Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

Okay, I know this is a fairly political topic and potential flounder bait, so let's try to keep this civil and if the mods feel like locking it, I totally understand.

Today the Supreme Court hears the first of two days of verbal arguments over whether it is constitutional to ban same-sex marriage. Whichever way this turns out, it will be significant.

Information on what's going on that seems to carry a minimum amount of opinion: http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/25/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-questions/?hpt=us_c2

I really hope they overturn these laws. I have quite a few LGBT friends, many in deeply loving committed relationships, that I want to see have the opportunity for the rights, privileges, and protections of marriage. In particular I think of a lesbian/trans couple who are currently civil-unioned. They have been together for nearly 15 years now. Their relationship has weathered being away for college and studying abroad, not to mention a MtoF transition. That's true love like I've rarely seen.

If it is not overturned... I'm not sure. I suppose that does not necessarily put additional roadblocks in the way of same sex marriage. It will just be a significantly longer fight; particularly in the case of CA Prop 8, since as a proposition it can only be overturned by a court decision or another proposition, and not by the legislature.

10:1 they argue that the proponents of prop 8 do not have legal standing to agree the case and they kick it back down to the lower courts decision effectively putting everything back in Limbo again. California can issue licenses but no precedence is set.

I am not entirely sure how they can legally just quash the whole thing when ~57% voted for the proposition. Its a state issue not a supreme court issue.

Personally I hope it gets struck down in a manner that gives other states the ability to use it as precedence.

SCOTUS sounds like SCROTUM

I have no other observations at this time.

The whole thing makes no difference to me. I can't see why two consenting adults can't do whatever strikes their fancy, but on the other hand, is a state recognised marriage really such a big deal anymore?

The only part that I see as a concern has happened up here a couple of times, when a gay couple wanted to get married in a civil ceremony, but the JP refused based on his personal beliefs. I can take both sides there- the JP should be able to stand his moral ground, but if his moral stand goes against the law of the land, should he still be a JP?

Beer Baron wrote: Okay, I know this is a fairly political topic and potential flounder bait, so let's try to keep this civil and if the mods feel like locking it, I totally understand.

I already feel like locking it. (Not because of you, but because of what it will eventually become.) Nevertheless, carry on.....

Leaving my personal feelings aside. It is an issue that was voted on by an individual state and passed by the citizens of that state. It is an issue that is not addressed in the Constitution, so presumably, states rights will win this one. SCOTUS will either dismiss it, or decline to hear the arguments. If the citizens of CA want it overturned, they will have to vote on it again.

I fully support the rights of anyone to marry, and live in one of the 9 states where it's legal. To deny them that right disenfranchises them of equal standing amongst other couples including in filing tax returns, health car, other insurance coverage, and rights involving children. Not to mention the ridiculousness that is forcing a religious belief upon another people! I have a niece that is openly gay and in the military (also about damned time).

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: SCOTUS seem like an ingrown hair on a SCROTUM I have no other observations at this time.

FTFY

Streetwiseguy wrote: The whole thing makes no difference to me. I can't see why two consenting adults can't do whatever strikes their fancy, but on the other hand, is a state recognised marriage really such a big deal anymore?

I think it makes a big difference to people from a tax, retirement, insurance, benifits, child rearing point of view. That's what's being argued.

I think the same sex marriage thing is really missing the forest for the trees. If "marriage" is such a religious term(as most of opponents of same sex marriage claim), what is it doing in our laws, which are designed around religious freedom?

<---- My opinion

States shouldn't have the right to trample on basic human/civil rights.

Federal law should override and trump bigoted laws.

wearymicrobe wrote: 10:1 they argue that the proponents of prop 8 do not have legal standing to agree the case and they kick it back down to the lower courts decision effectively putting everything back in Limbo again. California can issue licenses but no precedence is set.

This seems likely since the court seems nervous about setting a precedent. Suspect they do want to absolve themselves of responsibility.

I am not entirely sure how they can legally just quash the whole thing when ~57% voted for the proposition. Its a state issue not a supreme court issue.

This is why we do not live in a Democracy. The will of >50% of the citizens does not get to dictate the rights of the minority. We have courts to determine if laws violate the equal rights of people in this country.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: The whole thing makes no difference to me. I can't see why two consenting adults can't do whatever strikes their fancy, but on the other hand, is a state recognised marriage really such a big deal anymore?

I think it makes a big difference to people from a tax, retirement, insurance, benifits, child rearing point of view. That's what's being argued.

Yup. This. Plenty of circumstantial stories about same sex partners being denied hospital visitation or rights in the case of a partner passing away unexpectedly. Partners who want to adopt and raise children.

There are a lot of rights granted by default when you get a marriage license.

DustoffDave wrote: Leaving my personal feelings aside. It is an issue that was voted on by an individual state and passed by the citizens of that state. It is an issue that is not addressed in the Constitution, so presumably, states rights will win this one. SCOTUS will either dismiss it, or decline to hear the arguments. If the citizens of CA want it overturned, they will have to vote on it again.

Not exactly. The government recogizes marriage in many ways- taxes, visitation, ownership, parenting, etc. You check marital status and how you are filing on your federal tax forms. So marriage is a federal issue.

Being a Republic, that gives the rights of the individual a higher priority than the will of the public.

A state can't use a public vote to ban interracial marriage, right? It would be a federal violation. This is no different than that.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I think the same sex marriage thing is really missing the forest for the trees. If "marriage" is such a religious term(as most of opponents of same sex marriage claim), what is it doing in out laws, which are designed around religious freedom?

Hey, somebody gets it.

In government, civil unions for everyone. Marriages are for the church.

My 2 cents on the subject. I'm all for that.

I fully support gay marriage. Finally the man can get the house in a divorce.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I think the same sex marriage thing is really missing the forest for the trees. If "marriage" is such a religious term(as most of opponents of same sex marriage claim), what is it doing in out laws, which are designed around religious freedom?

Our laws are not designed around religious freedom. They are designed around the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit or Happiness. Religion is just one aspect of that. Creating a personal commitment (Marriage) to another person is also part of that. Marriage is not inherently religious.

HiTempguy wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I think the same sex marriage thing is really missing the forest for the trees. If "marriage" is such a religious term(as most of opponents of same sex marriage claim), what is it doing in out laws, which are designed around religious freedom?

Hey, somebody gets it. In government, civil unions for everyone. Marriages are for the church.

I used to think that, and I do like that a lot better and think it is a much better system than what we currently have in this country.

I think it should be "marriage" though, because that is not a religious term. It just means a joining. You marry a cart to a horse. You marry an engine to a transmission. You don't need to call in a Priest or a Rabbi to bless them when you do. Additionally, "marriage" is what other countries around the world recognize. So if you travel abroad or relocate, your "marriage" will be recognized where your "civil union" may not.

Marriage existed within religion long before laws were ever conjured about the subject.

The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. As it is, we discriminate against single people by giving married couples more rights and lower tax rates.

Religous freedom also only goes so far.

You can't violate someone else's rights in the name of religious freedom. No slavery, no denial of voting, no denial of guns, etc. which moves into another hot button item.

But you can't use one part of the constitution for you to deny other parts of it. If we did, when will we allow human sacrifice back into practice?

Beer Baron wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

Kenny_McCormic wrote: I think the same sex marriage thing is really missing the forest for the trees. If "marriage" is such a religious term(as most of opponents of same sex marriage claim), what is it doing in out laws, which are designed around religious freedom?

Hey, somebody gets it. In government, civil unions for everyone. Marriages are for the church.

I used to think that, and I do like that a lot better and think it is a much better system than what we currently have in this country. I think it should be "marriage" though, because that is not a religious term. It just means a joining. You marry a cart to a horse. You marry an engine to a transmission. You don't need to call in a Priest or a Rabbi to bless them when you do. Additionally, "marriage" is what other countries around the world recognize. So if you travel abroad or relocate, your "marriage" will be recognized where your "civil union" may not.

Let the church have Holy Matrimony, since that's what they really call it.

Civil union being the same as marriage is separate but equal, and we know that doesn't fly.

wearymicrobe wrote: ....I am not entirely sure how they can legally just quash the whole thing when ~57% voted for the proposition. Its a state issue not a supreme court issue. Personally I hope it gets struck down in a manner that gives other states the ability to use it as precedence.

I believe the idea it is a basic rights issue. Kind of like if a state made it illegal for blacks to vote. Doesn't matter if a majority does not want it, it is a right (this one of course is not quite as obvious in the Constitution).

The marriage / state / church thing is a big issue here though. It has be made very clear this has NOTHING to do with religious marriage, it is simply a set of right assigned to life long (well, supposed to be) partners.

The inappropriate inter-tangling of this issue with religion and sex is the primary problem I see when it is argued.

From what I know, domestic partnerships / civil union is not legally equivalent to marriage. If it was there really would not be an issue.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: SCOTUS sounds like SCROTUM I have no other observations at this time.

SCOTUS sounds like a medical term for the stuff a doc scrapes from your colon. Other than that, I'm staying out of this.

DaveEstey wrote: Marriage existed within religion long before laws were ever conjured about the subject. The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all. As it is, we discriminate against single people by giving married couples more rights and lower tax rates.

Marriage existed outside religion before holy books were penned. Marriage has existed across all peoples, cultures, and faiths.

Marriage is a social construct, not a religious one. We see it as tied to religion because religion is also very closely tied to culture and tends to record and codify cultural practices.

I am just going to add that I am for equality. Growing up with gay and lesbian family and friends, I feel they all deserve to have the same rights I do.