Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I’ve realised that all my posts on this subject have been tinged with unnecessary hostility and contempt. Just wanted to apologise if I offended anyone.

Edit: Really I mean it. I’ve been thinking about this and I feel quite bad about it. Gay men are made to feel that there’s something wrong with them and that they should be ashamed and then bastards like me compound it. I don’t hold any moral high ground and I’m a pretty fucked up individual myself in many ways. Once again, sincerely sorry for any offence. I’ve had a bit of a change of heart about this.[/quote]

That’s very good of you to say. Although not gay myself, I’ve been very close friends with a number and that is a pretty accurate description of how they perceive things. As they say, whether actually accurate or not “perception is reality”, and I think that it’s important to remember for all sides because word choice really does matter. On the receiving side of things: I had a 2 month rift with a very dear friend of mine because of something she said that was deeply hurtful about the suicide of a friend that I opened up about. Now, she actually didn’t mean anything even resembling what I heard in my head, and I know that now. And I took everything the exact wrong way, which she was meaning to be comforting. But then…perception is reality. And simple poor word choice on her part combined with me being in a very distraught and depressed mental state really damaged our relationship for a while.

If I had been a little bit farther removed from the incident I could have taken the little bit of time to replay the conversation in my head and realize that I heard her exactly wrong. But unfortunately these situations are very hard and my head simply wasn’t in a place where I could think about what I heard.

I think this relates directly to what you said here, and I appreciate that change of heart thought to say so. More directly now than before, considering my recent experiences and how they made me think about interpersonal communication and how drastically hearing something can change your perception. There’s other stuff I’ve screwed up too that I still have to live with because of similar honest mistakes, though I’m not airing any of my laundry here. So please do keep that in the forefront of your mind. Sadly pure textual conversations are even worse off because you cannot see body language or expression. Especially in light of big political issues and hot button topics.

Sometimes like my friend, things recover. Sometimes though, as in my past expeiences, a screw up in conversation may lead to lasting effects. I think it’s easy to get a “siege” mentality when you’re made to feel like many gay people are. Siege mentality is obviously not good, particularly when it leads to identity politics and all that nonsense, but the individual response is a very easily understood one, which really leads to things like you just described, especially on something as polarizing and emotional as this topic.

402

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
That quote was Justice Roberts reading his dissent from the bench. Apparently, he decided to put on his Constitutionalist big-boy pants this morning.

This is actually a huge positive for the Republicans as this issue is no longer up for debate. Huge positive.[/quote]

Yeah after all that open emotive stuff I posted above regarding perception I’m interested in the political ramifications of this one. I think this is a good thing for Republicans as well as all of them now have no excuse to say things to pander to the base prior to primaries. It also means the focus will be much more on economics and foreign policy now, which are things they can do much better with.

I’m shocked there isn’t a thread on the just made ACA ruling yet either, but I’m not going to hijack this thread on that topic so no worries lol. Two huge rulings in one week.

403

Most of you here know me well enough.
I try to let most things slip off me like water off a ducks back.

Most of us have perceived thing in the wrong way. A little clarification/confirmation of what you thought you heard goes a long way.
Checking for understanding, by asking what was just said is a good way to go about it.

As far as the SCOTUS ruling…

I have said it before and will say it again.

Let the Religions have their Marriages. If they do not support homosexual marriage, fine. Find a new place of Worship.
But, I believe that the govt would be well off to disassociate itself from the marriage issue and instead have people join
in a Civil Union that would be recognized nation wide.

That way the govt is not forcing it down the throats of those “Chosen” people, and can instead just deal with the individual states.

404

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Most of you here know me well enough.
I try to let most things slip off me like water off a ducks back.

Most of us have perceived thing in the wrong way. A little clarification/confirmation of what you thought you heard goes a long way.
Checking for understanding, by asking what was just said is a good way to go about it.

As far as the SCOTUS ruling…

I have said it before and will say it again.

Let the Religions have their Marriages. If they do not support homosexual marriage, fine. Find a new place of Worship.
But, I believe that the govt would be well off to disassociate itself from the marriage issue and instead have people join
in a Civil Union that would be recognized nation wide.

That way the govt is not forcing it down the throats of those “Chosen” people, and can instead just deal with the individual states.[/quote]

How does that change anything, just substituting the word marriage for civil union. In retrospect this might have worked as a clever way around the gay marriage debate if it was done 50 years ago. Now the end result is the same but with a “winning” and “losing” side so people can feel empowered or bitter about the result until its forgotten in a generation.

405

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
As far as the SCOTUS ruling…

[/quote]

They got the ruling correct. There is zero legal justification for not recognizing a civil contract between consenting adults based on sex of those who entered the contract.

That said… What government calls marriage and what individual people call marriage are and can be two things, each existing within both their own sphere and at the same time.

All this ruling does is grant the legal protections and advantages that come with what government refers to as marriage, but is plainly a civil contract to shared custody of assets, liabilities and certain legal protections, advantages and disadvantages.

I understand the arguments against this ruling, and largely find them to be lessor than the above. Not vapid, not unimportant, just lessor.

406

I think it was a terrible way to achieve a worthwhile goal.

More from Roberts’s dissent:

"This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.

Our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Understand well what this dissent is about: it is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.

Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens ? through the democratic process ? to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

If you are among the many Americans - of whatever sexual orientation - who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today?s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

407

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I think it was a terrible way to achieve a worthwhile goal.

More from Roberts’s dissent:

?This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.?

?Our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.?

?Understand well what this dissent is about: it is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.?

?Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens ? through the democratic process ? to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. ?

?If you are among the many Americans ? of whatever sexual orientation ? who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today?s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.?[/quote]

This sounds like sour grapes to me on Robert’s part.

The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and, for the reasons Beans stated above, the States have no legitimate interest in denying this class of persons the same legal benefits (and obligations) the states give to opposite-sex couples. The states have never articulated any good or compelling reason to do so, without some reference to a religiously-based ideal. That’s largely why they lost.

I also agree with Beans that the religious aspect of marriage has no business being regulated by the states at all. I would be all in favor of calling it “civil union” for all and leaving the term marriage out of it altogether as far as the state is concerned; but if the state is going to recognize something called “marriage” for the purpose of recognizing civil-union-type benefits and obligations, then equal protection required today’s result.

The Constitution has everything to do with it. That has been my position and analysis of the issue for as long as I can remember.

408

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
This sounds like sour grapes to me on Robert’s part.
[/quote]

Had it been Scalia or Thomas I would agree, but I read an article today that struck a chord with me. It said that Roberts’ viewpoint isn’t one of Conservatism so much as it is one of judicial deference. He defers to the right of the people to elect legislators who then make decisions on behalf of those who elected them. That seems to be what he’s complaining about here; not that rights were pulled from thin air (as Scalia did) but instead that there was a process taking place and maybe that process wasn’t moving along as quickly as some would like, but that the Court needed to respect that process.

Setting aside personal beliefs, I think you can say something similar about Roe v Wade. It’s been 43 years and we’re still legislating for and against abortion.

From my layman’s perspective, it seems that some capital “H” Historic Cases don’t settle the issue the way that it’s hoped.

409

The more I read, the more I’m coming around, I guess.

If, in fact, the ban on gay marriage violates the 14ths guarantees of due process and equal protection and if state’s refusing to recognize the gay marriages of other states violates the Full Faith and Credit clause then why would the SC need to wait for every state to weigh in before ruling as Roberts seems to want?

Really, just a rhetorical question. The hamster on the wheel is working overtime reading about this case.

410

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[/quote]

Let me ask you a question…

In this quote from Roberts’s dissent, "Understand well what this dissent is about: it is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. "

Why would Roberts abdicate responsibility for making an ultimate decision when it would seem that, at the very least, it is fully proper for the SC to rule on whether or not state recognition of gay marriage is in accordance with the FF&C clause?

Isn’t this the proper role of the SC, making decisions when no agreement exists between the States? If he were writing from the bench of a lower court, I could see his rationale but he’s being asked to decide something that is certainly in his purview as a SC judge.

Edit: I’m struggling to make sense of the Conservative judge’s dissents and the majority opinion reads like a Hallmark card.

“Love, flowers, unicorns, rainbows…
It is so ordered”

411

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
Most of you here know me well enough.
I try to let most things slip off me like water off a ducks back.

Most of us have perceived thing in the wrong way. A little clarification/confirmation of what you thought you heard goes a long way.
Checking for understanding, by asking what was just said is a good way to go about it.

As far as the SCOTUS ruling…

I have said it before and will say it again.

Let the Religions have their Marriages. If they do not support homosexual marriage, fine. Find a new place of Worship.
But, I believe that the govt would be well off to disassociate itself from the marriage issue and instead have people join
in a Civil Union that would be recognized nation wide.

That way the govt is not forcing it down the throats of those “Chosen” people, and can instead just deal with the individual states.[/quote]

Yep, pretty much exactly. I thought the Michigan bill introduced earlier this week (or last?) was an excellent step in the right direction. It would mandate that all couples seeking a marriage license present a marriage certificate signed by clergy after the marriage was solemnized to the county clerk. For couples who were seeking to be married in non-religious ceremony, “common law marriage” would be granted by filling out a form. Link here: Get Government Out of Marriage: Michigan Bill Would Nullify Both Sides in Practice | Tenth Amendment Center

I haven’t read the text of the bill yet so may be misreported, but it seems like a solid step

412

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[/quote]

Let me ask you a question…

In this quote from Roberts’s dissent, "Understand well what this dissent is about: it is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer. "

Why would Roberts abdicate responsibility for making an ultimate decision when it would seem that, at the very least, it is fully proper for the SC to rule on whether or not state recognition of gay marriage is in accordance with the FF&C clause?

Isn’t this the proper role of the SC, making decisions when no agreement exists between the States? If he were writing from the bench of a lower court, I could see his rationale but he’s being asked to decide something that is certainly in his purview as a SC judge.

Edit: I’m struggling to make sense of the Conservative judge’s dissents and the majority opinion reads like a Hallmark card.

“Love, flowers, unicorns, rainbows…
It is so ordered”

[/quote]

I’ll come back to this, but I don’t have time right this second. I laid out all the equal protection arguments if not in this thread, then in a related one, however, going back and forth with Sex Machine and a few others.

That said, I would have been perfectly fine if the Court decided to not take this case and let the local process run its course some more. I am also a fan of deference and restraint from the high court. I think Roe was decided way too soon as well. I personally thought it was too early for them to accept cert. in this case. Way too soon. But if they take on the issue squarely, then they have to get it right and decide one way or the other what the constitution requires. And I don’t see a very compelling case for the other side.

414

Shit is only getting started.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is next on the horizon of social liberalism

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469_full.html#.VY3-ylLO8Yo

415

I am in favor of gay marriage, and I see it largely in the manner countingbeans does. There is nothing in the Consitution (afaik) that can legally support a BAN or opposition to gay marriage. And I think people like angry_chicken have it right when they say that having the government intrude in what you do in your bedroom is probably a great sign of governmental tyranny.

But I also agree with Antonin Scalia. This was not the right way to achieve this. And if it had to be achieved in this manner, then it had to have been achieved in the same manner black equality was achieved- full unity from the Supreme Court.

I’m appalled by the people who support this. I’m pretty sure they’d be crying for the murder of the court justices if this went the other way. The fact that this is even a probability is why I’m appalled by this.

416

Kennedy declares himself God, by Ben Shapiro: SCOTUS Declares Itself God, Redefines Marriage and Rights

417

Who is a lawyer here?
The case had to have “standing” and “grounds” before the Supreme Court could hear it. I don’t remember specically what that meant, only that it was a pretty stringent set of requirements.

If there had never been a law banning gay marriage at the state level, there never could have been a court case to eventually be heard before the Supreme Court. By trying to pass laws banning gay marriage, conservatives actually cleared the way for a Nation-wide Federal Policy, based on interpretation of the 14 Amendment? These laws allowed the challenge, and they actually forced to Federal government adopt a postion on marriage, which by Dillon’s Rule, would supersede State Law?

By raising a stink they actually defeated their own cause? Because that strikes me as kinda funny.

418

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Shit is only getting started.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is next on the horizon of social liberalism

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469_full.html#.VY3-ylLO8Yo[/quote]

Ah, the slippery slope is alive and well. That’s one thing those who have pushed gay marriage, or at least shrugged and said “it doesn’t matter to me won’t effect my life” don’t understand.

Polygamy is most certainly next, say 5-7 years out. Then what?

Use your imagination.

The word “pervert” is going to have to be removed from the dictionary.

Thank you Hollywood, thank you media, thank you to the many Universities. And finally, a big thank you to the democratic party!

419

[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
Who is a lawyer here?
The case had to have “standing” and “grounds” before the Supreme Court could hear it. I don’t remember specically what that meant, only that it was a pretty stringent set of requirements.

If there had never been a law banning gay marriage at the state level, there never could have been a court case to eventually be heard before the Supreme Court. By trying to pass laws banning gay marriage, conservatives actually cleared the way for a Nation-wide Federal Policy, based on interpretation of the 14 Amendment? These laws allowed the challenge, and they actually forced to Federal government adopt a postion on marriage, which by Dillon’s Rule, would supersede State Law?

By raising a stink they actually defeated their own cause? Because that strikes me as kinda funny.[/quote]

Raising a stink only makes it worse when you end up losing at the end. If they did nothing it would have became law sooner, or lack of any law would have allowed gay marriages the first day someone requested it. In retrospect if you don’t want gay marriage what choice did you have as a politician/lawmaker?

420

Say forget it, recognise the inevitable, and support gay marriage first? Conservatives should have pushed for a clearly defined civil union agreement years ago? Then they could have stolen some votes, and set the rules for gay marriage? This is all speculation…