Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[EmperorNapoleon]

You could, as Olsen correctly rejoined, ask the same questions about Loving or Brown.

Indeed, and as Olsen also noted, marriage is an individual right not a societal right. Also of note is that Cooper based his argument on the idea that marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals because the purpose of marriage is procreation but, when questioned by Kagan, admitted that prohibiting marriage to heterosexual couples on the grounds that they could not or would not procreate would be unconstitutional; effectively undermining his own argument.

 

[seakelp]

You apparently didn’t listen to Scalia…he stated when Loving & Brown became unconstitution…after the 14th amendement was placed in the constitution.

Then presumably the answer to **Justice **Scalia’s question would be the same.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I find no compelling arguments for gay marriage.

The 1st argument concerns allowing gays to enjoy so -called “spousal benefits”. Two gays can go to a lawyer to sign a contract similar to a co-habitation agreement entered into by many unmarried couples. They can open a joint bank account, register properties in their names jointly and name each other beneficiaries in their wills. None of these require a marriage license or even a civil union (I’m not completely sure what the difference is between a civil marriage or a civil union, to be honest-but civil unions seem to offend fewer people apparently).

The 2nd argument states that if gays can marry, society will magically accept them. I’m sorry, but in South Africa gay marriage has existed since at least 2007 and violence and intolerance towards gays is still widespread -far worse than in the US (and no, I am not advocating violence or prejudice against homosexuals. All human beings deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I just don’t see the point of gay marriage).

 

[JimG]

You could, as Olsen correctly rejoined, ask the same questions about Loving or Brown.

Yes, the Court decided in those cases that there was nothing about skin color that made dissimilar treatment necessary. Marriage could occur regardless of skin color. It will be rather remarkable if the court now decides that when it comes to marriage, sexual perversion is identical to marital relations for legal purposes. It may well be coming, but the consequences will be severe.

 

[seakelp]

Yes, the Court decided in those cases that there was nothing about skin color that made dissimilar treatment necessary. Marriage could occur regardless of skin color. It will be rather remarkable if the court now decides that when it comes to marriage, sexual perversion is identical to marital relations for legal purposes. It may well be coming, but the consequences will be severe.

I don’t think the court is going to hold broadly for marital equality. And I agree, it would be a mistake. The definition of marriage is a matter for each state to decide

That’s why I think DOMA is unconstitutional, as well.

 

[Dawnia]

I was rather intrigued by Justice Scalia’s question as to ‘when did prohibiting same sex marriage become unconstitutional?’

In other words, was same sex marriage not a constitutional right 13 years ago but it’s constitutional now? What caused it to appear in the constitution and wnen? I don’t believe it did. If the Court is going to make it a constitutional right, it will have to be manufactured ex nihilo.

I’m surprised that the lawyer didn’t have an answer for it. If gay marriage is a constitutional right, when did it become so? Which amendment made it that way? And he couldn’t answer that.

The judges didn’t seem to go for the idea that it was a constitutional right. Or that civil unions are a “seperate but equal” issue.

But, you never know. I feel kind of sorry for the Fed’s lawyer…he got hammered. They didn’t like anything he said.

 

[JimG]

I’m surprised that the lawyer didn’t have an answer for it. If gay marriage is a constitutional right, when did it become so? Which amendment made it that way? And he couldn’t answer that.

The judges didn’t seem to go for the idea that it was a constitutional right. Or that civil unions are a “seperate but equal” issue.

But, you never know. I feel kind of sorry for the Fed’s lawyer…he got hammered. They didn’t like anything he said.

I’m no Constitutional lawyer, but I just find it odd that everybody seems to argue around the periphery of the issue. What are men and women for? Why is there marriage? Why has there been marriage since the dawn of civilization, and never same sex marriage? Are marital relations between man and woman identical to relations between same sex couples? Do they serve a societal purpose? Really? Did anyone enter this book into their amicus brief?

 

[seakelp]

I’m no Constitutional lawyer, but I just find it odd that everybody seems to argue around the periphery of the issue. What are men and women for? Why is there marriage? Why has there been marriage since the dawn of civilization, and never same sex marriage? Are marital relations between man and woman identical to relations between same sex couples? Do they serve a societal purpose? Really? Did anyone enter this book into their amicus brief?

Because that’s not a question of law. The court decides questions of law, not policy.

These issues of federalism in a constitutional government are extremely important, as are the standing issues.

 

[JimG]

Because that’s not a question of law. The court decides questions of law, not policy.

These issues of federalism in a constitutional government are extremely important, as are the standing issues.

So the question of law is then, whether a State may restrict marriage to opposite sex persons?

Such a question would not even have been raised or asked 20 or 15 years ago. How then, can it be a matter of constitutional right? If it wasn’t in the Constitution 20 years ago, does it get it now just by fiat of the Court, even though the Constitution has not changed?

Is there a precedent for redefining opposites to mean the same thing?

 

[seakelp]

So the question of law is then, whether a State may restrict marriage to opposite sex persons?

The questions are: “Whether it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment for a State to use the ballot-initiative process to extinguish the state constitutional right of gay men and lesbians to marry a person of the same sex.”

Such a question would not even have been raised or asked 20 or 15 years ago. How then, can it be a matter of constitutional right? If it wasn’t in the Constitution 20 years ago, does it get it now just by fiat of the Court, even though the Constitution has not changed?

Of course. And in the early 20th Century it would not have been asked whether bans on interracial marriages are constitutional.

As to your second question, I’ll quote the Great Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Is there a precedent for redefining opposites to mean the same thing?

Not that I’m aware of.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Such a question would not even have been raised or asked 20 or 15 years ago. How then, can it be a matter of constitutional right? If it wasn’t in the Constitution 20 years ago, does it get it now just by fiat of the Court, even though the Constitution has not changed?

The same question could be asked of segregation. The question has never really been whether or not the Constitution has changed, but how to apply it to modern institutions and circumstances.

 

[JimG]

The same question could be asked of segregation.

Skin color is the same as sexual practices? It wasn’t until 2003 that anti-sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional. Now the nation if not the court seems to be on the verge of declaring that deviant sex and marital sex are equivalent in all respects.

 

[seakelp]

I thought Justice Alito had the best point:

The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It’s thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society.

Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a – a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.

But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we – we are not – we do not have the ability to see the future.

On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?

 

[rossum]

I find no compelling arguments for gay marriage.

So you prefer “Everything is forbidden except where specifically allowed” to “Everything is allowed except where specifically forbidden”?

The 1st argument concerns allowing gays to enjoy so -called “spousal benefits”. Two gays can go to a lawyer to sign a contract similar to a co-habitation agreement entered into by many unmarried couples.

Which does not grant access to spousal benefits, like health insurance, federal estate tax and many others. It is a “separate but unequal” idea.

I just don’t see the point of gay marriage

Many gays do.

rossum

 

[CaptFun]

Misleading headline of the month:

If Obama was:

• urging that gays merely*** court***,
• and promoted a Gay Marriage Ban …

… that’d be a "whole ‘nother THANG’ wouldn’t it?!

 

[JimG]

I thought Justice Alito had the best point:

JusticeAlito:

On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?

A very good point. But those pushing for same-sex marriage will not, I think, settle for leaving it to the people.

And for that matter, we have progressed already so far down the path to national suicide, that I don’t have much confidence that the people will even vote to stop the slide into chaos. We are like Roman citizens before the fall of the empire shouting, hey sure, send in the Visigoths! We’re all equal here!

 

[seakelp]

A very good point. But those pushing for same-sex marriage will not, I think, settle for leaving it to the people.

Well, I’m one.

And for that matter, we have progressed already so far down the path to national suicide, that I don’t have much confidence that the people will even vote to stop the slide into chaos. We are like Roman citizens before the fall of the empire shouting, hey sure, send in the Visigoths! We’re all equal here!

Haha, well, as colorful as that imagery may be, I’m not sure. I think there’s a lot of opposition to gay marriage. It’s not entirely apparent that gay marriage will become the new normal.

 

[_Abyssinia]

So you prefer “Everything is forbidden except where specifically allowed” to “Everything is allowed except where specifically forbidden”?

Which does not grant access to spousal benefits, like health insurance, federal estate tax and many others. It is a “separate but unequal” idea.

Many gays do.

rossum

I do not support civil unions but they do provide joint health insurance through an employer, tax benefits etc

 

[JimG]

Well, I’m one.

Haha, well, as colorful as that imagery may be, I’m not sure. I think there’s a lot of opposition to gay marriage. It’s not entirely apparent that gay marriage will become the new normal.

It’s possible that same sex marriage could still be rejected. But keep in mind it’s already legal in several states. Even if same sex marriage is not approved, the state of marriage remains in dire straits due to contraception, divorce, promiscuity, abortion. Honestly I don’t hold out much hope for our civilization. I think that Arandur in post #10 of this thread about France, gives a pretty good description of where we are.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It wasn’t until 2003 that anti-sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

And corporations weren’t people until 2010.