Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

townsend

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
mschmidt64 said:
Well, there is something to be said that it is their job to interpret the laws, and the Constitution. The Constitution lays out our rights pretty explicitly, and it says nothing about marriage. Should there be an amendment that it is one of our rights along with freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc? Maybe, but there isn't currently.

When judges go around saying "I now proclaim that this is a fundamental right" it makes me nervous. It is not their job to decide, like kings, what our rights are and aren't. It is their job to decide the meaning of the text, it is CONGRESS's job to decide what our rights are. What is to stop a liberal Supreme Court from saying that, I don't know, having access to healthcare is a fundamental right? Or how about that everyone has the right to receive a publically-funded college education?

It's the same fear a liberal might have over a conservative court greatly expanding, say, police powers. But we don't want the Supreme Court deciding that "terrorism" is such a big threat that it warrants ignoring the 4th amendment "because the founding fathers didn't foresee it."

Any group of 9 people can have different opinions on what rights should be or shouldn't be based on their own biases. That is why it is their job to interpret the law, not make up new rights. If we want new rights, as a society, we should amend the Constitution, which is done through our ELECTED representatives. If the entire nation does not sufficiently agree, then we can more locally expand our rights, since states can provide more rights than the Constitution, but not less.

When there is no textual backing in the law to support what justices see as a moral right, their correct response should be to say "We believe this should be a right, and we implore Congress to act on it, but as of right now, there is no such law."
Click to expand...
Decent points, and I think there have clearly been overreaches in the history of the Supreme Court. As there have with any seat of power. That being said, it seems to me that when government infringes on any right in the name of religion, which this is a fairly transparent example of, then the Court should be allowed to overturn it under the first amendment.

I also think there's leeway within the 14th amendment, and the text

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

While this doesn't overtly acknowledge marriage. One can infer an intention that citizens are citizens and therefore one is entitled to all the rights of another. It doesn't seem to be a great perversion of the constitution to determine that if a man should want to marry another man, or a white man marry a black woman, he should enjoy all of the rights any other person entering into a marriage should expect.
 
Smitty

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
townsend said:
That being said, it seems to me that when government infringes on any right in the name of religion, which this is a fairly transparent example of, then the Court should be allowed to overturn it under the first amendment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, of course, but again, is marriage a right? It's not in any text, so where is their basis for saying that? If they don't have a basis, then you'd have to agree with me that it's a bad decision.

However, as you mention next, their basis comes from the 14th Amendment.....

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

While this doesn't overtly acknowledge marriage. One can infer an intention that citizens are citizens and therefore one is entitled to all the rights of another. It doesn't seem to be a great perversion of the constitution to determine that if a man should want to marry another man, or a white man marry a black woman, he should enjoy all of the rights any other person entering into a marriage should expect.
Click to expand...
Yes, one citizen is entitled to all the RIGHTS of another, but marriage is not/may not be a right, and that's the part I'm uncomfortable expanding.

I think what you may have meant here is that marriage is one of the things covered under the "privileges and immunities" that the 14th Amendment says its our right not to have abridged. I'm certainly no expert on the privileges and immunities clause, can anyone make an argument that this sentence, when originally written, meant that marriage was one of those privileges and immunities?
 
Clay_Allison

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
mschmidt64 said:
Yeah, of course, but again, is marriage a right? It's not in any text, so where is their basis for saying that? If they don't have a basis, then you'd have to agree with me that it's a bad decision.

However, as you mention next, their basis comes from the 14th Amendment.....



Yes, one citizen is entitled to all the RIGHTS of another, but marriage is not/may not be a right, and that's the part I'm uncomfortable expanding.

I think what you may have meant here is that marriage is one of the things covered under the "privileges and immunities" that the 14th Amendment says its our right not to have abridged. I'm certainly no expert on the privileges and immunities clause, can anyone make an argument that this sentence, when originally written, meant that marriage was one of those privileges and immunities?
Click to expand...
That's not the only piece of case law regarding marriage as a right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Safley established that even inmates in prison have a fundamental right to marry. Under our system of common law we'd have to have an amendment stating it wasn't a right to break this much precedent.
 
peplaw06

peplaw06

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
294
mschmidt64 said:
Sure, but no one has said "Don't let the Courts divide property for gay people."

The issue is that when you give government recognition to two people "marrying" -- there is a legit argument that if you recognize two heterosexual people doing it, it's not fair if you deny when two homosexual people do it. Ok, fair enough. But just like the civil rights movement before it, we will now see what was a fair point about equal treatment transfuse into overburdening federal legislation against the rights of private citizens and property owners who wish to live their own lives their own way. We are already seeing it with the "Should small business owners have to bake a gay wedding cake" nonsense.

Well, this type of interference and needless (and harmful) "wrong-righting" by liberals is an inevitable outcome.

If you want to cut it off at the pass, simply do away with government recognition for everyone. Then, everyone is treated equal, there is no "marriage" that the government has an interest in protecting.

Two people want to live together and have children? Fine. People do that all the time without getting married these days anyway.

If they split up, who gets the kids? They either agree on it themselves, or the court has a trial to decide. This is how the court operates whether people are married or not right now anyway.

Do these people want to own property together? Fine. Buy a house as tenants with right of survivorship. Later, if they want to split up? Well, in "divorce" there are attorneys who get involved to dissolve the property and have one party buy out the other. So... we can do this even if there is no "marriage."

Tax consequences? Simple. Make a flat, low tax. No loopholes. Now there is no reason to have marriage deductions, child deductions, or homeowner deductions.

Problems solved. You can't name one that can't be handled fairly simply.
Click to expand...
This.

I actually do family law, so divorces are a huge part of my practice. But if the government had nothing to do with marriage, I still wouldn't be hurting for clients at all. There's plenty of other things for people to fight about than whether or not they are married. Like I said earlier, the status of the relationship is almost always an afterthought. No one fights over that... especially given no fault grounds for divorce that have been adopted everywhere. If one person of the relationship wants divorced, they get a divorce, plain and simple.
 
Smitty

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,522
Clay_Allison said:
That's not the only piece of case law regarding marriage as a right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_v._Safley established that even inmates in prison have a fundamental right to marry.
Click to expand...
Ok, so that case also came up with a decision that I am uncomfortable with. Again, I don't like Courts deciding what the fundamental rights are. I like the Constitution (and therefore Congress) deciding that.

Under our system of common law we'd have to have an amendment stating it wasn't a right to break this much precedent.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately at this point; but I'd retort that if the Supreme Court did their jobs and interpreted the law instead of making the law, you wouldn't need one, since it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

When common law "interprets" things that are not meant by the written law, however, yes, you can re-pass legislation to overrule the common law. Passed legislation always trumps common law for the very reason I mentioned, because common law is really just the interpretation of the written law, so if the written law is clarified, that supercedes.

The ultimate "common law" is to call something Unconstitutional (or to say something is a fundamental right). So if the Supreme Court places something into those categories, the only way to fix it now is to pass an amendment stating otherwise (or to have a future supreme court overrule these decisions).

But that will never happen. Which is why I am uncomfortable with Supreme Court justices inventing law to begin with, and I do not think they made the right decision here.
 
Last edited:
skidadl

skidadl

El Presidente'
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
11,888
Dammit, the lawyers are overrunning this joint.
 
Last edited:
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,713
Jiggyfly said:
Except for the fact that the federal government did not step in.

This was a case brought before the Supreme Court there was no legislation overriding state laws in play here.

This was a constitutional issue, who else should decide those?

Or do you believe a state should have the right to ignore the constitution?
Click to expand...
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the decision had "nothing to do with the Constitution."
 
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,713
boozeman said:
Exactly. My company employs over 6000 employees in a "temp" capacity getting paid $9.00 plus and the grand total enrolled in this joke? Four percent. It is not "affordable". It is a Presidentially-endorsed kickback to the corrupt medical industry.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY. Among the biggest hoodwinks of the American people in our history. It's a gift to insurance companies and hospitals. It's a burden on the masses. It's far from affordable.
 
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,713
peplaw06 said:
The religion could decide how to treat the relationship... i.e. married or divorced. The legal side could have civil cases to determine the kid issues and if there were any property issues. Usually the legal status of the relationship is the last thing any court is worried about. Property and kid issues, yeah. But whether to grant a divorce or not is usually an afterthought, especially considering the widely-accepted no fault divorce theories.
Click to expand...
And if you're atheist and want to get married?

Also, property issues often turn based on the status of the relationship, no?
 
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,713
peplaw06 said:
Well, yeah once the government gets involved, they usually don't cease involvement later. But if marriage were strictly a religious institution and wasn't a "contract with the state," and the government didn't give benefits to married persons, then I doubt atheists or other non-religious persons would care about marriage.
Click to expand...
It's not at all true that atheists across the board wouldn't care about marriage.

As for government involvement, it's likely in society's best interest to promote procreation and stability in families and households.
 
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,713
L.T. Fan said:
That's always the question. When is it states business and when is it a constitutional question.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, over the years the answer to that question has become, "whenever the federal government wants."
 
Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,713
Iamtdg said:
Unless it is a matter of national security, it should be the states' decision. The role of the federal gov't is to defend the union, coin money, bring justice, and tax shit. And before anyone says this law brings justice should remember that in 1996 Congress passed an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. This, also, was a slight on the states. it should have been up to the states to define what marriage is. So, it does work both ways. Personally, I don't give a shit if two guys can get married. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I'm just getting tired of the feds deeming what is right and wrong for every state.
Click to expand...
An amendment? That's not true. No amendment defining marriage exists.
 
L.T. Fan

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,698
I guess I have a question about whether all the institutions that require marriage as a prerequisite to eligibility, such as insurance, will recognize common law statutes as being qualified? Thats a group that is defined by state laws regarding marriage but some providers do not recognize common law marriages as being qualified. Did the Supreme court address this? Common law varies by states and they recognize them as being married. As it stands now only those regardless of gender are qualified who are married by the various states who will issue a licence.
 
peplaw06

peplaw06

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
294
Genghis Khan said:
And if you're atheist and want to get married?

Also, property issues often turn based on the status of the relationship, no?
Click to expand...
If it were merely a religious institution and conferred no benefits from the government, I doubt atheists would care. It would be like an atheist saying they wanted a relationship with Jesus Christ right now. Don't see them clamoring for that, because it confers no benefits from the government.

And there are other ways to deal with the property rights issues.
 
peplaw06

peplaw06

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
294
Genghis Khan said:
It's not at all true that atheists across the board wouldn't care about marriage.

As for government involvement, it's likely in society's best interest to promote procreation and stability in families and households.
Click to expand...
Why would atheists care if it were purely a religious institution?

And the government doesn't need to promote procreation. Males do that all on their own. Promoting stability in families and households can be achieved without promoting marriage as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom