Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ggamer]

soon we'll just go back to OG Protestantism and see the pope as the antichrist

[Ghills]

I love how gay marriage opponents still claim that they're defending the rights of American citizens. "We're ensuring equal protection under the law for ALL Americans... except the ones we don't like." To be honest, I foresee a lot of state governments acting on their own to defy the ruling however they can for as long as is sustainable.

Neither side was arguing for legal equality.  Both sides wanted the law to enforce a specific right and started handwaving about equality as a marketing technique.   One side wanted to stick with the previous legal definition of marriage, one side wanted to expand that legal definition of marriage.  Equality was a smokescreen for both sides.

Genuine equality would be bringing marriage law in line with actual contract law.  Right now marriage has the trappings of a legal contract (a witnessed signing) but not the actual abilities (divorce requires lawyers and a judge, because US law has enshrined so many marriage-only quirks that simple contract dissolution is practically impossible, plus marriage is not treated like other contracts by the government).

Equality would mean treating marriage like any other contract between consenting adults, with the attendant requirements for not-screwing-the-other-party-over and equal opportunity to enter into it.  Instead, there's this mishmash of cultural and religious thinking turned into legal precedent twisted with the current understanding of human rights. 

[Truean]

soon we'll just go back to OG Protestantism and see the pope as the antichrist

That's already old hat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyMCWpzkoyk
http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/12/18/pope-gone-crazy/

Fox News is already going nuts about the gay marriage ruling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMfy6o7PDE&list=RD1iMfy6o7PDE#t=2
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ted-cruz-says-lawless-supreme-211810198.html

[Darkmere]

As someone who lives in one of those backwards-ass ignorant-as-hell bible belt states, I would like to declare that I cannot decide which brings me more pleasure:

a) knowing some good friends of mine are now actually entitled to be treated with decency and legal respect

or

b) watching ... well. All the words that come to mind are impolite... people act like the end times are upon us, while blathering incoherently since for once their opinion isn't in the majority. It's like a psychotic break to some people. I shouldn't be as amused by that as I am, but I had to share with someone who won't try to pick a fight if I even mention it.

Schadenfreude is a hell of a drug.

[Baffler]

-wrong thread-

[Sheb]

Okay, I like destroying families as much as the next liberal, and its great news, but I can't really get where in the Constitution gay marriage is a thing. Can someone point me to a nice summary of the legal reasoning?

[JoshuaFH]

About the gay marriage legalization thing: I read a cracked article that just popped up (rightfully) condescending to everyone whose life it doesn't effect at all, but remain upset for whatever reason. Apparently though, one of the listed condescensions was aimed at people who thought they'd be broken apart from their existing heterosexual relationships and forced to marry homosexually...

...was... was that a real thing homophobes believed? Cause it's hard to imagine a misunderstanding of that magnitude being able to exist and gain traction in any sizable way. 

[Sheb]

Yeah, exactly, it doesn't seems to me the Constitution says anything about it. I take it it's about the Equal Protection clause?

[Darkmere]

One of the biggest issues that gets glossed over is: if you aren't legally married you have no legal connection to that person whatsoever. This goes FAR beyond taxes.

You have no right to determine your partner's medical treatment in an emergency. You have no right to inheritance in the event of an accident. You have no say in any funeral arrangements. No right to health benefits through work insurance the way a spouse does. No rights, no rights, no rights.

You are legally not allowed to care for the person you want to devote your life to.

I'm certain if there were any other way to GET the same rights that hetero couples get to provide basic care for their partners WITHOUT going through this rigamarole, there wouldn't have been as much of an issue... But the system is so socially ingrained that the religious function is legally binding, so there was no real recourse in the matter for people who wanted the same basic rights to care for each other as any hetero couple.

The people up-in-arms about whatever an "institution of marriage" is could have probably gotten what they wanted had they seriously campaigned to get marriage declared utterly separate from legal power in financial and healthcare matters, but separation of church and state is a joke and they're too busy gnashing teeth over who everyone else is fucking.

[Reelya]

Okay, I like destroying families as much as the next liberal, and its great news, but I can't really get where in the Constitution gay marriage is a thing. Can someone point me to a nice summary of the legal reasoning?

That is looking at it the wrong way. The constitution is not a list of things you can do, it lays out a set of things that the government cannot do. If it's not on the list, then it's perfectly legal to pass a law about it. So that means a pro-gay marriage law is perfectly fine unless you can prove there is something in the constitution specifically banning such a law. In this case, the feds can mandate that gay marriage overrides state law in the same constitutional way that federal civil rights law cannot be rolled back by states.

Conversely, it can also be argued that some laws restrict what a citizen can do. In those cases, the right of the government to restrict that behavior must be specifically spelled out in the constitution. Since there is no specifically stated right to ban gays from doing the same things as straights, then any law against gay rights can be challenged because it contravenes other clauses in the constitution about equality in the eyes of the law.

[penguinofhonor]

I found a relevant bit from Justice Kennedy's majority decision, which is 103 pages long and very dry. Here's a comparatively short section where he explains how this is a Fourteenth Amendment issue:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution. That responsibility, however, “has not been reduced to any formula.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 542 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Rather, it requires courts to exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect. See ibid. That process is guided by many of the same considerations relevant to analysis of other constitutional provisions that set forth broad principles rather than specific requirements. History and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries. See Lawrence, supra, at 572. That method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.

The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” The Court reaffirmed that holding in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384 (1978), which held the right to marry was burdened by a law prohibiting fathers who were behind on child support from marrying. The Court again applied this principle in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 95 (1987), which held the right to marry was abridged by regulations limiting the privilege of prison inmates to marry. Over time and in other contexts, the Court has reiterated that the right to marry is fundamental under the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., M. L. B. v. S. L. J., 519 U. S. 102, 116 (1996); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632, 639–640 (1974); Griswold, supra, at 486; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923).

Also look at all those citations. Judges like their citations. There is a lot of precedent for the Supreme Court deciding on marriage - I feel like the "this isn't a federal court issue" argument is about a hundred years too late.

[Sheb]

Thanks a lot! I feel kinda ashamed that the miscegenation precedent didn't come to mind. I guess that since I live in a country with a civil rather than common law tradition, I'm not so used to thinking of precedents as stuff that really matter.

[palsch]

I found a relevant bit from Justice Kennedy's majority decision, which is 103 pages long and very dry. ...

That's the full decision, including the four dissents. The actual majority opinion was only 28 pages. Page 40 onwards are the dissenting judges yelling at clouds.

[penguinofhonor]

Oh, that makes more sense. I stopped reading around page 15 because the legalese started blurring together. I can only handle it in smallish doses.

[palsch]

SCOTUS Blog coverage.

Their opinion analysis.

EDIT: Plain English analysis.