Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

scardeal wrote: I'm going to have to disagree with everyone here. The whole point of enshrining marriage in law is to have a social structure which unite children with their mother and father. The tax benefits, joint filing, attorney privileges, etc. all stem from that paradigm of protecting any children that may result from the marriage. The rest is peripheral. Adults are adults, they should be able to handle themselves. Kids need to be protected. The attitude that it's all about the adults is completely missing the point.

The historical point of marriage was more in line with private agreements between families. Mostly the contract allowed for the tracking of assets and their disposition. For most of history, children fell into the property category. What made the U.S. different from most other places is that we took the view that people were free - not property of the state, a monarch or others (well, except for that whole slavery thing...).

Also, definitions and usages change.

It seems to me that the idea of THE definition of marriage is absurd. There are probably as many definitions of marriage as there are people married. Many will have common similarities, but the reason one person chooses to marry will be different from another.

The reasons my fiancee and I got engaged has nothing to do with raising children. For various reasons, we will probably never have them. In this country, I currently have the freedom to define for myself what my marriage will mean. However other people define their marriages now or have defined them in the past does not influence the freedom to self determine my own life now.

I support it all. LGBT people are humans. In my estimation, that means they have human rights just like us less-queer folk.

As someone who is licensed to perform marriage ceremonies in all 50 states (and someone who has performed same-sex unions) I say that its inevitable. People used to think that Polyester was satanic, the automobile would just lead to trouble, and that traveling faster than the speed of sound was impossible.

Well, polyester is kinda satanic, but the rest was inevitable and hasn't caused armageddon.

I would love for nothing more than for the government to not recognize marriage/civil unions at all. Gay, straight, who cares? As has been said, why do we give tax breaks to married folks? Folks with kids? And any number of other things unrelated to taxes. I don't imagine the SCROTUS to be able to pull off abolishing any mention of marriage in our federal law, but second best would be to treat people all the same- whether by choice or biology, anyone ought to be able to get married.

I often think that my second marriage will be to my best dude friend. A completely heterosexual married male couple. Tax benefit, no berkeleying with my E36 M3, and a like minded human to spend your life with.

While I don't understand homosexuality (well, to be fair, I fully understand it when women are involved... men are yucky...), I completely support those who are homosexual. "The gays" are human beings, and they deserve to be treated as such.

Additionally, it is neither my place, or any government's place to mandate who can and cannot be "married". They aren't hurting anyone, just making each other happy. Too many damn people in the world have their noses in other people's business.

Maroon92 wrote: Too many damn people in the world have their noses in other people's business.

Hey! No reason to get graphic. What they do in their bedroom is their business

I support the right to gay marriage. I have multiple close family members in committed relationships that have been together for as many as 50 years.

HOWEVER, I do not support the current approach to the issue (neither do my gay family members). The vast majority of the rhetoric revolves around their "rights" (which have NOT been established), what seems "fair" (which is particularly ridiculous when it comes to the government), people's prejudices (on BOTH sides),false assertions and ignorance about existing laws and governmental roles, or the false claim that they are "2 consenting adults and it doesn't effect anyone else".

There is a gross lack of informed understanding, and not much more than a bunch of emotional gobbledy-gook from BOTH sides.

Starting point- the Federal government does not have the Constitutional power to define marital rights. Marriage is defined by States, and it is the Federal government's job to enable recognition of State granted marital statuses in other states and at the Federal level.

Secondarily- unlike race, creed, gender, age, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not a Federally recognized nor protected status.

Third, fourth, fifth....never mind. There's a lot of foundational factual stuff we are just skipping over in pursuit of our emotional warm fuzzies and selfish opinions of how we think the world should work.

curtis73 wrote: Well, polyester is kinda satanic, but the rest was inevitable and hasn't caused armageddon.

Duh. If armageddon comes, wearing polyester, it will melt to your skin. Cotton. Just like at lapping days.

In reply to Cone_Junky:

Exactly......which is why i agree with it. They want the same rights the others have, that's fine......if they try to use this to seek lawsuits against organizations that refuse a ceremony, then I have a problem with it.

SVreX wrote: Secondarily- unlike race, creed, gender, age, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not a Federally recognized nor protected status.

That's a complete question of itself.

Having it not recognized or protected- that means you can be denied a job because of it. We already see that you can be denied normal estate passing rules (since that's at the core of the 3/27 arguments).

Would you be ok if your kids were denied a place in public college due to their sexual orientation? And it be fully legal?

How is sexual orientation so different? They are people, too.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: Exactly......which is why i agree with it. They want the same rights the others have, that's fine......if they try to use this to seek lawsuits against organizations that refuse a ceremony, then I have a problem with it.

I could have been deined to be married in a Catholic church since I'm not. It's their church. That's legal.

Justice of the peace, on the other hand...

curtis73 wrote: I support it all. LGBT people are humans. In my estimation, that means they have human rights just like us less-queer folk. As someone who is licensed to perform marriage ceremonies in all 50 states (and someone who has performed same-sex unions) I say that its inevitable. People used to think that Polyester was satanic, the automobile would just lead to trouble, and that traveling faster than the speed of sound was impossible. Well, polyester is kinda satanic, but the rest was inevitable and hasn't caused armageddon.

True, true, and true.

I don't care one damn bit what anybody does as long as it doesn't interfere with my bank account or my drive to work in the morning.

alfadriver wrote:

SVreX wrote: Secondarily- unlike race, creed, gender, age, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not a Federally recognized nor protected status.

That's a complete question of itself. Having it not recognized or protected- that means you can be denied a job because of it. We already see that you can be denied normal estate passing rules (since that's at the core of the 3/27 arguments). Would you be ok if your kids were denied a place in public college due to their sexual orientation? And it be fully legal? How is sexual orientation so different? They are people, too.

It's putting the cart before the horse.

It's a little like telling slaves they can be married before granting them citizenship, or even status as humans.

Would their marriage mean anything?

OK, it's not quite like that, but you get my point.

You know, I was going to comment that, when we lived in California, I used to live up the street from a lesbian couple who had a great little family. Then I got home and my wife told me that one of them is one of the litigants in the Prop 8 case! Wow. Small world.

SVreX, I understand what you're saying, I think, but hasn't the court already ruled on marriage as a right? I didn't research it, but I'm pretty sure I saw it somewhere - probably during the civil rights movement.

Though I did hear the case you're making argued today in the DOMA case. I think Kennedy was saying DOMA could be struck down because the Federal Government has no business telling states what is or isn't marriage.

My guess is DOMA is done, and they'll figure out a way to pass the buck on Prop 8.

Svrex (Paul. My brutha.) I really, really, really don't get your point. At all. Can you help me?

Yeah, found this with a quick google. I think they'd have a hard time saying it isn't a right, given previous rulings. And it seems like it would be a tough putt to deny something they called a "right" to a specific group of people. I don't know that they can rule that Prop 8 is legal, but really don't see them striking it down. Roberts seems very opposed to anything that can be considered "legislating from the bench". He and the conservative wing will be reluctant to over-turn a state law, but will probably not see a good legal argument for doing anything else. I heard lots of discussion yesterday about weather or not they should be hearing the case in the first place. Is there a way for them to rule "we dunno right now"? I'm not sure.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Yeah, found this with a quick google. I think they'd have a hard time saying it isn't a right, given previous rulings. And it seems like it would be a tough putt to deny something they called a "right" to a specific group of people. I don't know that they can rule that Prop 8 is legal, but really don't see them striking it down. Roberts seems very opposed to anything that can be considered "legislating from the bench". He and the conservative wing will be reluctant to over-turn a state law, but will probably not see a good legal argument for doing anything else. I heard lots of discussion yesterday about weather or not they should be hearing the case in the first place. Is there a way for them to rule "we dunno right now"? I'm not sure. http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/f/Is-Marriage-a-Civil-Right.htm

I am not questioning whether marriage is a civil right. It is.

I am asking whether gay marriage will have the same protections as inter-racial marriage without a similarly supportive ruling like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which was the predecessor to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the teeth behind it). Your link proves my point.

All citizens do not have the right to marry. You can't marry your sister, mother, or grandfather. You can't marry a minor, or a married person. All consenting adults do not have the right to marry. You can't marry a non-citizen for the purpose of them obtaining permanent residency.

The Federal government passed laws recognizing blacks as citizens, then they inherited rights associated with their citizenry. It was not left to States to decide independently. If it had been, every "right" could have been individually attacked. Essentially, they were first granted the "right to be black".

The Federal government has failed to define any "right to be gay". Therefore, the States can (and WILL) continue to fight over every little detail and perceived "right" (none of which will have Constitutional protection at the Federal level). It is in the politician's best interest to keep us arguing.

My 2 uncles have been in a committed partnership for 54 years. They want to get married, but won't, because they have properties and assets in 2 states with contradictory laws. They will be denied privileges they currently have if they "marry" in one state in a manner that is illegal in another.

Without a Federal recognition of the "right to be gay", there will always be discrepancies, disagreements, and confusion between state laws. That's the way Washington wants it.

Gay marriage is political slight of hand, and we're all suckers who have taken the bait. It gets everyone to "look over here", while the Federal government dodges the responsibility to take a stand and pass real laws (or Constitutional amendments) determining whether sexual orientation is a protected classification of people.

Hum. I think I follow you, but I'm not sure.

For instance, I have a civil right to get married. The state says I can't marry Bob.

"Why, State, can't I marry Bob? It's my civil right as a citizen of this country."

"You can't marry Bob because you are a Man."

"What about Jane? Can Jane marry Bob?"

"Yes, Jane can marry Bob."

"So, Jane can marry Bob, but I can't, simply because of my gender?"

"That is correct. Jane has a right to marry Bob that you do not have because of your gender."

"But, State, my civil rights are protected from discrimination based on my gender."

"Well, that's up to the Supreme Court, now, isn't it?"

Something like that.

SVreX wrote: The Federal government passed laws recognizing blacks as citizens, then they inherited rights associated with their citizenry. It was not left to States to decide independently. If it had been, every "right" could have been individually attacked. Essentially, they were first granted the "right to be black".

It wasn't the "right to be black". It was recognizing them as citizens, as you just said. The gay people in question are already citizens. They do not need to be granted that basic recognition.

My 2 uncles have been in a committed partnership for 54 years. They want to get married, but won't, because they have properties and assets in 2 states with contradictory laws. They will be denied privileges they currently have if they "marry" in one state in a manner that is illegal in another.

I see this as a strong example of why this is a Federal issue, and not just a state one. The problem isn't so much that states do not want to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It is that states do not want to recognize marriage licenses granted by other states. In my mind that flies directly in contradiction to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Take something simple like just paying taxes. If a couple gets married in one state where it is legal and joint files their taxes there one year, what then happens if they move to a state that refuses to recognize that marriage? They file federal taxes individually? But the federal government hasn't changed their status, only the state has.

Teh E36 M3 wrote: I often think that my second marriage will be to my best dude friend. A completely heterosexual married male couple. Tax benefit, no berkeleying with my E36 M3, and a like minded human to spend your life with.

SVreX wrote: Secondarily- unlike race, creed, gender, age, disability, etc, sexual orientation is not a Federally recognized nor protected status.

Since I don't understand what your reply was, I'm going to re-ask based on this point. As I said, it's an important point.

What if you or your family were denied permission to do something- say go to a college for your son, or you were denied a grant to build a series of experimental proerpties- purely on the idea that you are straight?

Don't tell me it can't happen it can. Perhaps very unlikely that it will happen, since straght people make up the majorty of society.

But if one is allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, then it would be perfectly legal to deny you stuff based on you being straight.

Is THAT right?

Remember, denial of rights to minorities goes both ways.

You can be denied voting if you lived in a majority gay community, and it would be legal. Your kids could be denied scholarhips or admissions to schools in the same community, and there would be no legal protection for you. You could be fired for being straight, and the union reps couldn't help.

That seems very far from right to me.

In reply to Beer Baron:

Yes, the big difference is in the citizenship issue. My example was not perfect in this respect. But I think you are seeing my point.

Their citizenship is not in question or at risk. But their status as a married couple is because the fact that the Federal government does not recognize their classification as gay individuals brings into question whether they have the right to marry.

If their classification is "child", not legal. If their classification is "family", not legal. If their classification is "married", not legal. If their status is "gay", not sure.

The Federal government already permits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Why? They are citizens, aren't they?

The "why" is because the Fed does not recognize their status.

The Fed has the authority to override state laws permitting polygamy because it recognizes the unique protected status of individuals who are married, and you can't go marry a second person and give away some of your wife's rights as a married person.

Without a Federal recognition of their status, the Fed can't override inappropriate or contradictory state laws. There is no basis to do so.

Don't get me wrong- it's gonna happen. Gay marriage will be legal in most states soon. But the Fed will remain confused, and the de facto status won't change the fact that it will be on shaky ground at the Federal level, therefore at risk to legal challenges.

The first question we answer should be, "Are we Ok with gay people?" If we are, then the rights and privileges due them follow automatically (like race, or disability).

Instead, we are asking, "Should we allow gay marriage?", but we've actually never answered the first question. If we are not Ok with gay people, allowing them to marry is irrelevant.

I think most of the US has already answered we are OK with gay people. They are people and citizens of this country. If your point is that we should instead of discussion on gay marriage be pushing for federal recognition of sexual orrientation as a protected status your being strange about it.

I feel it is within the constitutionall rights of the federal govt to extend the existing rights to marry for Same sex couples that exist in 9 of the states to the other 50. Illinois is required by law ro honor the marriage licence Vermont issued my aunt and uncle. This is a federal authority. They should be required by law to honor the marriage licence issued to my aunt and aunt as well. Furthermore I feel that because of the fact that states have shown an inability to honor this right consistently the federal government should make the changes necessary to compel states to issue and honor marriages between two individuals otherwise meeting the requirement to wed. I don't think most people don't discuss the states vs federal aspect or the discrimination aspect of it because it doesn't mater. Most people feel that homosexuals should not be descrminated against and have all legal rights of heterosexuals. If the process of ensuring that is so requires changing some laws so be it. If gays must become federally protected let's do that like yesterday.

SVreX wrote: But their status as a married couple is because the fact that the Federal government does not recognize their classification as gay individuals brings into question whether they have the right to marry.

But it does recognize gender, and as I pointed out, a right is being denied one person that would be granted to another based only on gender.

Regardless, you don't have to be in a protected class to demand your civil rights. I have a right to free speech. If the police detain me because they didn't like what I had to say about the Governor, my rights are being violated. I don't have to prove discrimination to protect my rights.