Same Sex Marriage Before the SCOTUS

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

I know that if someone is fired, they can't sue claiming to have been discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. Well, they can, in many states, but there is no federal law.

But I don't think that means that they can be denied their civil rights. An officer can't search their home wtihout a warranent because they are gay. They can't be convicted of a crime without due process because they are gay. Obama can't kill them with a drone because they are gay. The first question isn't 'are we okay with gay people'. Some people don't like, I dunno, redheads. Doesn't mean you can strip them of their civil rights. Again, because the issue isn't proving discrimination. There's nothing to prove. Prop 8 isn't some kind of Jim Crow law that pretends to be fair, but in reality is not. It's very clear about singling out a group of people and denying them a specific right. You don't have to prove the intent of the law, it's written down in so many words. There's no question before the court "will this unduely impact homosexuals?" Uh, yes, it will. That's the point of the law.

Datsun1500 wrote: ...but equal rights because who you have sex with? I don't get it. If you are Black or Female, I can see it and discriminate against you because of it. I have no idea who you are having sex with if you don't tell me so why do you need protection?...

I think a gay couple would ask the same question:

"Why do I need protection because of who I sleep with? That is no one else s business, and they don't need to know."

And yet, they do. They don't want "certain" or "special" rights, they just want the rights that others have.

(obviously more convoluted they that, but it is a basic issue)

Datsun1500 wrote: If you are Black or Female, I can see it and discriminate against you because of it. I have no idea who you are having sex with if you don't tell me so why do you need protection?

That's exactly the point I'm making. It isn't a discrimination issue, and therefore they don't need to be in a protected class. As I pointed out, the state of California says I can't mary Bob, but Sally can. The only reason they say I can't is because of my gender. Aircooled is exactly right. They aren't asking for any special protection, only to be given the same rights as everyone else. Prop 8 denies specific citizens a specific right that other citizens have.

Marriage is a whole lot more than who you sleep with. This is about them wanting equal rights in tax, childrearing, medical access, retirement etc etc. The who you sleep with bit was resolved years ago when it was de-criminalized

People can get married in ALL 50 states to someone of the Opposite gender.

People can get married or equivalent in 9 states to someone of the same or opposite gender.

50 states recognize the Marriage contract established in any 1 of the other 50 states between Opposite gender individuals. The rights established by that marriage contract are recognized in all 50 states.

39 States will not recognize the Marriage contract issued in the 9 states between people of the Same Gender. The rights established by that marriage contract are NOT recognized in those 39 states.

30 states have state constitutional amendments refusing to recognize marriages between same sex partners.

Tell me there is no discrimination or federal consitutional issue here.

I realize the DOMA makes all this hunky dorry and happy constitutionally. . But it was once legal to have slaves also and women could not vote by Constitutional decree.. Times change..

If Indiana or any state were to decide they would NOT recognize marriage liscences from any other state and issue a constitutional amendment saying as much they would get slammed by the Federal government for not recognizing what they are required by law to recognize.

Step 1 seems to be repeal DOMA or rule it unconstitutional. this would then enable/compel the federal government to act on forcing all states to recognize the Same Gender marriages issued by the 9 states invalidating 30 states constitutional amendments. They probably could also at this time fairly easily force all 50 states to issue Same gender marriage liscences as well.

nocones wrote: Tell me there is no discrimination or federal consitutional issue here.

To be clear, I do think there is a discrimination issue here and I do believe that, eventually, homosexuals will be a special class protected from discrimination. My only point is that the marrige issue is far more straightforward than that and they don't need protected status to show that they are being denied a civil right others have.

It's not a matter of a granting of special rights, it is a matter of not specially revoking rights we otherwise regard as universal.

And while it's often easier to see that someone is racially different from yourself, it's about as easy to determine whether someone is gay as it is to determine that they are Lutheran. They can tell you, or if you live nearby or work with them, it may be difficult not to find out, which shouldn't matter anyway.

Regarding the exclusions on what competent adults can marry, those exclusions seem to be tied to direct conflicts: There are clear genetic or contractual reasons for those not to happen; inbreeding and conflict with an existing marriage contract, specifically. While some people have objections, I don't see there being any similarly clear reason to exclude marriage between people of the same gender.

I agree with you. I don't think it's really an issue of Descrimination at this point however I think that may be the Lever used to move this.

I find this particular area interesting becasue it's the whole idea of Majority rule. Our country is founded on personal freedom and honoring that. It's founded on allowing All people to have the same opportunities and experiences. Simply becasue 1 group of people do not have the numbers to overwhell majority rule is not what this country is about. If gay people are 10% of our population that 10% need to be respected, and have the same rights issued to the other 90% even if the other 90% don't agree. That is what bothers me so much about when this issue is put to Popular vote. It's not about what I think is right/wrong, moral/imoral. Our laws are generally very open and accomodating and tend to only restrict individual rights when it impacts other peoples rights. I fail to see ANY concrete evidince how allowing same sex couples to have the right to be married in any way shape or form infringes on the rights of opposite sex couples or single individuals in our society. I therefore see no reason at all for there to be laws on the books restricting the rights of that 10% or so of society that may wish to become involved in same sex marriage contracts. The fact that most of the "majority" use morality and religion to be against it is just sad. IMHO What is going on now would be the same thing as trying to pass a law restricting the rights of any recognized minority and should be dealt with in the same way any attempts to do that would be dealt with.

In reply to nocones:

Agreed.

We shouldn't need to spell out specifically who cannot be discriminated against, but apparently we do. And IMHO, this is clearly one of those times.

SVreX wrote: 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).

That's not the correct question to ask. If that's the measure, I'm sure history would answer "are we ok with black people" differently vs. the Consitution.

It's not a question of approval, just basic equality.

Again, if we are all ok with being dicriminated based on who we sleep with- then that's what will be accepted. denying rights to non straight people can be quickly turned around back onto straight people, and it would be "legal'.

A lot of morality, religion, and science were used to justify race based discrimination. Sure seems like most are the exact same arguments, and hold the same lack of water.

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

Although I think we aught to protect LGBT on a federal level the way we do race, gender, and religion, that does not necessarily have to be what the supreme court has to face right now.

They don't have to make it about recognizing the status of people as homosexuals, they only have to make it about recognizing the legal documents issued by another state. It doesn't even have to be a "this is discriminatory" judgement.

As a crude analogy: let's say a state decides that drivers under the age of 18 are dangerous behind the wheel and does not want 16 or 17 y.o. drivers on the road. They can certainly change their state laws to not issue drivers licenses to 16y.o. drivers. Let's say someone from the next state over gets their license at age 16 and decides to drive through that state. That state can not say that they will not recognize that drivers license, and impound the car and fine the 16y.o. kid for driving with a legal license. The state must recognize that legal document issued by another state even if they would not have issued the same document.

The federal government recognizes these legal marriage licenses. Do same sex married couples file taxes jointly? The government has recognized the license. It seems that it would be entirely in the power of a federal court to say to the states, "You do not have the power to invalidate a legal document issued by another state that the federal government recognizes."

It doesn't even have to be about being homosexual. The laws do not say that homosexuals can not get married. A gay man and a lesbian could legally marry each other in all 50 states. They just can not marry someone of the same gender. By that standard it is about gender (which is a protected status) as much as it is about sexual orientation. Legalizing same-sex marriage opens the door to marrying a best friend hetero partner for the sake of legal privileges and protections, but seeking all your romantic relationships outside of the marriage. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find opposite gendered marriages of convenience.

For another analogy it's much like how interracial marriages were illegal. Black people could get married. White people could get married. They just couldn't get married to each other.

Same-sex marriage is, by far, the most important issue of our generation - even more important than having others to pay for our free access to birth control. War, terrorism, and taxation are laughable matters compared to the tragedy of two or more men who are in LOVE being unable to commit to each other unless they have a government-issued license. Without a license, how could they demonstrate their LOVE to the rest of the public in front of Chick-Fil-As across the country? It is, after all, their right as human beings.

The reactionary blowhards are predictably reacting to it by saying that once gays can marry, life on earth will be finished. It is a scientific fact, however, that their opinions don't matter.

Since LOVE is all that is sufficient for the courts to define same-sex marriage as a "right," this necessitates the creation of the position of a LOVE Czar (LOVE is to be spelled in all caps, at all times).

This LOVE Czar will decide if two or more consenting adults sufficiently LOVE each other through a lie-detector test, before granting a marriage license. The amount of LOVE needed to pass the test will depend on how large the backlog of applications is. Apparently, a waiver for cultural or religious exemptions from the LOVE Act will have to be added, lest it puts a damper on arranged marriages.

No such waiver will exist for tax payments: whether you LOVE or HATE taxes, you still have to pay them.

Everyone knows that since the beginning of time, the U.S. Constitution has stated that anyone who LOVES each other has the right to marry and vote Democrat. Until today, however, there hasn't been a court intelligent enough to make a correct translation from the Constitution's archaic language to prove that the Founders believed in same-sex marriage. It is becoming increasingly obvious that we must modernize this little book written by Dead White Males who couldn't even predict what would come after muskets.

Fortunately, the process of legalizing same-sex marriage state-by-state is getting progressively democratic. First the public gets to vote on same-sex marriage and comes out overwhelmingly against it. Then activist gay groups appeal the results before a court of select progressive individuals, who overturn the popular vote. It is the only fair way to do it.

Although separation of church and state is generally encouraged, same-sex marriage calls for an exception. It has always been a bit of a problem that the rights described in the Constitution don't include marriage, while the Declaration of Independence states that rights are "endowed by our Creator." The obvious solution is to hijack the conservative Bible's marriage commandment and change it into a constitutional right. We wouldn't be having this problem if we had a living, breathing progressive Bible that can be molded and shaped by governments, depending on what currently useful groups want to marry each other.

Commandments_Revised.jpg This is how it works: first a progressive government determines the rights, then the Creator endows them.

All it takes for us to be endowed by our Creator with the right of same-sex marriage is to demand via emails, Facebook, and Twitter that our Creator ordain same-sex marriage in his commandments.

God's commandments could be re-written in any number of ways:

*If anyone asks why birth control is needed within a homosexual relationship that precludes procreation, call them a racist and run away.

If your wish is to marry more than three people, the commandments are open to modifications. Think of the possibilities! Never mind how bizarre it sounds to demand religious rights from a religion you don't believe in. It's no weirder than if George W. Bush had claimed to receive a mandate for waging war from the pacifist Buddha.

Since God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter how we change what he supposedly said. Everyone knows that the Bible is a fictional story pieced together by different authors over hundreds of years. It's time for a New Bible, pieced together by progressives.

The facade of "equality" won't fabricate itself. We must manufacture it with same-sex marriage and other smokescreen issues that take everyone's focus off the economy. It is the only way to keep the blame on Bush and off of Obama and his flip-flopping on the issue.

Use your and your dead dog's votes, comrades! Vote for #marriageequality!

And if that doesn't work, take it to the courts.

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/love-czar-for-marriage-equality-and-biblical-alterations-t10916.html

I think nocones should run for office.

Lots of thought going into this thread, proving once again that the GRM community is a great bunch of folks.

Edited: well, for the most part...

uhhmmm... OK.... that's quite a rambling and bizarre statement you found there. I am not even entirely sure what they are arguing for there, which is kind of important in an argument, so I will give it a fail.

I have to say, some of the anti arguments I have heard are rather entertaining in a somewhat scary sad kind of way. I heard one someone popular radio fellow (who seems to think he is pretty "great") go through some long convoluted legal argument based on the precedent of sodomy laws. I am not sure he ever considered the absurdity of a sodomy law to begin with, especially for a guy who talks about keeping the government out of peoples business in every other sentence.

I do like the rather interesting point someone made above about how a lesbian and a gay man are perfectly OK to marry.

um wow...

Today sodomy laws seem silly. I agree with that. Really I am pretty libertarian with what I think people should be able to do legally even if I personally think they shouldn't. Yet the 'but' in sodomy laws is this. Back when many if not most of those laws were passed there was legit and very much not 'absurd' reason for the laws, namely health risks and disease. I ain't trying to be hateful or gross with that. Just pointing out that at one point there was legit reasons and the laws were not discriminatory in regards to gender.

An strong argument can be made now that those health risks don't pose a problem to the public anymore only effecting those involved, and while it isn't a cause I am going to extend my support for, I can agree with and accept the argument.

Now. The love czar. LOL. Yeah. That cracks me up. Excuse me if I am not open minded enough to conform to the apparent majority opinion around here.

Seriously. Why can't three be married. How does that hurt you?

Should we stop 'discriminating' against gay men who wish to donate blood?

ronholm wrote: Should we stop 'discriminating' against gay men who wish to donate blood?

I started to post a long reply, but then realized I don't have an answer. That ban was started back when everyone thought about HIV as a 'gay' disease. I just got done looking at the CDC statistics on HIV. There are groups that are higher risk, statistically (read those numbers, the differences are profound) but we're not going to ban donations based on other high risk categories (e.g. race and gender.)

Maybe the best answer is to make sure that we continue to test ALL blood, but to enhance the safety by using the VERY best possible tests that detect the virus directly instead of tests that wait for people to develop antibodies. http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/aids/facts/questions/testing.htm

I don't know the statistics, but my guess would be yes.

Aids is certainly not restricted to gay men, and all gay men certainly don't have aids.

Regarding the justification for sodomy laws: That is an interesting angle, but I am highly suspicious the health issue is simply a secondary justification. The primary reason seems to clearly be Christian standards. The likely reasoning behind those standards are also pretty silly.

My suspicion the reason why Christianity doesn't want sodomy is the same reason they don't want gays... it doesn't make more Christians. One of the reasons why Christianity has be come so widespread compared to other religions is that it has very aggressive "growth" and "marketing" plans.

The medical reasoning behind the anti-sodomy laws is pretty light anyway. It's not fun reading, but most of the dangers appear to be mechanical in nature. Some of the dangers are the same as the standard method. It's certainly worse, but there are also certainly more pressing social medical issues you can make laws for. It's not like the ancient Greeks were dropping right and left from all the improper "fun" they were having.

And hey, no hate for what you believe. I think these things are a great test for those who truly believe in personal freedom and freedom from government oppression. It is a very interesting fact that many that claim that will adamantly side against the subject... shame on them... history will probably not reflect on well on them.

ronholm wrote: Should we stop 'discriminating' against gay men who wish to donate blood?

Giving blood isn't exactly a protection or privilege, and their "right" to do so can very easily conflict with the rights of someone else. We do not discriminate against gay men receiving blood.

Also, the Red Cross is reevaluating that policy and potentially looking to have it rescinded: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/06/health/gay-men-blood-ban

When gay friends of mine saw this news they were all saying, "Finally we are looking at getting rid of a policy that discriminates against gay men." I had to tell them, "No you idiots, this is bigger news than that. It implies that the rate of HIV infection for gay men is dropping to be comparable to that of heterosexuals."

Beer Baron wrote:

ronholm wrote: Should we stop 'discriminating' against gay men who wish to donate blood?

When gay friends of mine saw this news they were all saying, "Finally we are looking at getting rid of a policy that discriminates against gay men." I had to tell them, "No you idiots, this is bigger news than that. It implies that the rate of HIV infection for gay men is dropping to be comparable to that of heterosexuals."

Check the CDC stats I linked to above, especially the table for new infections. It may be dropping (I don't know) but if so....just look at the stats.

My guess is that the biggest danger is donations from people who are recently infected and don't know it, and that the policy is based on preventing blood donations from those people. (Those who are infected and aware of their status probably won't try to give blood.)

JoeyM wrote: Check the CDC stats I linked to above, especially the table for new infections. It may be dropping, but......

Ouch. Yup, still way higher rate than heterosexuals. In any case... donating blood and getting married are two very different things.

Giving blood isn't exactly a protection or privilege, and their "right" to do so can very easily conflict with the rights of someone else. We do not discriminate against gay men receiving blood.

Marriage isn't a "Right" either...

And just give it time... It doesn't matter that the group as a whole is at MUCH higher risk for carrying and transmitting a plethora of things...... It just doesn't...

Statistics which suggest things of that nature are "homophobic" and "bigoted"...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011-12-05/Federal-policy-blocks-many-gay-men-from-blood-donation/51650544/1

"It is clear discrimination … written into policy," said Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign in Louisville. "It's a continued vestige of the fear and prejudice that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community face."

Beer Baron wrote:

JoeyM wrote: Check the CDC stats I linked to above, especially the table for new infections. It may be dropping, but......

Ouch. Yup, still way higher rate than heterosexuals. In any case... donating blood and getting married are two very different things.

So... Thinking I might have been being a bit of a homophobic bigot Joey takes the time to look at some numbers... and then oh damn...

and Beer Baron does the same thing... Now you are just bigots like me... Ya'll are now just one of those persons who isn't a good person, or whatever is being suggested in a previous post...

Now... Back to the Sodomy laws... What a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom can effect me and you... Hence the reason for the laws... Some people would just knee jerk and assume nasty things about Christians... Or whatever.. (Like is stated in posts previously in this thread...) And I can't argue they don't have at least the beginnings of a valid argument.. Yet the fact remains.... Especially within a historical context that what happens in the bedroom can cause harm to those outside that 'privacy"

And we are not JUST talking about HIV...

Now... With modern science the laws may or may not be outdated... My cause here is simply for folks to understand the origination of those laws may not have been simply from a place of bigotry, "unfairness", and old time Christians hating on people who were different..

It's not like the ancient Greeks were dropping right and left from all the improper "fun" they were having.

Actually they were.... Look it up...

So now that the government can dictate what insurance companies can charge.... and are now allowing insurance companies to almost arbitrarily raise the rate on groups like smokers... What about other groups who put themselves at high risk?

If you are going to make the argument I must pay for the healthcare of everyone because it is their right... Damnit... now you force me into a position where their health becomes my interest... and the group we are talking about is HIGH RISK!

... Then this right here sets me off...

And hey, no hate for what you believe. I think these things are a great test for those who truly believe in personal freedom and freedom from government oppression. It is a very interesting fact that many that claim that will adamantly side against the subject... shame on them... history will probably not reflect on well on them.

What a bogus argument... This is progressive bullying... And on top of that it reduces personal freedom, and freedom from government oppression down to some notion of sexually liberal people are somehow more free.... Yeah... I know... You are going to try and claim that I am reaching here.. But I am not..

"Sexual liberation" is more often a tool of oppression, than a useful for Freedom.

But I digress...

I have a more serious question... and I know in the context of this discussion it is very trite and will feel like an attack on those supportive of universal marriage.... But I still must ask...

First let me throw this out there...

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to - that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

Honestly... If we as a society deem that two men can marry.. Or two women... WHY NOT three men... Or a man and three women... Or whatever...

I honestly don't understand why you would think you can open the institution of marriage to whatever feels "equal" today and not universally allow adults to marry whomever they want... The litmus test here for gay marriage seems to be that they love each other and should have the same "rights".... Why isn't it possible for multiple people to engage in this same love?

Mormons even today face real discrimination and persecution over this.... People imprisoned.... Cities burned to the ground.. People were killed on a large scale..

I sincerely don't understand. What makes a homosexual union more worthy than a plural marriage? What standards, or what gives you the right to judge in such a manner???

I am really not trying to be a jerk...

Can anyone explain to me using same standards by which many of you judge me a bigot, why is it you think two women shouldn't have the right to marry one man?

Why is it your business what they do in their homes?

ronholm wrote: Seriously. Why can't three be married. How does that hurt you?

The legal ramifications of a three-party marriage are much further reaching than those of a two-party marriage of any sort. Things just are not set up to handle that right now. That alone will keep it from happening any time soon.

That said, I'm not sure there is any moral reason why it shouldn't happen.

Also, in before lock.

ronholm wrote: Ya'll are now just one of those persons who isn't a good person, or whatever is being suggested in a previous post....... .......I am really not trying to be a jerk...

Wow, looks like he has something to say eh? I have to say I find your initial approach a bit disingenuous. Perhaps the next time you involve yourself in a discussion you can actually state your point rather then play some silly game. You do seem to have become a bit angry though. I am really amazed how angry this subject can make people (real end of the world stuff for some).

Regarding the general health interest of outlawing sodomy: Some points:

• You seem to be ignoring the health risks of tradition woopie.

• Are you assuming all gay men perform sodimy? Because I am no expert, but I am pretty sure that is not true. I am sure can relate to why some might not be too into that no mater where there gender attractions lie.

• What about lesbians? I am guessing sodomy is pretty uncommon there. Does this make them a bit more reasonable to marry? They do seem to get lumped into the subject by some for some reason.

I am of course assuming a bit above that you also feel sodomy is a good reason to prevent gay marriage. You must forgive me this if this is not true though since it is pretty obvious by your initial posts that you have been less then clear and perhaps honest in your position.

Regarding multiple marriages? I am pretty sure at this point your question is less then genuine. Does living under a bridge ring a bell with you. Despite your obviously baiting question, no I really don't see much of a moral issue there. It may be there but I don't see it.

Well, this thread was going along pretty good.... Not sure it will survive this though.