Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

[Tale]

My understanding is this.

 

5 Supreme Court judges ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage denies people equal protection of a fundamental civil right, so is therefore in violation of the 14th amendment. That sounds sensible to me.

 

Why should I then take the word of 4 other Supreme Court judges that try and claim that marriage is only an issue of states? When the Supreme Court has already, in the past, sided that issues of marriage are subject to equal protection?

 

How is this so vastly different from Loving v. Virginia?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I think having the state(the US in this case, not individual states) being the arbitrator if what constitutes a "legitimate" relationship between individuals was a mistake in the first place. People should be free to marry who they wish without interference from the state.

[Gromnir]

My understanding is this.

 

5 Supreme Court judges ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriage denies people equal protection of a fundamental civil right, so is therefore in violation of the 14th amendment. That sounds sensible to me.

 

Why should I then take the word of 4 other Supreme Court judges that try and claim that marriage is only an issue of states? When the Supreme Court has already, in the past, sided that issues of marriage are subject to equal protection?

 

How is this so vastly different from Loving v. Virginia?

your understanding is flawed, because the Constitution does not protect same sex marriage.  we got civil war amendments that specific mention race, color, and previous condition and those classes (a term o' art and not some kinda spurious label) 'mongst others, get special protections.  btw, we had already had same sex couples make this attempt shortly after Loving.  failed.  brought up through Minnesota Courts.  

 

not all classes get the same constitutional protection, which makes sense, no?  after all, do you want stoopid people to claim that they is being unfairly discriminated 'gainst when seeking a job and cannot pass a mandatory test?  how 'bout obese firemen or Rich people... can't forget them.  imagine all the laws that target wealthy folks that would need be expunged 'cause wealth need survive heightened scrutiny.

 

oh, and is perhaps amusing that the solicitor general tried your tack, 'cause substantive due process o' the US Constitution were a doomed option based on considerable precedent. due process has been used to uphold same sex marriage in State courts, but that is 'cause those courts used the State Constitution's due process laws and not US Constitution.  color us surprised then when SCOTUS largely ignored oral arguments and instead used due process... with some kinda equal protection "synergy" as J.Roberts called it, seeming as confused as Gromnir when trying to explain the majority decision.

 

is bad law.  

 

Yay!  I was travelling and I'm a bit jealous Gifted beat me to posting this great news.  

 

 

 

As for the fact that we got there through the Supreme Court instead of legislation, I will repeat my mantra about the courts protecting the minority against a tyranny of the majority.  When it comes to civil rights, I am more concerned with equality than the opinion of the masses.   

that is not good law and it ain't good history.  shame on those who believe otherwise.  SCOTUS is not s'posed to dress up the due process clause as if it were some kinda $25 whore and let her pleasure the Justices new friends.  the Constitution, not the Court, protects minorities from the tyranny o' the majority. is a terrible fact that if you ain't identified by the Constitution as deserving protection, then you don't get any special treatment, but that is Democracy.  change the Constitution or change the laws if you wanna give new protections to those who deserve but don't receive the kinda love you thinks they deserve.  use the process.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Gromnir

[Bartimaeus]

From my point of view, it's because de facto, same-sex marriage has never been legally accepted except on a state-by-state level before. To quote Gromnir, "marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage." If the (now previous) legal definition of marriage had legal issues, they should've been solved a long, long time ago by judges who are very much dead at this point. But they were not: either the previous definition was judged to be acceptable, or it was not directly judged at all (but found to be acceptable either way, otherwise they would've(/should've?) reached judges to be dealt with at some point if not). Technically speaking, I think you are correct in saying that the legal intention of the judgement of the Court is to simply render any direct bans on same-sex marriages to be invalid: actual forthright legal bans on same-sex marriages are recent enough (mid-90s, I think?) that I'm not TOO bothered by that...but, from what I understand (maybe I am wrong - happy to be so in this case if I am), this directly makes same-sex marriage actually legal on an all-state level. This makes absolutely no sense to me, because while the direct bans should be rightfully knocked down (I THINK - I will be honest in saying that I am not too familiar with the legal aspect of this, but I'm assuming such bans should not exist - someone please set me straight as to why such bans should not be prohibited if they are legally sound), it should not change what was previously accepted to be the legal definition of marriage before these bans came into place...which held that same-sex marriage, de facto, is not accepted without actually making a direct change to the law. By that line of thought, I think it should be up to legislators to actually legalize same-sex marriage - whether on a federal or state level, I care not. I agree with the theoretical intention of the court to strike down direct bans of same-sex marriage, but I don't like that it has the actual effect of directly reversing the previous status quo.

 

(e): coherency + fleshing out my thoughts

 

(e): Seems like Gromnir is on a somewhat different brain wave than I am. His arguments seem better.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Namutree]

I think having the state(the US in this case, not individual states) being the arbitrator if what constitutes a "legitimate" relationship between individuals was a mistake in the first place. People should be free to marry who they wish without interference from the state.

Keeping government away from marriage's social implications and allowing the property side of the issue be handled by the culturally neutral "domestic partnership" would have been the way to go. Oh well...

 

 

 

How is this so vastly different from Loving v. Virginia?

Gromnir beat me to it as I was writing my answer. He did a better job than I would have too; which is good.

[cirdanx]

Oh well, good i guess. Personally i don´t care who marries. It won´t affect your marriage or your rights, and as long as that is not the case you might as well marry a sheep as far as i care. (if you don´t abuse the poor thing )

 

Marriage these days is more of a state contract then a symbolic band between two people, sadly. I fail to see why anyone should be bothered by this, unless you are some religious nut.

[HoonDing]

Welcome to 2003.

[Tale]

not all classes get the same constitutional protection, which makes sense, no?  after all, do you want stoopid people to claim that they is being unfairly discriminated 'gainst when seeking a job and cannot pass a mandatory test?  how 'bout obese firemen or Rich people... can't forget them.  imagine all the laws that target wealthy folks that would need be expunged 'cause wealth need survive heightened scrutiny.

 

It seems they don't feel that the equal protection clause requires a protected class to be valid.

 

And it is seems the opinion of the majority that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, falls somewhere under "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," "liberty," or "the equal protection of the laws."

 

If you have to be a protected class to avoid discrimination in marriage, that would be even sillier than the idea that stupid people could be protected against discrimination in applying for jobs.

[Gromnir]

 

not all classes get the same constitutional protection, which makes sense, no?  after all, do you want stoopid people to claim that they is being unfairly discriminated 'gainst when seeking a job and cannot pass a mandatory test?  how 'bout obese firemen or Rich people... can't forget them.  imagine all the laws that target wealthy folks that would need be expunged 'cause wealth need survive heightened scrutiny.

 

It seems they don't feel that the equal protection clause requires a protected class to be valid.

 

And it is seems the opinion of the majority that marriage, same-sex or otherwise, falls somewhere under "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," "liberty," or "the equal protection of the laws."

 

If you have to be a protected class to avoid discrimination in marriage, that would be even sillier than the idea that stupid people could be protected against discrimination in applying for jobs.

 

"it would be sillier" is not an argument o' legal merits.  you aren't discussing law.  am sorry, but you simple ain't.  there is a long line o' cases that tells us what Constitutional equal protection and due process means.  trying to discuss using tale logic or your understanding o' english meanings is misplaced.  equal protection does not mean that everybody is treated the same... as hard as that concept is to grasp.  if there is a rational basis for treating folks different (and rational basis is likely not what you think it means neither-- is an extreme low threshold) then government can treat you different w/o fear o' Constitutional repercussions.  gonna repeat: rational basis is an extreme low threshold... is pretty much "Government Wins." we has a definition o' marriage that has, as even the majority concedes, endured for millennia.  can anybody reasonable suggest that same-sex marriage has always been a fundamental right and we only just realized that today, thanks to the enlightened guidance o' 5 lawyers?  or has the growing support o' same-sex marriage been a slow evolution, advancing in fits and starts as community opinions has changed?  those seeking special consideration in the present case is not part o' a suspect class deserving heightened scrutiny-- period. same-sex marriage were not a fundamental right at time o' bill o' rights or with the adoption o' amendment iv. so, what changed and when?  point out when and how the Constitution changed.  with Loving we can easily identify the Civil War Amendments as having brought about a sea change in the law, though the definition o' marriage itself were still the millennia old one that were repeated in case law and law dictionaries.  so, show us the Constitutional change that makes a Loving kinda paradigm shift possible?

 

SCOTUS came up with a wacky four principles argument (the reasoning o' which even Gromnir don't fully understand) to excuse their "new insights" related to Constitutional protections regarding marriage.

 

...

 

Justices is not elected.  even so, they can stymie the Executive and Congress.  WE, The People, allow SCOTUS to have so much power over democratic elected representatives because o' the belief that these wise men will do no more than interpret the law.  

 

again, we believe that same-sex marriage should be a right, but it ain't granted in the Constitution.  perhaps it SHOULD be in the Constitution, and we would happily advocate adding it to the Constitution, though change individual state law strikes us as the easier route. bad law is not made less repugnant 'cause the Justices seek to bring about what we personal believe is a good change. 

 

ps am aware we already mentioned, but is worth repeating that the SCOTUS majority opinion does not primarily use equal protection reasoning to makes same-sex marriage the law o' the land.  for lay folks, is understandable that you is gonna gravitate to a phrase such as "equal protection" but if you wanna defend the decision o' the Court, you gotta start mentioning due process.

 

is our last post in this thread. no good can come o' further dialogue.  is so very difficult to explain how we can be disappointed by the Court in spite o' the fact that we is in favor o' same-sex marriage.  to Gromnir, the majority opinion is a mess o' tortured legal reasoning, which is why it offends.  nevertheless, to any casual observer it would appear that we is some kinda bigot that hates homosexuals, minorities and puppies.  no good can come o' further explanation.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Gromnir

[Bartimaeus]

is our last post in this thread. no good can come o' further dialogue.  is so very difficult to explain how we can be disappointed by the Court in spite o' the fact that we is in favor o' same-sex marriage.  to Gromnir, the majority opinion is a mess o' tortured legal reasoning, which is why it offends.  nevertheless, to any casual observer it would appear that we is some kinda bigot that hates homosexuals, minorities and puppies.  no good can come o' further explanation.

 

 

 

 

...I always forget that I'm not supposed to talk in political topics so I don't make myself look like a bigot and make everyone hate me. Shoot. Oh well.

[cirdanx]

 

is our last post in this thread. no good can come o' further dialogue.  is so very difficult to explain how we can be disappointed by the Court in spite o' the fact that we is in favor o' same-sex marriage.  to Gromnir, the majority opinion is a mess o' tortured legal reasoning, which is why it offends.  nevertheless, to any casual observer it would appear that we is some kinda bigot that hates homosexuals, minorities and puppies.  no good can come o' further explanation.

 

 

 

 

...I always forget that I'm not supposed to talk in political topics so I don't make myself look like a bigot and make everyone hate me. Shoot. Oh well.

 

 

The trick is to not give a **** what others say. Respecting an opinion goes both ways. You are not a bigot by sticking to your opinion, no matter if i, or anyone else disagree/agree´s with you. Your opinion is as worthy as anyone else.

[Enoch]

I'll say that Gromnir is not wrong, in that the majority opinion (as with past Kennedy opinions in this area) seems designed specifically to confuse the hell out of law students looking for the standard structure of a 14th Am case.  Due Process or Equal Protection?  Sorta both, kinda.  Strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis?  Uh, whichever one means that the 6th Circuit is reversed, because dignity. 

 

It seems like EP would be the more logical way to go if you want to strike these statutes-- cite the modern understanding of the inherent-ness of sexual orientation as a basis for some level of heightened scrutiny, overturning what precedents you have to along the way, and fail the "traditional marriage" statutes as not backed by sufficient state interest to meet that scrutiny.  Hell, fail them as lacking a rational basis if you have to.  I'd have been on-board with that kind of opinion.  But Kennedy and his 4 co-signers are, for whatever reason, not willing to state a level of scrutiny for sexuality-based equal protection cases.  So instead we get substantive due process with some vague gestures in the direction of equal protection.  Which really lacks much in the way of textual restraint-- it smacks of "it's the law because we really want it to be."  Even those who also really want marriage equality to be the law can find reason to be uneasy with that kind of jurisprudence. 

 

(But, yeah, it does feel a bit skeezy to be contributing to intellectual cover for homophobes and bible-thumpers.)

Edited June 27, 2015 by Enoch

[Oerwinde]

If the constitution prohibits discrimination based on sex, its the court's job to ensure legislation adheres to that. Limiting marriage to a man and a woman discriminates based on sex.

[Enoch]

If the constitution prohibits discrimination based on sex, its the court's job to ensure legislation adheres to that. Limiting marriage to a man and a woman discriminates based on sex.

 

That amendment was never ratified. 

[Bartimaeus]

Uh...wouldn't that be more discriminating based on sexual preference...of which both sexes had opposite but a sort of equal rights (a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man)? I guess that's basically discriminating based on sex...hmm - probably not the type of discrimination originally considered by legislators, though...but I suppose that hardly matters.

 

 

 

The trick is to not give a **** what others say. Respecting an opinion goes both ways. You are not a bigot by sticking to your opinion, no matter if i, or anyone else disagree/agree´s with you. Your opinion is as worthy as anyone else.

 

Yeah...that's good in theory...but not so much in practice when getting along with others is pretty much required for your time to be constructive.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Barothmuk]

 

EDIT: A cool-headed reaction.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Barothmuk

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

If the constitution prohibits discrimination based on sex, its the court's job to ensure legislation adheres to that. Limiting marriage to a man and a woman discriminates based on sex.

That amendment was never ratified.

Wow. That's interesting. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equality under the law for all individuals, giving specific examples of race, sex, ethnic or national origin, age, or disability. I just assumed the US had the same fundamental rights.

[Bartimaeus]

 

EDIT: A cool-headed reaction.

Yeah, my grandpa is a crazy (becoming actually literally a little crazy at this point: dementia runs in the family) Christian fundamentalist and I tell you, every few months I see him, the "gays" are the bloody end of the world and the root of all evil in our nation according to him. I'm dreading a family bonfire in a few nights...

Edited June 27, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Orogun01]

Next step, boycott churches that don't want to marry gays

[BruceVC]

 

EDIT: A cool-headed reaction.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: A cool-headed reaction.

Yeah, my grandpa is a crazy (becoming actually literally a little crazy at this point: dementia runs in the family) Christian fundamentalist and I tell you, every few months I see him, the "gays" are the bloody end of the world and the root of all evil in our nation according to him. I'm dreading a family bonfire in a few nights...

 

 

Barti do we want me to speak to your Grandpa and explain to him that Gay people are not that bad, he should listen to me as I am South African and  lived through the end of Apartheid?

Edited June 27, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

 

 

is our last post in this thread. no good can come o' further dialogue.  is so very difficult to explain how we can be disappointed by the Court in spite o' the fact that we is in favor o' same-sex marriage.  to Gromnir, the majority opinion is a mess o' tortured legal reasoning, which is why it offends.  nevertheless, to any casual observer it would appear that we is some kinda bigot that hates homosexuals, minorities and puppies.  no good can come o' further explanation.

 

 

 

 

...I always forget that I'm not supposed to talk in political topics so I don't make myself look like a bigot and make everyone hate me. Shoot. Oh well.

 

 

The trick is to not give a **** what others say. Respecting an opinion goes both ways. You are not a bigot by sticking to your opinion, no matter if i, or anyone else disagree/agree´s with you. Your opinion is as worthy as anyone else.

 

 

Oh yes that's great advice, just post exactly what you feel without consideration for peoples feelings or an inkling of diplomacy ....is that how you are in RL?

 

Barti let me give you better input, get into the habit of only saying on a forum what you are prepared to say to people to there faces. That way you will find you will very seldom say anything really offensive

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Woo! Yey SCotUS!

[Leferd]

Overheard this exchange on BART:

 

"SF is gonna go totally gay for this tonight."

 

"So you think that San Francisco is going to break out into homosex orgies?"

 

Didn't hear the rest. Promptly put on my headphones and turned up the Pet Shop Boys.

[BruceVC]

Overheard this exchange on BART:

 

"SF is gonna go totally gay for this tonight."

 

"So you think that San Francisco is going to break out into homosex orgies?"

 

Didn't hear the rest. Promptly put on my headphones and turned up the Pet Shop Boys.

 

Ignorance can be very humorous ...I know I shouldn't laugh at peoples stupidity but sometimes I can't help it 

[Leferd]

To be fair, they were hipsters trying to be funny. I wasn't offended or off put, myself. I mean, c'mon...it IS San Francisco.