Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Enjoyed hearing an analysis of the two decisions by my old Constitutional Law professor, Irwin Chemerinsky (now dean of the UC Irvine Law School).

While this may be considered a double win by headline, the court did so in the most narrow and potentially harmful way.

DOMA still stands as law - only the provision denying federal benefits to same sex couples (if entitled to such benefits under state law) was struck. This essentially kicks the issue back to the states for the continued, drawn-out fight. It would have been far better to overturn the entire act and validate SSM on a nationwide basis.

Prop 8 was a far worse decision as it failed to address SSM. Rather than affirming a lower court decision striking the law down as unconstitutional, the court merely stated that the parties who challenged the decision lacked standing. Still no direct validation of SSM.

Now, while you may enjoy the result in this case, the Supreme Court's decision has a potentially negative impact on future initiatives. In essence, if the majority of people pass a law by initiative (usually done because the party in power refuses to address an issue), the people who bring the initiative to the people lack the ability to defend the initiative in court. Let's say the newly passed initiative is challenged in court - the party in power can elect to not defend the initiative and the people who brought the initiative lack standing to challenge a court's ruling.

If Jerry Brown had made a feeble attempt to defend Prop 8, SCOTUS may have arrived at a broader, more conclusive decision.
 
nbcrusader said:
Prop 8 was a far worse decision as it failed to address SSM. Rather than affirming a lower court decision striking the law down as unconstitutional, the court merely stated that the parties who challenged the decision lacked standing. Still no direct validation of SSM.

Now, while you may enjoy the result in this case, the Supreme Court's decision has a potentially negative impact on future initiatives. In essence, if the majority of people pass a law by initiative (usually done because the party in power refuses to address an issue), the people who bring the initiative to the people lack the ability to defend the initiative in court. Let's say the newly passed initiative is challenged in court - the party in power can elect to not defend the initiative and the people who brought the initiative lack standing to challenge a court's ruling.

If Jerry Brown had made a feeble attempt to defend Prop 8, SCOTUS may have arrived at a broader, more conclusive decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they couldn't cobble together a Prop 8 majority on the merits maybe this is a better track, but that seems like an awfully ominous development for initiatives. In my home state of Washington they've basically become corporate initiatives, so I'm wary of how much they represent The People, but if the ostensible principle is advancing those interests, the powers that be shouldn't be able to silently shut it down even if they lose.
 
So, is it legal in California, or in a few months?

In about a year in addition to California, it'll probably be legal in Hawaii, Oregon, & Illinois. Possibly Michigan. And by then it'll be legal for half the population, possibly a slight majority?

It's actually likely now that it could be legal nationwide by 2018 or 2019.
 
PennyLanePHINS said:
So, is it legal in California, or in a few months?

In about a year in addition to California, it'll probably be legal in Hawaii, Oregon, & Illinois. Possibly Michigan. And by then it'll be legal for half the population, possibly a slight majority?

It's actually likely now that it could be legal nationwide by 2018 or 2019.
Click to expand...


i could go look it up, but i think it will be legal in CA in a matter of weeks -- just as long as it takes for the state government to get it together.

CA is major. it's 40m people, the 7th (?) largest economy in the world, and the most important state in the US.

right now, the capitol (DC), the biggest city (NYC), and the biggest state (CA) all have marriage equality.
 
PennyLanePHINS said:
So, is it legal in California, or in a few months?

In about a year in addition to California, it'll probably be legal in Hawaii, Oregon, & Illinois. Possibly Michigan. And by then it'll be legal for half the population, possibly a slight majority?

It's actually likely now that it could be legal nationwide by 2018 or 2019.
Click to expand...
That might be a little optimistic. It may go like MLK Jr Holiday where the last few hold out states are boycotted.
That boycott seems a lot more legit than the MLK holiday boycotts.
 
Nate Silver ‏@fivethirtyeight 31m

By August, about 600m people worldwide will live in states/countries with gay marriage vs. about 300m a year ago.

We're in the exponential phase of growth right now
 
.
Chief Justice Roberts - Let the states decide gay marriage.

WASHINGTON—After months of deliberation, the U.S. Supreme Court opted today to leave the ultimate decision on whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry in the more than capable hands of states such as Texas, Alabama, and Georgia. “As to the issue of gay marriage itself, we will not interfere with the individual commonwealth’s authority to fairly and competently dictate its own laws in these matters, seeing as states such as, for instance, Georgia have time and again proven themselves eminently adept at making the fairest and most reasoned of decisions,” said Chief Justice John Roberts of the state where sodomy laws were fiercely enforced until federally overturned in 2003. “Though the court’s ruling will delay the recognition of gay marriage on a state-by-state basis, the nation’s homosexuals should rest easy knowing that their freedoms and right to the pursuit of happiness lie within the famously rational and egalitarian legislatures of states such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida, Montana, Utah, and West Virginia.” Roberts added that “who better” to have final authority on signing equal rights legislation into law than the likes of Jan Brewer, Rick Perry, and Scott Walker.
Click to expand...
 
Loved this.

1044248_10151518582634998_964068945_n.png


And this is great - Tasmanian Upper House passes gay adoption bill - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 
When I saw yesterday's headline - I thought about many of the posters here at Interference, those on both sides of the gay marriage issue. While my own conscience does not accept the concept of gay marriage, as I believe it is ultimately a Sacrament and not a mere legal expression - I do feel this will help homosexuals being treated equally before the law as individuals, and that is a good thing.

btw - I can't believe I saw nbcrusader's name a few posts back...
 
Wow, great to see some old friends back in FYM. I hope God has smiled on you these past few years.

Re: DOMA.

Some of us long ago realized that government benefits accorded couples had to be given to all couples which is why we recognized the need for civil unions. So I have no problem with that portion of the ruling. But government benefits and the definition of marriage are two separate issues. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage as the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage so equal protection does not apply to how the states or citizens wish to democratically construct their marriage laws (which the court kinda affirmed except when that princible stood in the way of their desired outcome). Also, the federal government is well within its rights to define marriage as it feels necessary for the purpose of federal law. There is nothing unconstitutional about a federal definition restricting marriage to one man and one woman. There is, however, something unconstitutional about benefits, or penalties, administered in an unequal way.

Even as some states legalized SSM the federal government was under no obligation to change its definition although at some point it might become prudent. For example, if California and Vermont adopt a law that allows dogs and cats to be accepted as dependents for state income tax purposes is the federal government obligated to accept dogs and cats as dependents on a federal 1040? Er, no. As of Wed the federal government now recognizes a form of marriage that 30+ states do not. How is that any less unfair to those states than states with SSM thought the law was until 2 days ago?

What should have happened is the people seek redress from their elected officials to CHANGE the law. This is how a Constitutional Republic works. The courts should be the last option and their intervention only sought when enumerated constitutional rights are being violated.
So I’m actually happy that gay couples will receive equal protection under the law. But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition, now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.


Justice Antonin Scalia got it right.

“To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions … In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “disparage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history.

“It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.”
Click to expand...

So five judges redefine marriage for the country... just as drawn up at the Constitutional Convention I'm sure. Could be worse, in California just one clown in a robe had the honors.
 
INDY500 said:
Some of us long ago realized that government benefits accorded couples had to be given to all couples which is why we recognized the need for civil unions. So I have no problem with that portion of the ruling. But government benefits and the definition of marriage are two separate issues. There is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage as the Constitution is silent on the issue of marriage
Click to expand...

definitions. definitions. definitions.

Do you work for Merriam Webster? Is it the cost of printing new dictionaries that bothers you so much?

Who gets to define it anyway? Are you Christians claiming ownership over marriage as you do morals?

Either way, it doesn't even matter anymore. You lost. Maybe go micro for a while. Be sure to post pictures of the rivers of blood running through your streets whenever that happens
 
INDY500 said:
so equal protection does not apply to how the states or citizens wish to democratically construct their marriage laws
Click to expand...

I assume you believe the court overstepped with Loving vs. Virginia as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
LuckyNumber7
U2 Catalog: Results Here
2 3
Replies
71
Views
4K
LuckyNumber7
LuckyNumber7
LemonMelon
Desert Island X: Group 3 Listening Thread
2 3 4
Replies
110
Views
5K
cobl04
cobl04
LemonMelon
Desert Island X: Master List and Discussion Thread
3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
9K
cobl04
cobl04
jeevey
Pleasure Based Sex Education- is it insane or sensible?
Replies
9
Views
845
cobl04
cobl04

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom