Gay marriage ruling about to come down

[XenoMorph]

(06-26-2015, 11:26 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would like to point out to anyone here that Kennedy makes it clear in the majority opinion that religious institutions have the right to define marriage within their purview, meaning they will maintain the right to deny performing these marriages. Also, they make clear the First Amendment guarantees the right to disagree with SSM by anyone, and the right to advocate against it.

You realize the church is so worried about marriage than anyone can become ordained within 10 minutes and perform marriages... ANYONE

but that doesnt even really matter the only thing that makes a marriage real is the paper from goverment not words from the church.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2015, 12:46 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: If life what?

gives you lemons

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-26-2015, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Scalia looks more like a crazy person with each decision that doesn't go his way.  I've always viewed him as the George Wallace of the Supreme Court, an anachronism that we'll all be better off without.

I like Scalia.  I didn't agree with him on this issue though, but he was spot on in regard to the Obamacare ruling.  

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2015, 12:40 PM)Au165 Wrote: The problem with this logic is I can literally claim everything has an impact on me in an indirect way. The reality is it doesn't effect most people, trying to act like someone else and who they marry effects yours in any way is more hubris than anything. If a 50%+ divorce rate doesn't degrade the institution of marriage then nothing can.

(06-26-2015, 01:07 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Please explain what the ripples will be?    Hetro couples put marriage to shame as is now anyways.

I don't want to answer for someone else, but I think he means that there will be a greater level of acceptance in many other situations other than just marriage.

Plus divorce attorneys will celebrate because this ruling opens up new markets for them.

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2015, 01:07 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: Please explain what the ripples will be?    Hetro couples put marriage to shame as is now anyways.

(06-26-2015, 01:09 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: You realize the church is so worried about marriage than anyone can become ordained within 10 minutes and perform marriages...  ANYONE

but that doesnt even really matter the only thing that makes a marriage real is the paper from goverment not words from the church.

You do realize that I am pro SSM, even disagreeing with Roberts' dissent, and that I am merely pointing out the cultural signifigance of this decision as well as allaying the concerns that have been expressed by the opposition.

[Westwood Bengal]

As it should be.

[ShowMeUrTDs]

(06-26-2015, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I had a law professor once tell me if the ruling comes down in favor, then SCOTUS would be stating that the Constituion is unConstitutional. I really didn't/can't grasp the concept he was eluding to and he didn't say this in spite as he was pro SSM.

As to the ruling: si la vie

I too, take the position of your law professor. If you had a law professor, you were a law student(or just had a casual conversation with one)? If you were a law student, I don't understand how you can't grasp his position that this ruling is unconstitutional? Whether you agree with it or not, that concept is about case law prcedent, and the Federal Courts changing State's laws of general applicability.

There is a much greater history in cultures, countries, and religions to allowing the marriage of multiple people to one person. There are several cultures to this day that allow a man to marry multiple wives, for example.


Yet, in the United States of America this is illegal. No Polygamy and No Bigamy. The Court has granted Writs to several petitioners in the past regarding the right to marry multiple people, and always denied that right citing precedent of marriage between a man and a woman and the State's right to define marriage.

If this is truly about equality then those people should be allowed to marry also! This is 100% about public opinion, not equality!  Homosexuality has existed since mankind started living in civilizations together, there are no new issues here, no change in technology, or life circumstances that make the issue different now than 50 years ago, or 500 years ago. 

I am not pro-gay or anti-gay marriage, I am a legal proponent. For our system of government to work branches of the Federal government cannot be allowed to change general State laws based on public opinion.

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2015, 03:07 PM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: I am not pro-gay or anti-gay marriage, I am a legal proponent. For our system of government to work branches of the Federal government cannot be allowed to change general State laws based on public opinion.

Actually out government has worked just fine this way.

The Courts don't have the final say.  if society wants it to change then they can just amend the constitution.

Honestly I believe that in another 20 to 50 years polygamy will probably be legal.

Times change.  Our laws have to change with them.  The laws can either be changed by the Courts or by the people if they disagree with the courts.  It is a great system that works well.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

With this decision, in the Majority Kennedy said that people and churches could still oppose SSM, is that right?

If that is correct, does that mean a bakery, caterer, photographer, church, reception hall and florist can deny their services to a same sex couples wedding and reception?

I'm not asking if these businesses can deny a donut to a gay man, I'm asking if they can refuse to take part in what that company sees as their sin?

Also, churches now can deny performing a wedding ceremony to anyone who is not part of the congregation, or even if one of the couple is another denomination. What if a gay couple says they are Christian and has belonged to a church for five years, would that church then been forced to perform a wedding ceremony?

I know that's a very specific circumstance though so it may never come up.

Just wondering.

[RoyleRedlegs]

(06-26-2015, 03:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: With this decision, in the Majority Kennedy said that people and churches could still oppose SSM, is that right?

If that is correct, does that mean a bakery, caterer, photographer, church, reception hall and florist can deny their services to a same sex couples wedding and reception?

I'm not asking if these businesses can deny a donut to a gay man, I'm asking if they can refuse to take part in what that company sees as their sin?

Also, churches now can deny performing a wedding ceremony to anyone who is not part of the congregation, or even if one of the couple is another denomination. What if a gay couple says they are Christian and has belonged to a church for five years, would that church then been forced to perform a wedding ceremony?

I know that's a very specific circumstance though so it may never come up.

Just wondering.

As far as I can tell, no one would be forced to do anything...nor should they be. 

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2015, 03:33 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: With this decision, in the Majority Kennedy said that people and churches could still oppose SSM, is that right?

If that is correct, does that mean a bakery, caterer, photographer, church, reception hall and florist can deny their services to a same sex couples wedding and reception?

I'm not asking if these businesses can deny a donut to a gay man, I'm asking if they can refuse to take part in what that company sees as their sin?

Also, churches now can deny performing a wedding ceremony to anyone who is not part of the congregation, or even if one of the couple is another denomination. What if a gay couple says they are Christian and has belonged to a church for five years, would that church then been forced to perform a wedding ceremony?

I know that's a very specific circumstance though so it may never come up.

Just wondering.

No church will be forced to perform a gay wedding under any circumstances.

But I am guessing that businesses will not be allowed to discriminate against gay weddings.  The rights of a business are much different than the rights of a church or individual. But the SCOTUS has kind of muddied the waters there with the Hobby Lobby decision. This issue is far from resolved.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(06-26-2015, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No church will be forced to perform a gay wedding under any circumstances.

But I am guessing that businesses will not be allowed to discriminate against gay weddings.  The rights of a business are much different than the rights of a church or individual.  But the SCOTUS has kind of muddied the waters there with the Hobby Lobby decision.  This issue is far from resolved.

I agree, this is far from over and it may even get more complicated. 

Another question, will states fight the federal government over states rights or has the SCOTUS just destroyed states rights with this decision? Marriage has always been a state issue, by saying states have to issue marriage licsense to same sex couples, did that just tell the states they have no more power?

I'm just asking questions here because I don't know the answer.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2015, 03:07 PM)ShowMeUrTDs Wrote: I too, take the position of your law professor. If you had a law professor, you were a law student(or just had a casual conversation with one)? If you were a law student, I don't understand how you can't grasp his position that this ruling is unconstitutional? Whether you agree with it or not, that concept is about case law prcedent, and the Federal Courts changing State's laws of general applicability.

It was a post-graduate class on hiring practices. It was brought up more as a side conversation; as to what may one day happen in regards to protected classes. We didn't actually study the legality of the case.

My quick assumption was he was suggesting it vilated the 10th Amendment.

[fredtoast]

(06-26-2015, 03:51 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I agree, this is far from over and it may even get more complicated. 

Another question, will states fight the federal government over states rights or has the SCOTUS just destroyed states rights with this decision? Marriage has always been a state issue, by saying states have to issue marriage licsense to same sex couples, did that just tell the states they have no more power?

I'm just asking questions here because I don't know the answer.

State law was never allowed to violate the 14th Amendment promise of "equal protection under the law".

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2015, 03:39 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: As far as I can tell, no one would be forced to do anything...nor should they be. 

Yep, 50 years after Loving, churches can still refuse to marry interracial couples. They can refuse to marry you if you have been married before, if you're of a certain religion, or any other reason they want.

No church will ever be forced to marry gay couples.

[BmorePat87]

(06-26-2015, 04:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: State law was never allowed to violate the 14th Amendment promise of "equal protection under the law".

people seem to think that the 10th Amendment can ignore all other amendments. Not sure why.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2015, 01:33 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I like Scalia.  I didn't agree with him on this issue though, but he was spot on in regard to the Obamacare ruling.  

My issue with him is largely how he comports himself, especially when things don't go the way he feels they should.  It's borderline temper tantrum and shouldn't be happening with any grown man, let alone a justice of the SCOTUS.

[Belsnickel]

Thomas in his dissent talks a lot about how denying SSM is not infringing on anyone's liberties, but he of course ignores the whole part in the Constitution about privileges and immunities. He also has this little gem in there:

Quote: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. Ante, at 3, 13, 26,28. 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 unalienableRights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which allhumans are created in the image of God and therefore ofinherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignitycannot 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 dignitybecause the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignitybecause the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

The majority’s musings are thus deeply misguided, butat least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of the persons the majority demeans. Its mischaracterization 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.

Now, Thomas being a black man I know there will be people on here saying that he would know more about the dignity and humanity potentially lost to slaves than I would. Fair enough. I have a feeling, though, that he would be hard pressed to find that this is the majority opinion among the black community. There would likely be a nickname thrown his way involving a common shortening of his last name. I also know for a fact that many people I know of a sexual orientation other than straight have expressed a feeling of their lifestyle finally being legitimized in the eyes of the government. Call me crazy, but it sounds like that is restoring some dignity to these people.

[*bfine32*]

(06-26-2015, 07:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have a feeling, though, that he would be hard pressed to find that this is the majority opinion among the black community. There would likely be a nickname thrown his way involving a common shortening of his last name. 

Why?

[Belsnickel]

(06-26-2015, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why?

Just based on the opinions of members of the black community I know. And also comments made about Thomas by them in the past (and today as well).