. I thought, that you thought, it would be a bad idea.
     
  9. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    No one is saying that. A marriage license isn't a permit to be happy. It's a permit to have the law recognize you and one other individual as a single unit. Just like an S corp is a registration of another flavor of cooperative.

    There are a lot of laws that limit people's happiness and most are fair and reasonable. It's the one's that say I'm gonna treat you different because of your race, religion, or sex that violate equal protection.

    There's a difference between saying no one can form a LLC with more than 6 managers or no one can form a marriage with more than two partners and saying we'll let anyone do it, as long as they have the right number of blacks, Jews, or women.




     
  10. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You get it. Why can't anyone but me and you and like four other members. The reasons to regulate the number of parties to a marriage, or more aptly the harm govt contemplates to not regulating the number, represents a whole different set of concerns or interests to bring to court. I'm not sure I know exactly what the case is, but I know its going to be as different from same sex marriage, as same sex marriage was from interracial marriage. NONE of the same arguments that the govts used for discriminating against interracial marriage were brought up in same sex marriage besides the states rights one. They did not describe the same problem or worries/ compelling interest. And they won't with number of participants and they won't again for familial marriage.
     
  11. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is the problem you are not seeing. Previously the law stated that a marriage license was to be given only to a man and a woman and the gays went to court saying the law was wrong using a series of arguments which I am sure that you are aware of. Now the polygamists will go to court saying the law is wrong and they will base their argument on the EXACT same thing the gays used.

    There is no way a court can say the law is justified in one case and not the other when the argument is exactly the same. Had that barrier never been broken then this wouldn't be an issue but since it has been the cases are exactly the same.

    Remember that none of the homosexual court cases have been overturned because of access to rights under the law in property value, they have been overturned based on rights under civil litigation which most certainly will apply to those seeking to marry more than one person. Now if gays had argued that they only wanted to marry to have equal access to tax breaks then you may have a case but that is not what was decided.

    This was a civil rights argument and it will apply to other groups as well. That is what the court did and probably wise for the Supreme Court not to have weighed in on it yet. They can still influence it which I think they will ultimately do when they get the appropriate case in their Court.
     
  12. AKRunner88

    AKRunner88 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2014
    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Polygamous arrangements historically lead to massive government dependency to raise their "family". Why should tax payers pay for two dudes, their 9 wives, and their 34 children? There's one reason why polygamy will never gain mainstream attention.

    I'm all for whatever sexual relationship you want to have. Especially heterosexual and homosexual relationships among two consenting adults. And if you want to pop out kids with 8 different baby mamma's, good for you bro. But I'm not gonna legitimize your penis wielding powers by calling it a marriage.

    And animals can't consent. Not that it matters, you would have a really hard time convincing even 2% of the population that your right to bone your horse should be legalized and recognized. Never gonna happen.
     
  13. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    I don't see how they can, but let's say I'm wrong. What is it you're worried will happen and why do you think (whatever it is) will be a bad thing?





     
  14. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    See that is a very different 'compelling interest' you described, than what govts offered for same sex or interracial marriage bans. Just because one side uses the same arguments does not mean the other is obliged to, and that means the courts must look afresh at the equation. Just because they find 7>5 does not mean that they will see 3>5
     
  15. Osiris Faction

    Osiris Faction Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    6,938
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gay marriage does not open he door for polygamy.

    If you believe it does the. Post the case where polygamists used gay marriage as their justification in court and won.

    Gay marriage has been legal for ten years. Certainly you have such a case to prove your slippery slope argument.
     
  16. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The entire premise of this thread, that the SC left things "up in the air" is both true and false. By dismissing the case without hearing it, it is the legal equivalent of hearing the case, and upholding the Appellate Courts decisions, which is a strong signal (albeit not a guarantee) that they cumulatively agree that banning SSM is Unconstitutional. It's not over yet, not all Appellate Courts have ruled, and should one come down on the opposite side, which IMO is possible but unlikely, then SCOTUS would be forced to take one (or more) cases and rule on the merits. But if NO Appellate Court makes a different finding, there is no reason for them to get involved.

    Oh, and for those who doubt what I'm saying, I give you this quote from the actual decision of the 4th District Court of Appeals.

    The reality is, by not taking the case, SCOTUS said "You guys are right, carry on."
     
  17. Colombine

    Colombine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,233
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm so glad this is nearly over!
     
  18. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mormons were doing it for years in the United States until the federal government banned the practice. Many foreign countries have cultures that practice polygamy. Now that the "marriage barriers" are crashing down here in the U.S., what is to stop those polygamous marriages coming Stateside seeking U.S. citizenship and demanding to be recognized?
     
  19. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bullcrap. Gay couples already had that with civil unions, but that wasn't good enough for them. They wanted marriages and nothing else, because they wanted to feel like they were "normal" and they thought that they could do so by attempting to force society to accept them as such, when everyone including gays themselves knows that they are far from normal. Before 1974, the American Psychiatric Association referred to them as mentally ill; that was in my lifetime so it is fairly recent. Mental illness is not "normal" by any means, nor is it something that you can just *poof* into disappearing with a magic wand either.
     
  20. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They call this term "legal precedent" for short. You have to dumb it down for some people in here. :nod:
     
  21. Joker

    Joker Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,215
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sweet!
     
  22. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that is what SCOTUS is saying, then SCOTUS lied in their June 2013 ruling when they decided to leave it up to the States to decide the definition of marriage, before leaving it up to the federal courts to decide it for them. We have the 9th District federal court out West, and they ruled gay marriage bans as unconstitutional. Alaska is in the 9th District, but thankfully, Alaska found a judge that put a stay on gay marriages in Alaska for now. Due process must be upheld, and that does not mean rushing to a judgment in the absence of a definition of marriage that SCOTUS is too cowardly to rule on. Oh yeah, that's right, they don't have one to rule on anyway because no one has written up another one. My bad!
     
  23. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't be overly happy about that stay, it won't last long. As far as AK is concerned, from a legal perspective, SCOTUS has ruled SSM bans to be unconstitutional. Until and unless they rule again and effectively reverse themselves, that is how it will be. Since the Appeal has been upheld, that Stay won't even last a week.
     
  24. paco

    paco New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    18,293
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The judge in the case is declaring that the state will not act until the Supreme Court decides a ruling. SCOTUS has not ruled SSM bans unconstitutional. They have not ruled on anything at all in regards to the matter. So quit your lying already.
     
  25. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly you're not paying attention. Unless SCOTUS says yes to Alaska's request TODAY (and I'm not holding my breath), the Stay is dissolved. AND in case you missed it, a summary judgement (that is, a refusal to take the case) is the same as ruling on the merits.
     

Share This Page