Supreme Court to Decide Gay Marriage Nationally.

[The Thriller]

But it is still different. When I hear marriage I do not want to guess if it is between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or maybe transgender and transsexual. Why not to have defined meaning?

Why does that matter?

I honestly don't follow this line of thinking. I could care less whether the married couple next door is male or female or 2 trannies.

To me, it indicates a certain level of commitment for two separate individuals. When I get married no one need to concern themselves with who I'm married to. All they need to know (if anything at all) about my relationship is that me and my partner are committed to one another.

So I can care less what my neighbor's race, ideals, religion, or sexuality is none of my concern as long as they are obeying the law and not blasting music when I'm trying to sleep... And keep their dogs from taking dumps on my lawn.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

My bold prediction is that the SC ends marriage discrimination.

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so I have no idea how this will play out.

That said, I really hope you're right, but with the composition of this court, I have no faith in it, and I fear for the outcome. This is, after all, the same Court that decided that corporations are people (under the bizarre theory that money doesn't necessarily corrupt politics), that corporations can dictate (or at least constrain) its employees' reproductive health care choices, and that restrictive rules ostensibly to protect against voter fraud (but enacted for the express purpose of limiting the vote among poor people of color) can be justified.

One thing that perhaps might swing this is a realization among court members that IF they vote against marriage equality, history will one day view their decisions in a similar light that it views the Taney Court's Dred Scott decision.

 

[Dr. Jones]

State sovereignty does not include sovereignty on constitutional issues. The constitution is the document that unites all the states and all of them and their laws must be in congruence with the constitution. The way I understand the issue is that SCOTUS will decide precisely this question - is it constitutional for states to ban marriage or not. It is either constitutional or not and it doesn't matter what their personal feelings about it are or what the feelings of the people in respective states are. If they decide that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, that means that no state would be able to decide for themselves, just like no state can decide whether you have the right to free speech or to own guns. If they decide that it is not unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, then the state sovereignty kicks in and every state will have the right to make their own mind about what laws rule their gay marriage or if they will recognize the marriage of people coming from other states, etc...

Here's an article about it from SCOTUS Blog:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/court-will-rule-on-same-sex-marriage/

I said that in my OP. (Re: the sovereignty issue)
Except I still think they don't rule definitively on the issue.

 

[LogGrad98]

Again, it matters who those 0.00005% of people are. When it comes to human rights, it's MUCH better to let the 0.00005% most qualified decide than let the majority dictate. When it comes to human rights, majority decision is one of the worst ways to decide, especially when considering the rights of a minority.

Hitler was voted in by a majority. Yes, I Godwin'ed this sucker.

 

[moevillini]

I am not American and I could care less but to me it looks like matters like that should be decided by nation wide referendum and not by a small group of politicians or lawyers.

generally speaking, that's not how it works in the US - individual states hold referendums on these issues, there is no "national" referendum

So far 36 states have approved gay marriage, in 3 of those states it was approved by vote of the residents, in the rest either by court order or by the state legislature - - but in those, there was an advisory (non-binding) referendum where the public voted and the court or legislature followed the wishes of the majority

https://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857

 

[moevillini]

But it is still different. When I hear marriage I do not want to guess if it is between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or maybe transgender and transsexual. Why not to have defined meaning?

as thriller said, why would it matter? if there is a discussion on the topic involving specific people, wouldn't you know who those people are? and assuming you know who they are, you would know their gender, right?

and if you don't know them, why would it matter to you?

 

[moevillini]

I said that in my OP. (Re: the sovereignty issue)
Except I still think they don't rule definitively on the issue.

again, my non-lawyer interpretation...

it's going to boil down to a decision between the 10th amendment (states rights, enumerated powers clause)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and the 14th amendment (equal protection clause)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

My guess (prediction?) is that the 14th amendment is going to trump the 10th in this instance.

 

[LogGrad98]

So when will they repeal the laws against polygamy I wonder? After this then multiple gay marriage is the next Frontier.

 

[The Thriller]

So when will they repeal the laws against polygamy I wonder? After this then multiple gay marriage is the next Frontier.

One can only hope...

 

[Gameface]

So when will they repeal the laws against polygamy I wonder? After this then multiple gay marriage is the next Frontier.

If it weren't for anti-Mormon bigotry it would never have been illegal in the first place.

 

[Stoked]

So when will they repeal the laws against polygamy I wonder? After this then multiple gay marriage is the next Frontier.

If consenting adults want to enter into a polygamous relationship then more power to them.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Stop shoveling you gay down my throat. I am so sick of the gays pushing this into my face.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

If consenting adults want to enter into a polygamous relationship then more power to them.

Polygamy is not consent. Normal adults do not enter polygamy, ever. It is shameful this state allows and promotes polygamy communes.

 

[Stoked]

Polygamy is not consent. Normal adults do not enter polygamy, ever. It is shameful this state allows and promotes polygamy communes.

The polygamy I am talking about is not what is going on in Hildale (and now all over since they scattered)

Keep on speaking for all adults, I am sure that will continue wqorking out for you.


Cheers troll

 

[fishonjazz]

Polygamy is not consent. Normal adults do not enter polygamy, ever. It is shameful this state allows and promotes polygamy communes.

Did you miss the part of stoked post where he said consenting adults?

If consenting adults want to enter into a polygamous relationship then more power to them.

 

[♪alt13]

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so I have no idea how this will play out.

That said, I really hope you're right, but with the composition of this court, I have no faith in it, and I fear for the outcome. This is, after all, the same Court that decided that corporations are people (under the bizarre theory that money doesn't necessarily corrupt politics), that corporations can dictate (or at least constrain) its employees' reproductive health care choices, and that restrictive rules ostensibly to protect against voter fraud (but enacted for the express purpose of limiting the vote among poor people of color) can be justified.

One thing that perhaps might swing this is a realization among court members that IF they vote against marriage equality, history will one day view their decisions in a similar light that it views the Taney Court's Dred Scott decision.

It isn't all bad

You should note that this ruling applied to labor unions as well. You should also remember that when they are talking about corporations they are not just talking about wall-street monstrosities. For instance, most nonprofit organizations are corporations. Another way to look at it is that they ruled that congress does not have the power to limit the political spending of associations of people. Prior to this ruling individuals like the Koch brothers and privately held companies were already virtually unrestricted in the amount of money they could spend in their attack ads. Now teachers unions, hospitals, and public corporations enjoy the same freedom to run political ads as the individually wealthy. The 2002 Mccain-Feingold Act (which was what was in question) could be seen as a tool for the politically powerful and the individually wealthy to control the conversation.

Yes oil companies can spend whatever they like now but their CEOs and wealthy shareholders were already spending incredible amounts of money to protect their interests. Political ad spending has been shown to have diminishing returns. If you weren't convinced by the first billion dollars worth of ads you're unlikely to be convinced by another billion. Most members of the ACLU or the Teamsters simply do not have the kind of money, as individuals, to even get started. Now that those organizations are free to run their own independent ads their voices will be more easily heard.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-campaign-finance-reform

 

[Stoked]

Did you miss the part of stoked post where he said consenting adults?

He didn't miss it. Just didn't fit with his attempt to troll.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So when will they repeal the laws against polygamy I wonder? After this then multiple gay marriage is the next Frontier.

probably never. Canada has already dealt with that 'obstacle'.


homosexual marriage =/= polygamy. Facile comparison.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Did you miss the part of stoked post where he said consenting adults?

There is less consent in polygamy then Elizabeth Smart consented to her prophets orders. Two women cannot naturally consent to one man. This is not possible.

 

[[size/HUGE] boobs [/size]]

Poll: Does anybody know a couple where husband had a live in girlfriend also?