Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

[shane]

Is there an argument against this ruling that couldn't also be applied to legalized interracial marriage. Or should that have also been left to the states?

Under the original intent of the Constitution, yes.

The idea to privatize marriage or get the government out of the institution to a degree gaining traction could be a great consequence of this ruling:

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/alabama-senate-passes-bill-to-effectively-nullify-all-sides-on-marriage/

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'm in favor of secession. Enough divisiveness exists now where it's counter effective and we as Americans don't have to pretend to enjoying all this diversity. We gave it the old college try and it worked for a couple decades post-Civil Rights Movement. Bravo. More than could be said for other countries. Time to split up amicably before something blows up and destroys all factions economically.

Fair enough. The Northeast will never be cool with the rest of us having guns. California will never be cool with less than all of everyone's money to finance their laziness and stupidity. I'd vote for every state to split up and make their own countries from local unions of states at any time.

 

[Smitty]

Is there an argument against this ruling that couldn't also be applied to legalized interracial marriage. Or should that have also been left to the states?

Interracial marriage is currently left to the states as far as I know. It is not mentioned in the constitution and there has never been a Supreme Court case saying interracial marriage is a fundamental right. As far as I know.

Which is kinda the point.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Bingo. No need for "marriage" as it exists now to be a thing at all as far as government is concerned. All it is, is a package of certain fringe benefits anyway.

As i have asked before, who would handle contested issues in divorce proceedings if not the courts and legal system?

 

[L.T. Fan]

Those issues are already decided by courts for non-married people. Simply do it for everyone that way.

Im not sure what you are having such a hard time understanding about this.

Isn't the courts and legal system the process whereby governmental laws are applied? How is that removing government from the process? The original premise that was proposed was to take government out of the process for marriage which divorce is an extension of.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Sure you can.

Well that's a clearly outlined response that answers the question.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Interracial marriage is currently left to the states as far as I know. It is not mentioned in the constitution and there has never been a Supreme Court case saying interracial marriage is a fundamental right. As far as I know.

Which is kinda the point.

So, you think miscegenation laws are something SCOTUS should uphold?

 

[townsend]

Interracial marriage is currently left to the states as far as I know. It is not mentioned in the constitution and there has never been a Supreme Court case saying interracial marriage is a fundamental right. As far as I know.

Which is kinda the point.

Now I might not be some big city lawyer but that ther Wikipedia has led me to believe something contrary to this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

 

[townsend]

It seems dastardly for any governmental body to disavow a marriage. Even if I moved to a different country I'd have every expectation that if I was married, I would stay married when I landed.

I know at one point during the early 20th century British Imperialists in South Africa made an attempt to nullify all non-Christian weddings in the province. I see shades of that in the effort of States to disavow marriage on religious grounds. Which is of course, unconstitutional.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Isn't the courts and legal system the process whereby governmental laws are applied? How is that removing government from the process?

It's removing government from the divorce part of it. When a divorce proceeding takes place for example the judge will ultimately issue a judgment. Part of that judgement has nothing to do with property or kids (Especially if a married couple has no property or kids) and deals strictly with the judge finding that the marriage is irretrievably broken. If you take that portion out of the government's hands then you are removing them from marriage and divorce.

But what the hell do I care. I make money doing uncontested divorces. If you remove marriage from the governments hands then you'd never have those people paying us lawyers.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Well i hear what you are saying but my confusion lies with the area where a court and judge are involved. They are acting within the guidelines set forth by law which is provided by the government, therefore there will always be government involved in some form or fashion. As an attorney you are a quasi government agent even though you aren't paid by same. Regardless of what area or specialty you practice it is within the frame work of government provided law at some level. As to marriage, the very fact that it a part of society in this country it must therefore be classified and validated by some source to fit the criteria of acquiring the status of being married. Someone or something has to validate this act in order to be considered as married. In this country that is done currently by government who issues a license declaring same. In order to meet all the criteras for different businesses and laws reguirements how and who will validate it if you take this process out of the hands of government then who will sanction this body to do it? Wouldn't that have to be enacted by law?

 

[Jiggyfly]

The pursuit of same sex marriage as a practical matter is a financial and economic issue. In a country that espouses equality for all citizens, I agree with the court's decision. I don't think the equality for all citizens would ever be equitable at the States right level. As to the religious issues that's an individual determination and has nothing to do with territorial boundries.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Reading some post-Apartheid articles, it's not a slam dunk that it was for the better. People are moving into gated communities, sounding quite like many american cities. Rich don't want to be with poor and poor can't survive without sucking off the rich.

Violent crime has increased and how is granting poor people the same weighted vote as middle/upper class people any benefit?

hell, even in terms of the NFL, why should Jerruh be dragged down by the likes of buffalo and cincinnati? Jerry does more with his personally run Salvation Army program than this mandated 'wear pink' bullshit and not being able to strike endorsement deals in his own (remember Nike 1995?). The NFL ended up adopting Jerruh's ways anyway. Even the clippers sterling accepted black athletes to make his team viable.

Even though I love the NFL draft, it weakens the NFL. All these blue chip athletes go to shit because their placed in the worst of the worst environments. Eliminate the draft and salary cap and you'd have more superstars, less busts, and more interest/advertising revenue than ever before.

Did you have lunch with George Carlin?

 

[Smitty]

As i have asked before, who would handle contested issues in divorce proceedings if not the courts and legal system?

The courts can handle division of property and custody just like they do currently for unmarried people.

 

[Smitty]

Isn't the courts and legal system the process whereby governmental laws are applied? How is that removing government from the process? The original premise that was proposed was to take government out of the process for marriage which divorce is an extension of.

Government not recognizing marriage doesn't mean that the courts stop dividing property or whatnot.

 

[Smitty]

Now I might not be some big city lawyer but that ther Wikipedia has led me to believe something contrary to this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Well, like I said "as far as I know."

 

[L.T. Fan]

Government not recognizing marriage doesn't mean that the courts stop dividing property or whatnot.

Courts are a governmental process married or no.

 

[townsend]

Well, like I said "as far as I know."

Right. Sorry if that came off too dickish. So would you disagree with the SCOTUS on those verdicts?

 

[Smitty]

Courts are a governmental process married or no.

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.

 

[Smitty]

Right. Sorry if that came off too dickish. So would you disagree with the SCOTUS on those verdicts?

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."