Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby PolakoVoador » Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:28 pm UTC


User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Yakk » Fri Jun 26, 2015 2:51 pm UTC

One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.


User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Yakk » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:26 pm UTC

Clarence Thomas wrote: Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:26 pm UTC

The Queens of the Stone Age had a song about that. Though it was about inspiration, not dignity. And dope, instead of the government.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Lucrece » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm UTC

It's a funny day when Clarence Thomas finally succeeds in stepping out of Scalia's shadow and amps up the asshole factor.

I will say I'm disappointed in Roberts. He had shown just an inkling of hope that he would not be in the same class as the other clowns on some previous decisions...I'll take the 5-4 but I must say it's quite a let down.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:50 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:
Clarence Thomas wrote: Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Wait, didn't he dissent against the ruling?

Is he comparing lack of gay marriage to slavery and internment camps, then saying it should be okay because those were totes legal too?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Mutex » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

In any case, I'm really struggling to see how slaves or people held in internment camps didn't lose their dignity. Sure looks like they did to me.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby duckshirt » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:30 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Is he comparing lack of gay marriage to slavery and internment camps, then saying it should be okay because those were totes legal too?

Wow, you're missing his argument by a country mile.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:31 pm UTC

Twitter Bingo! Five of my American friends have now repeatedly stated "LOOK, I'M TOTES FOR GAY MARRIAGE, I'M NOT A BIGOT OR ANYTHING, BUT I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION!!!! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!" When asked to defend their point, a few of them manage to point to the First Amendment, which either indicates that a) they don't know how to read, or b) they don't realize what the word "amendment" means.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:40 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Yakk wrote:
Clarence Thomas wrote: Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

Wait, didn't he dissent against the ruling?

Is he comparing lack of gay marriage to slavery and internment camps, then saying it should be okay because those were totes legal too?

Thomas is saying that he sees dignity differently from how the majority sees it. According to the majority, dignity is something that can be gained or lost depending on how you are treated. Thomas sees dignity as something that humans have just in virtue of being human. Dignity can certainly be respected or abused - I'm sure he would agree that slavery and internment camps were a violation of people's dignity - but it doesn't go away.

Really this just seems like an ambiguity in the word. "Dignity" seems to mean both of those things depending on context. Thomas is presumably right given his sense of the word, but that isn't really an answer to what the majority says when it uses the word in the other sense. (It's at least somewhat of an answer to say what Thomas says just before, namely that there's no "dignity" clause in the Constitution.) However, we shouldn't take Thomas to be denying that slavery took away dignity-in-the-other-sense-of-the-word.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:00 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:In any case, I'm really struggling to see how slaves or people held in internment camps didn't lose their dignity. Sure looks like they did to me.


Sorry for the horrible formatting

The excerpt is from a long objection to part of the argument that "dignity" was an unwritten part of "liberty" where he objected that dignity does not and can not come from the government, that it's something you intrinsically have as part of being a human being.

Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of
Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests
instead that it comes from the Government. This
distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text,
it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in
our Republic. I cannot agree with it.


He talks at length about some of the technicalities and history of the interpetation of "liberty" but I'm going to summaries with this snippet:

In the American legal tradition, liberty
has long been understood as individual freedom
from governmental action, not as a right
to a particular governmental entitlement.


He maintains that the constitution only bans preventing people from holding marriages (religious) but does not require the government to provide a particular service or recognition.

note: in one of the footnotes he argues that the reason the bans on black/white marriage were unconstitutional was that the government was actually punishing people for holding marriages(religious) and living married-style lives rather than an a right to legal recognition of marriage from the state.

To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a
natural right to marriage that fell within the broader
definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to
governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would
have included a right to engage in the very same activities
that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making
vows, holding religious ceremo
nies celebrating those vows,
raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of
one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the
founding, such conduct was understood to predate government,
not to flow from it. As Locke had explained
many years earlier,



yadda yadda yadda, constitution is "thou shalt not", not "thou shalt provides".

The majority’s “better informed under-standing of how constitutional
imperatives define liberty,” and —better informed, we must assume,
than that of the people who ratified the Fourteenth
Amendment—runs headlong into the reality that our
Constitution is a “collection of ‘Thou shalt nots,’”
Reid v. Covert, 354 U. S. 1, 9 (1957) (plurality opinion), not “Thou
shalt provides.”



will probably impact other areas of law as it opens the door to more “Thou shalt provides.” style things in future.


The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of
liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects
of our constitutional order that protect liberty



Then there's a long block where he objects to implying there's an unwritten right to dignity on the basis that it's not something the state has the right to bestow or take away regardless.

Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually
involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority
goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will ad
-
vance the “dignity” of same-sex couples.


(footnote 8)
8
The majority also suggests that marriage confers “nobility” on individuals.
Ante, at 3. I am unsure what that means. People may choose
to marry or not to marry. The decision to do so does not make one
person more “noble” than another.
And the suggestion that Americans
who choose not to marry are inferior
to those who decide to enter such
relationships is specious
(/footnote 8)


Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually
involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority
goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will
advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples.

The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the
Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it
did, the government would be incapable of bestowing
dignity.
Human dignity has long been understood in this country
to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration
of Independence that “all men are created equal”
and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all
humans are created in the image of God and therefore of
inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which
this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity
cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not
lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity)
because the government allowed them to be enslaved.
Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity
because the government confined them. And those denied
governmental benefits certainly
do not lose their dignity
because the government denies them those benefits. The
government cannot bestow dign
ity, and it cannot take it
away.
The majority’s musings are thus deeply misguided, but
at least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of
the persons the majority demeans. Its mischaracteriza
-
tion of the arguments presented by the States and their
amici
can have no effect on the dignity of those litigants.
Its rejection of laws preserving
the traditional definition of
marriage can have no effect on the dignity of the people
who voted for them. Its invalidation of those laws can
have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to
adhere to the traditional definition of marriage. And its
disdain for the understandings of liberty and dignity upon
which this Nation was founded can have no effect on the
dignity of Americans who continue to believe in them

*****

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence
before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty,
not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded
from—not provided by—the Stat
e. Today’s decision casts
that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the
majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to
afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible

understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause,
and distorts the principles on which this Nation was
founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences
for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully
dissent.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby duckshirt » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:30 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Twitter Bingo! Five of my American friends have now repeatedly stated "LOOK, I'M TOTES FOR GAY MARRIAGE, I'M NOT A BIGOT OR ANYTHING, BUT I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION!!!! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!" When asked to defend their point, a few of them manage to point to the First Amendment, which either indicates that a) they don't know how to read, or b) they don't realize what the word "amendment" means.

Well, you can't change the constitution without an amendment, which there wasn't. I'm for gay marriage too, but not yet totally convinced that it should have been upheld based on the Constitution. Justice Alito has a pretty long pro-gay record but he voted against the majority today, so I'm not sure.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:37 pm UTC

Wait, what is Alito's pro-gay record?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:46 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Twitter Bingo! Five of my American friends have now repeatedly stated "LOOK, I'M TOTES FOR GAY MARRIAGE, I'M NOT A BIGOT OR ANYTHING, BUT I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION!!!! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!" When asked to defend their point, a few of them manage to point to the First Amendment, which either indicates that a) they don't know how to read, or b) they don't realize what the word "amendment" means.

Well, you can't change the constitution without an amendment, which there wasn't...

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1868 wrote:Section 1. 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.


But what do I know, I'm Canadian.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 26, 2015 11:27 pm UTC

duckshirt wrote:Wow, you're missing his argument by a country mile.

Reading his dissent, he appears to be saying that the government can't actually take away dignity through slavery, internment camps, and refusing to respect marriage licenses, so the "real issue" is apparently the religious liberty of citizens to enact discriminatory laws.

Which seems very not so far from "it's the law that was approved, so it's okay and this whole "fundamental lack of human rights" thing you claim to be suffering isn't really real." That he sets it alongside slavery and internment camps just makes the argument more bizarre.

If you'd like to actually illustrate where I'm wrong...?

Thomas is saying that he sees dignity differently from how the majority sees it. According to the majority, dignity is something that can be gained or lost depending on how you are treated. Thomas sees dignity as something that humans have just in virtue of being human. Dignity can certainly be respected or abused - I'm sure he would agree that slavery and internment camps were a violation of people's dignity - but it doesn't go away.

Really this just seems like an ambiguity in the word. "Dignity" seems to mean both of those things depending on context. Thomas is presumably right given his sense of the word, but that isn't really an answer to what the majority says when it uses the word in the other sense. (It's at least somewhat of an answer to say what Thomas says just before, namely that there's no "dignity" clause in the Constitution.) However, we shouldn't take Thomas to be denying that slavery took away dignity-in-the-other-sense-of-the-word.

That makes sense, but it seems he's being willfully naïve on what the other justices are trying to say. Hell, he even compares this innate dignity to the Declaration's inalienable rights, which...I mean, I can divest someone of their "inalienable right to life" pretty damn easily.

When he summarizes by talking about dignity needing to be shielded from the state, it's hard not to read it as
(1) "Homosexuals don't have the innate dignity to be able to get married, so this decision is the government artificially giving it to them."
(2) "This decision is the government attempting to remove the dignity and liberty of those states which enacted anti-homosexual laws."

I may be very confused, but it seems as if he's enshrining this "freedom (religious ability to vote for discriminatory laws)" above freedom (lack of slavery), freedom (lack of unjust internment), and freedom (ability to marry). It's very bizarre to me.

The majority also suggests that marriage confers “nobility” on individuals. Ante, at 3. I am unsure what that means. People may choose to marry or not to marry. The decision to do so does not make one person more “noble” than another. And the suggestion that Americans who choose not to marry are inferior to those who decide to enter such relationships is specious.

It's hard to not read this as a "gotcha, meaniehead!", but in fairness to Thomas, it's an accurate point.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:13 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:It's a funny day when Clarence Thomas finally succeeds in stepping out of Scalia's shadow and amps up the asshole factor.

I will say I'm disappointed in Roberts. He had shown just an inkling of hope that he would not be in the same class as the other clowns on some previous decisions...I'll take the 5-4 but I must say it's quite a let down.


Roberts' wasn't really being too much of a bigot in his dissent. He wasn't railing against same-sex marriage explicitly (he made a nod towards the fact that he knew many people would be happy by the ruling), he was upset at the process.

That seems to be what a lot of the dissenting justices feel. Many of them seem to think that it's dicey territory for the court to be changing everything by ruling, instead of going through the process of changing everything by voting and legislation.

In that vain, I get what the dissenting justices are saying. The argument isn't invalid... there is a point to worry about a court's majority making sweeping changes to law.

Nonetheless, I feel that today's decision was appropriate anyways.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:15 am UTC

The armchair legal scholar in me hoped that they would have specifically struck down DoMAs as being the blatant violations of the "full faith & credit" clause that they are, but that wouldn't have had as profound of an impact (but would have excited legal nerds).
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby HungryHobo » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:32 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:When he summarizes by talking about dignity needing to be shielded from the state, it's hard not to read it as
(1) "Homosexuals don't have the innate dignity to be able to get married, so this decision is the government artificially giving it to them."
(2) "This decision is the government attempting to remove the dignity and liberty of those states which enacted anti-homosexual laws."


That... isn't even vaguely like anything in the dissent.

What he said is closer to the idea that homosexuals do have the innate dignity to be able to get married (religious) (social) and that any infringement of that would be very unconstitutional but he didn't agree that this put a positive requirement on states to provide legal recognition.

While I don't agree with him I can see where he's coming from and the dissent is more than the thin hate-based parody you'll see on tumbler/facebook posts.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Derek » Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:44 am UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Twitter Bingo! Five of my American friends have now repeatedly stated "LOOK, I'M TOTES FOR GAY MARRIAGE, I'M NOT A BIGOT OR ANYTHING, BUT I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION!!!! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!" When asked to defend their point, a few of them manage to point to the First Amendment, which either indicates that a) they don't know how to read, or b) they don't realize what the word "amendment" means.

That's...not how bingo works. That would just give you a single square. If you want to play Snark bingo, you have to come up with 24 lines that you expect to hear, and place them on a 5x5 board with the middle square free. Mark each square when you hear it and you get a bingo when you have a complete row, column, or diagonal. If you're feeling exceptionally snarky, you can put a line that you absolutely positively without a doubt will hear in the free square, but you'll look like a fool if the free square is never filled.

To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a
natural right to marriage that fell within the broader
definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to
governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would
have included a right to engage in the very same activities
that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making
vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows,
raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of
one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the
founding, such conduct was understood to predate government,
not to flow from it.

This is actually what I believe, but unfortunately we're long past the point of government interference in marriage and it would be extremely difficult to untangle the current system.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Mutex » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:09 am UTC

Derek wrote:
To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a
natural right to marriage that fell within the broader
definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to
governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would
have included a right to engage in the very same activities
that petitioners have been left free to engage in—making
vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows,
raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of
one’s spouse—without governmental interference. At the
founding, such conduct was understood to predate government,
not to flow from it.

This is actually what I believe, but unfortunately we're long past the point of government interference in marriage and it would be extremely difficult to untangle the current system.

So, that would mean the government doesn't recognise of give benefits to heterosexual marriages either?

That seems nice in some ways but would have an impact on inheritance laws. If a man dies and didn't leave a will, how do you decide if the woman he was calling his "wife" gets anything? Guess it means everyone needs to write a will if they want their spouse(s)* to get anything in the event of their death.

* Why not, in this system the only reason to stop this arrangement is in the case on of the parties is being abused, under aged, wrong species etc.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Jun 27, 2015 4:58 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
Lucrece wrote:It's a funny day when Clarence Thomas finally succeeds in stepping out of Scalia's shadow and amps up the asshole factor.

I will say I'm disappointed in Roberts. He had shown just an inkling of hope that he would not be in the same class as the other clowns on some previous decisions...I'll take the 5-4 but I must say it's quite a let down.


Roberts' wasn't really being too much of a bigot in his dissent. He wasn't railing against same-sex marriage explicitly (he made a nod towards the fact that he knew many people would be happy by the ruling), he was upset at the process.

That seems to be what a lot of the dissenting justices feel. Many of them seem to think that it's dicey territory for the court to be changing everything by ruling, instead of going through the process of changing everything by voting and legislation.

In that vain, I get what the dissenting justices are saying. The argument isn't invalid... there is a point to worry about a court's majority making sweeping changes to law.

Nonetheless, I feel that today's decision was appropriate anyways.


Civil Rights in general bother me. They really do, they're about the government forcing people to do something that those people don't want to do. (In this case, treat same-sex marriages as legal). And honestly, the superior choice would be for the individual states to figure out that gay marriage is okay.

Alas, we don't live in an ideal world. And I think there really were homosexual couples who were suffering under the previous interpretation of the law. So... threatening people with the big-stick of government is the only way to get things done apparently. I do think that this is a bit of a "leap" by the Supreme Court to take control of this issue, and I don't actually think its appropriate for the Supreme Court to make major decisions like this. But every time I start thinking down that direction... it would invalidate a lot of legitimate progress this country has made (African American civil rights, Handicapped Civil Rights, and now LGBT issues like this marriage ruling).

So... maybe I'm for the Supreme Court making major decisions only when I agree with it. And despite the "ugliness" of this point of view, I think I'm okay with that. :? :?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Lazar » Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:17 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Civil Rights in general bother me. They really do, they're about the government forcing people to do something that those people don't want to do. (In this case, treat same-sex marriages as legal).

I can understand (though I completely disagree with it) the libertarian argument made against anti-discrimination statutes, because those do indeed compel action by private individuals. But marriage is an institution of the state, and the only people "forced" to do anything new are government functionaries who might not like the fact that they now need to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. To the extent that marriage has a bearing on private business relations, those businesses were already "forced" to recognize every marriage conducted by the state, so their freedom of action has not been changed by this ruling.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Thesh » Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:20 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Civil Rights in general bother me. They really do, they're about the government forcing people to do something that those people don't want to do. (In this case, treat same-sex marriages as legal).


Huh? They're about the government not treating people differently based on race, sex, gender, or any other superficial characteristic. If they were forcing gay people to marry, your argument might make sense.

KnightExemplar wrote:And honestly, the superior choice would be for the individual states to figure out that gay marriage is okay.


Why? Either you believe something should be a basic human right, or you don't. If you do, then "states' rights" should not extend to forbidding that basic human right to certain groups of people. The whole "states' rights" argument is pretty much a cop-out when it comes to civil rights or basic freedom. Hell, if it were up to me, all states would have the same laws and only differ by things that matter at a local level (e.g. managing parks, hunting permits, etc.). When it comes to matters of the law, there is no good reason to have laws differ from place to place (just where certain laws apply, e.g. poaching), but when it comes to things like marriage, it should be a status that is recognized equally across all states.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Jun 27, 2015 5:36 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Civil Rights in general bother me. They really do, they're about the government forcing people to do something that those people don't want to do. (In this case, treat same-sex marriages as legal).


Huh? They're about the government not treating people differently based on race, sex, gender, or any other superficial characteristic. If they were forcing gay people to marry, your argument might make sense.


Civil Rights in general are about forcing non-government actors to treat people fairly. It is illegal to tell black people to get in the back of a bus... whether or not the bus company is a private business or not. It is illegal to have "Black" bathrooms and "White" Bathrooms.

More recent matters: it is illegal to operate a business without regard to handicapped or disabled people. And it should be illegal to pay Women 30% less than Men (although we haven't really figured out a way to codify it yet). In all of these cases, the government is imposing its will upon private citizens and private companies.

KnightExemplar wrote:And honestly, the superior choice would be for the individual states to figure out that gay marriage is okay.


Why? Either you believe something should be a basic human right, or you don't.


False Dichotomy. Right conflict with each other, and it is how we resolve the conflict of rights that makes politics "interesting".

----------------

I don't got much else, because I agree with you and the decision.

Lazar wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Civil Rights in general bother me. They really do, they're about the government forcing people to do something that those people don't want to do. (In this case, treat same-sex marriages as legal).

I can understand (though I completely disagree with it) the libertarian argument made against anti-discrimination statutes, because those do indeed compel action by private individuals. But marriage is an institution of the state, and the only people "forced" to do anything new are government functionaries who might not like the fact that they now need to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples. To the extent that marriage has a bearing on private business relations, those businesses were already "forced" to recognize every marriage conducted by the state, so their freedom of action has not been changed by this ruling.


Point taken on this case.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Cradarc » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:11 pm UTC

The thing about same-sex marriage is that it is fundamentally an issue of discrimination and unfair treatment of particular people. The U.S government doesn't care about the intrinsic "morality" of same-sex marriage. The U.S government exists to ensure all members of society are treated fairly, with the same rules, as dictated by the Constitution. Legalizing gay marriage is a way to prevent/reduce discrimination by the government (and encourage the same changes in the private sector).

However, people (on both sides) often talk about same-sex marriage as if it were a government endorsement. This is what makes it so contentious. I think the reason people tend to adopt this attitude is because of the unfortunate way in which "marriage" has weaved itself into legislation. Because the term is so entwined with laws, the government must officially define it to make it possible to interpret laws unambiguously. The government's definition hold a lot of symbolic power, which extends into the social sphere.
In actuality, "legalizing gay marriage" is more like "government doing it's job to protect social equality". It's not a fight to pass/not pass legislation, but a limit to what any legislation can do.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby BattleMoose » Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:53 am UTC

The 14th amendment also holds the clause "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" which as far as my limited legal mind can understand, suggests that either everyone must benefit from the legal benefits of marriage or no one.

Interestingly it was this specific clause in the South African bill of rights, that allowed the South African constitutional court to order gay marriage, or rather, end the discrimination in the marriage act.

They go on at length about dignity, as they should, but I wonder if this clause had much of a role to play.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6860
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby ucim » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:02 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:However, people (on both sides) often talk about same-sex marriage as if it were a government endorsement.
But that's exactly what it is. And it is that because the government has already endorsed (through countless laws) straight marriage. How that happened will be grist for forums everywhere, but as a practical matter, equalizing the endorsement is what is at issue. There are many ways it can be done, this is the way it was done.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:01 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:More recent matters: it is illegal to operate a business without regard to handicapped or disabled people. And it should be illegal to pay Women 30% less than Men (although we haven't really figured out a way to codify it yet). In all of these cases, the government is imposing its will upon private citizens and private companies.

I think we're going to end up a bit off-topic here, but isn't 30% pay gap much smaller when comparing for geographic location, industry, and tenure? Any residual gap should be closed, but there's a major difference between me earning $70,000 and my female co-workers earning $49,000 and the average male pay being $70k and average pay for ladies being $49k (numbers completely out of my arse).

Speaking of careers and more on-topic, maybe I should go to law school and study divorce law (since it will be a growth industry, assuming homosexual couples will have around the same divorce rate as straight couples).
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Lucrece » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:37 am UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:More recent matters: it is illegal to operate a business without regard to handicapped or disabled people. And it should be illegal to pay Women 30% less than Men (although we haven't really figured out a way to codify it yet). In all of these cases, the government is imposing its will upon private citizens and private companies.

I think we're going to end up a bit off-topic here, but isn't 30% pay gap much smaller when comparing for geographic location, industry, and tenure? Any residual gap should be closed, but there's a major difference between me earning $70,000 and my female co-workers earning $49,000 and the average male pay being $70k and average pay for ladies being $49k (numbers completely out of my arse).

Speaking of careers and more on-topic, maybe I should go to law school and study divorce law (since it will be a growth industry, assuming homosexual couples will have around the same divorce rate as straight couples).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM

Because that parroted pay gap figure just isn't true. Say something often enough, and people will believe it regardless.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby HungryHobo » Sun Jun 28, 2015 8:55 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"


It's a bit more subtle than that.

You wouldn't want a situation where because a state chooses to give grants of up to say 20K to disabled people in order to buy cars customised for their disability that they would then be required to give everyone 20K in order to customise their cars.

If states choose to run a program to provide extra tutors to underperforming and underprivileged minority kids in school it would almost certainly be sub-optimal if the rich parents could go to court and insist that their kids should get equal hours of tutoring paid for by the state.

"Equal protection" hasn't always traditionally been interpreted to mean "Equal support".
Positive actions vs negative actions again.

If the state decides to provide extra legal support for women and only women(or only men, or only white men etc) being prosecuted by the state for a crime then "equal protection" kicks in because they're getting additional protection.

On the other hand marriage comes with some explicit legal protections in criminal cases like Spousal privilege which would support "equal protection" kicking in even if equal support does not.
To my mind that's one of the big weaknesses of the dissent. It mentions the privileges and advantages marriages get but didn't mention the (criminal cases) legal protections relevant to marriage.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Derek » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:14 am UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:I think we're going to end up a bit off-topic here, but isn't 30% pay gap much smaller when comparing for geographic location, industry, and tenure? Any residual gap should be closed, but there's a major difference between me earning $70,000 and my female co-workers earning $49,000 and the average male pay being $70k and average pay for ladies being $49k (numbers completely out of my arse).

Yes. It disappears to within statistical significance once other important factors are controlled for. This is also why the gap hasn't closed significantly in recent years despite efforts. The gap can't be closed any further by ensuring equal pay at companies, because basically no companies are paying unequally anymore. Further closing the gap can only be achieved by changing the career decisions that men and women make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj_bN0L8XM

The title of this video hits the nail on the head. XKCD 808 is relevant here. If the wage gap were really 30%, some company(s) would be making a killing by hiring an all-female workforce.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby BattleMoose » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:30 am UTC

If the state decides to provide extra legal support for women and only women(or only men, or only white men etc) being prosecuted by the state for a crime then "equal protection" kicks in because they're getting additional protection.

On the other hand marriage comes with some explicit legal protections in criminal cases like Spousal privilege which would support "equal protection" kicking in even if equal support does not.
To my mind that's one of the big weaknesses of the dissent. It mentions the privileges and advantages marriages get but didn't mention the (criminal cases) legal protections relevant to marriage.


I am struggling to follow what you are trying to explain here. You recognize and give an example of the importance of equal protection relating to marriage.

And then criticize the dissenting view for not bringing it up. But it cripples their argument so they shouldn't bring it up. Indeed I would have expected the proposing view to bring it up.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby HungryHobo » Sun Jun 28, 2015 9:10 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I am struggling to follow what you are trying to explain here. You recognize and give an example of the importance of equal protection relating to marriage.

And then criticize the dissenting view for not bringing it up. But it cripples their argument so they shouldn't bring it up. Indeed I would have expected the proposing view to bring it up.


The job of the judge isn't to be a prosecutor, it's to weigh the pros and cons, as such "weakness" is in reference to ignoring a relevant element rather than failing to defend a particular corner.

As such an opinion which brings up a weakness, shows it's been considered and argues as to why they don't think it applies is stronger than one which simply ignores it or avoids bringing it up in the hope that nobody will ever think of it.

Their job as judges isn't to imitate an inept college debate team.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:48 am UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:I am struggling to follow what you are trying to explain here. You recognize and give an example of the importance of equal protection relating to marriage.

And then criticize the dissenting view for not bringing it up. But it cripples their argument so they shouldn't bring it up. Indeed I would have expected the proposing view to bring it up.


The job of the judge isn't to be a prosecutor, it's to weigh the pros and cons, as such "weakness" is in reference to ignoring a relevant element rather than failing to defend a particular corner.

As such an opinion which brings up a weakness, shows it's been considered and argues as to why they don't think it applies is stronger than one which simply ignores it or avoids bringing it up in the hope that nobody will ever think of it.

Their job as judges isn't to imitate an inept college debate team.


I would have expected the plaintiffs to bring it up.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Jun 29, 2015 6:25 am UTC

Texas AG lines up to be backhanded by the Supreme Court

The Attorney General of Texas has announced to all public officials that, if they so choose (*nudge nudge, wink wink*) they may continue to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples on grounds of the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause. He recognizes they'll definitely be sued, but pledges the full support of his office in assisting them with legal battles.

He's going to lose, obviously, but is going to look good to ultra-conservatives doing it. He'll look stupid to everyone else.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:53 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
Lucrece wrote:It's a funny day when Clarence Thomas finally succeeds in stepping out of Scalia's shadow and amps up the asshole factor.

I will say I'm disappointed in Roberts. He had shown just an inkling of hope that he would not be in the same class as the other clowns on some previous decisions...I'll take the 5-4 but I must say it's quite a let down.


Roberts' wasn't really being too much of a bigot in his dissent. He wasn't railing against same-sex marriage explicitly (he made a nod towards the fact that he knew many people would be happy by the ruling), he was upset at the process.

That seems to be what a lot of the dissenting justices feel. Many of them seem to think that it's dicey territory for the court to be changing everything by ruling, instead of going through the process of changing everything by voting and legislation.

In that vain, I get what the dissenting justices are saying. The argument isn't invalid... there is a point to worry about a court's majority making sweeping changes to law.

Nonetheless, I feel that today's decision was appropriate anyways.


That's fair. Process might be wrong. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not 100% sure about all that. I do see some inconsistency in recent rulings though as to how much judicial power they claim.

But...that aside, it's good and proper that gay marriage be legal. I'm alternately amused and cheered by the explosion of rainbows that my Facebook page has turned into. Even the pro-gun groups, which sometimes lean pretty hard right wing, seem happy and celebratory(often with explicit positive comparisons to the gun rights issue).

Heard a rumor that an Alabama courthouse had decided to equally deny marriage licenses to everyone. Not sure of details, but seemed hilarious.

Stargazer71
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: Same-sex marriage now legal in 24 states

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:04 pm UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
duckshirt wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:Twitter Bingo! Five of my American friends have now repeatedly stated "LOOK, I'M TOTES FOR GAY MARRIAGE, I'M NOT A BIGOT OR ANYTHING, BUT I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYONE IS TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE CONSTITUTION!!!! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!!!" When asked to defend their point, a few of them manage to point to the First Amendment, which either indicates that a) they don't know how to read, or b) they don't realize what the word "amendment" means.

Well, you can't change the constitution without an amendment, which there wasn't...

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, 1868 wrote:Section 1. 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.


But what do I know, I'm Canadian.


Interestingly, this point was addressed by the dissenting judges:

... The five Justices who compose
today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that
every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135
years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification
and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in
2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment
a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person
alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else
in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—
minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis,
William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black,
Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—
could not.


Those legal minds cannot compete with the legal knowledge of "Mighty Jalapeno." (Although he has admitted that he is Canadian).

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:11 pm UTC

That list of legal minds aren't legislators though. If no one brings a case up before them, why would they need to consider the interpretation of the amendment to cover that circumstance?

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Us supreme court requires same sex marriage [split]

Postby Dauric » Mon Jun 29, 2015 3:15 pm UTC

Chen wrote:That list of legal minds aren't legislators though. If no one brings a case up before them, why would they need to consider the interpretation of the amendment to cover that circumstance?


Pretty much this. Before a case can go to the Supreme Court you have to have a social environment where someone can have a nationally high-profile case without getting lynched before you get that far.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests