Supreme Court grants gay marriage cases

[bhsup]

I've been thinking more on what Owen posted about them possibly ruling against gay marriage. If that happens, is that going to overturn every single case of legalized gay marriage that is based on court rulings of equal protection and/or civil rights or whatever? Are there any States that have actually legalized gay marriage via legislative action or popular vote?

 

[sophie]

I've been thinking more on what Owen posted about them possibly ruling against gay marriage. If that happens, is that going to overturn every single case of legalized gay marriage that is based on court rulings of equal protection and/or civil rights or whatever? Are there any States that have actually legalized gay marriage via legislative action or popular vote?

I very quickly did a mockup of what the states look like right now:

Green = SSM legalized/legislative bill confirmed by public referendum/initiative
Blue = SSM legalized by state legislature
Gold = SSM legalized by state/federal court ruling

I lumped state and federal courts together. I'm not sure how the SCOTUS decision would effect the state courts. If the bans were reinstated, I'm sure states like California and Massachusetts would overturn them via referendum in the next election cycle.

 

[bhsup]

Good work, thanks. And yeah, I suppose if a State court overturned a State ban for State constitutional reasons, even if the US SC sides against gay marriage, those State decisions would still stand.

 

[sophie]

Well in that case:

courtesy of http://www.defocus.net/visitedstates/generate.html

Red = State Court Decisions
Gold = Federal Court Decisions
Blue = Legislative Decision
Green = Decided/Confirmed by State referendum/initiative

Additionally I missed NV somehow, and also forgot that CA's legislature passed a bill redefining marriage as non-gender specific after SCOTUS opted not to decide either way on the overturn of Proposition 8.

Also Colorado's is kind of weird. Looks like it was initially overturned by the state court and subsequently confirmed by the federal court

 

[Evie]

My will to have a conscious choice in the matter.

What business have you making a conscious choice in what other people do, where it doesn't directly affect you? What right have you, to make a conscious choice who they marry or not? Do I have the right to make a conscious choice who you can or cannot marry, too?

This is beyond ridiculous. Ultimately, there is no individual liberty to impose your way of life on others.

 

[timtofly]

What business have you making a conscious choice in what other people do, where it doesn't directly affect you? What right have you, to make a conscious choice who they marry or not? Do I have the right to make a conscious choice who you can or cannot marry, too?

This is beyond ridiculous. Ultimately, there is no individual liberty to impose your way of life on others.

If that were the case, why allow humans to vote on anything?

It was more of a joke but anyway what choice do you think you have in the matter, may I ask?

My choice is not relevant in the matter. And while the freedom to be a bigot seems bad, taking away a person ability to choose seems a greater evil. If people cannot choose, then they through tyranny can force other people to accept their situation, even though it is pure bigotry or not.

To me, this push for equality is a necessary evil. I exercise the right to vote no if a yes vote is for it. I may vote to keep marriage what it is. I would probably not vote either way if the wording was to ban the marriage, and imo, there are differences in those choices.

I think there are others who do not want the government to be involved in the issue who have no problem with people doing whatever they do. The fact that both sides have made huge issues out of it has not helped either cause. I don't think any one can guarantee that a governmental decree forcing me to accept something I do not desire, would not eventually effect me in one way or the other. As I mentioned, that is not the point.

 

[Evie]

If that were the case, why allow humans to vote on anything?

Because allowing people to vote doesn't necessarily means one needs to give them absolute power.

That's what it boils down to, ultimately. No government should ever hold absolute power over its citizens. It doesn't matter if it's an emperor in his palace or the majority in the voting booths: if a government hold absolute power, it needs to fall. Hence, governments are restrained by individual liberty.

You do have the individual right - the liberty - to participate in your country's government ; but that government must remain limited. If what you want your government to do violates the individual liberties of other people, then the government doesn't have a right to do so, and you don't have the right to make it do so.

The notion that because a democratic government derives from the will of the people it should have absolute power to enforce anything the people want is a dangerous fantasy that will turn any country into a hellhole.

 

[uppi]

I think there are others who do not want the government to be involved in the issue who have no problem with people doing whatever they do.

So you or these others would like to abolish the legal concept of marriage?

 

[timtofly]

Because allowing people to vote doesn't necessarily means one needs to give them absolute power.

That's what it boils down to, ultimately. No government should ever hold absolute power over its citizens. It doesn't matter if it's an emperor in his palace or the majority in the voting booths: if a government hold absolute power, it needs to fall. Hence, governments are restrained by individual liberty.

You do have the individual right - the liberty - to participate in your country's government ; but that government must remain limited. If what you want your government to do violates the individual liberties of other people, then the government doesn't have a right to do so, and you don't have the right to make it do so.

The notion that because a democratic government derives from the will of the people it should have absolute power to enforce anything the people want is a dangerous fantasy that will turn any country into a hellhole.

My point exactly.

So you or these others would like to abolish the legal concept of marriage?

It is tempting. It is too entangled in the legal system for my comfort level. As long as I have a choice in the matter, I will exercise the ability to make that choice, until the choice is taken away from me by others, either on purpose or not.

 

[Evie]

My point exactly.

Not your point, unless you somehow don't think that the government recognizing gay marriages is a vilation of the liberties of thoe who don't want gay marriages anymore.

 

[onejayhawk]

What will be most important from this case is the division of the questions. If SCOTUS wanted to support the bans on gay marriage, they would likely have done so long ago. The cases they are addressing have to do with cases that upheld the bans, so the logical reason is to overturn the bans. The question will be why.

I do not think they will find a human right to marriage. In fact, I think they will expressly find the opposite. There will be language defending a church's right to define marriage as part of their beliefs. Imams will not be forced to perform same sex weddings.

However, equal treatment under the law and full faith and credit are better arguments. The state will have to grant licenses without partiality. State officials will have to execute the ceremonies.

I also see plural marriage being addressed, at least in dicta.

J

 

[timtofly]

Not your point, unless you somehow don't think that the government recognizing gay marriages is a vilation of the liberties of thoe who don't want gay marriages anymore.

My comment was the government enforcing the will of the minority over that of the majority. It seems to nullify the whole voting process. If one wants to say that voting forces the will of the majority over the minority, that is already the point of voting.

I do not see how an elected government can consistently be fair to all, unless opposing ideas were non existent.

 

[JollyRoger]

What will be most important from this case is the division of the questions. If SCOTUS wanted to support the bans on gay marriage, they would likely have done so long ago. The cases they are addressing have to do with cases that upheld the bans, so the logical reason is to overturn the bans. The question will be why.

I do not think they will find a human right to marriage. In fact, I think they will expressly find the opposite. There will be language defending a church's right to define marriage as part of their beliefs. Imams will not be forced to perform same sex weddings.

However, equal treatment under the law and full faith and credit are better arguments. The state will have to grant licenses without partiality. State officials will have to execute the ceremonies.

I also see plural marriage being addressed, at least in dicta.

J

I seriously doubt there will be much on church rights and plural marriages other than terse statements or footnotes about what the cases are not about.

 

[onejayhawk]

I disagree. The right of a church, synagogue or mosquue to decline a couple is fundamental.

Plural marriage is different. Drafting a decision that allows same sex marriage, yet denies group marriage, would be difficult. I do not see it happening, unless it becomes a state decision. The Mormons will theirs.

J

 

[Kennigit]

Plural marriage is different. Drafting a decision that allows same sex marriage, yet denies group marriage, would be difficult. I do not see it happening, unless it becomes a state decision.
J

How?

-K

 

[Berzerker]

You do have the individual right - the liberty - to participate in your country's government ; but that government must remain limited. If what you want your government to do violates the individual liberties of other people, then the government doesn't have a right to do so, and you don't have the right to make it do so.

consent (of the governed) is a limit on government power

My comment was the government enforcing the will of the minority over that of the majority. It seems to nullify the whole voting process. If one wants to say that voting forces the will of the majority over the minority, that is already the point of voting.

Then we wouldn't need a Constitution with a Bill of Rights, just one sentence - Congress shall do what it wants. Can the majority religion ban the others?

I do not see how an elected government can consistently be fair to all, unless opposing ideas were non existent.

equal protection = being fair to all

 

[JollyRoger]

I disagree. The right of a church, synagogue or mosquue to decline a couple is fundamental.

Plural marriage is different. Drafting a decision that allows same sex marriage, yet denies group marriage, would be difficult. I do not see it happening, unless it becomes a state decision. The Mormons will theirs.

J

Neither point is at issue in these cases nor being briefed or argued, so I do not see the court addressing either issue except in a very minor way in passing.

 

[Evie]

consent (of the governed) is a limit on government power

In theory. In practice, it's more about transfering absolute power from the government to a third party.

My comment was the government enforcing the will of the minority over that of the majority. It seems to nullify the whole voting process. If one wants to say that voting forces the will of the majority over the minority, that is already the point of voting.

Yes, it nullifies the voting process, and that's the whole point of it. The voting process is not some absolute ideal. It's a deeply flawed and problematic system, that must by its very nature have limits. That's the hard limit on the voting process, and if you go outside those limits, you're not exercising your rights anymore - you're violating someone else's.

When the majority chose to ignore these limits, their voting process gets nullified.

That's not your individual rights being taken away.

 

[uppi]

It is tempting. It is too entangled in the legal system for my comfort level.

So you would be okay with everybody having their own definition of marriage. Even if that includes marrying multiple people, their siblings or their dog?

 

[warpus]

My comment was the government enforcing the will of the minority over that of the majority. It seems to nullify the whole voting process. If one wants to say that voting forces the will of the majority over the minority, that is already the point of voting.

I do not see how an elected government can consistently be fair to all, unless opposing ideas were non existent.

Do you not know why constitutions exist and why not every single government decision can be put up to a vote?

Do you really want to deny people the ability to get married just because you disagree with the way certain government decisions are made? What if somebody gave away your ability to get married for the same reason?

You seem to misunderstand so many concepts here, I feel sorry for your ignorance instead of getting upset that someone is advocating such hateful rhetoric. I don't think you're being hateful, you just don't get it. And I don't know if that's sad or amusing.