Gay Marriage

[Riverwind (imported)]

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear final arguments on Marriage equality. Lets hope they get it right.

When DOMA ended a couple years ago I thought this day would be about 10 years off, boy was I wrong and glad of it. The latest polls say 6 in 10 Americans agree with Gay Marriage. This is a good thing something and something that is long over due.

River

NOTE: the political section is dead however there are a couple topics that are of public interest, this is one of them.

[Paolo]

"Personally, I think all marriage is bad." - Grandad, "The Boondocks".

[kristoff]

"Personally, I think all marriage is bad." - Grandad, "The Boondocks".

I like Granddad.

But if we're going to have marriage, let everyone do it, if they want to.

I suspect you ain't going to marry me, Paolo - eh?

[Losethem (imported)]

I see no reason why we queers can't go out and be just as miserable as the rest of you. I never understood the anti-side of this debate. It matter not one whit to their personal lives if I do this or not, so where do they feel justified telling me I can't just because THEY don't like it. I'M NOT TELLING THEM THEY CAN'T. And I'm sure if I did, they would consider it my meddling in their personal lives/affairs.

Frankly, I think the opponents all think I've been taking classes to wander down the streets and do this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FIFpSGeb0E) (see time 1:35) and drag 'em to the altar against their will. *shrugs*

[Dave (imported)]

The Case is titled: Obergefell v. Hodges, and is the consolidation of four cases the Supreme Court granted cert.

Background:

Two years ago in US v Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense Of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. That decision removed the Federal distinction that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. The decision applied to the Federal Government and not the states. However, the state courts followed that decision in many states and allowed Same-Sex Marriage. When State’s Courts and District Courts in the USA are in conflict, that conflict goes to the Supreme Court to decide.

Issue One:

Four states - - Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky - - claim that states have the sole right to define marriage rather than any court - - state or federal. This is the marriage issue itself - - Can a State ban same-sex marriage? Is Same-Sex Marriage a Right guaranteed under the Constitution of the USA? This is not a trivial question, nor does it have an obvious answer.

The Supreme Court set aside 90 minutes for the argument - - that is an extra 30 minutes.

Issue Two:

Do the States have to recognize a Same-Sex Marriage from another state. Currently, the four states that form this case- - Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky - - do not recognize Same-Sex Marriages from other states.

The Supreme Court set aside 60 minutes for the argument

[Uncle Flo (imported)]

As someone who has been married three times I refuse to comment. --FLO--

[Ernie of Maine (imported)]

What you didn'r learn rhe firt time? Ernie

As someone who has been married three times I refuse to comment. --FLO--

[Losethem (imported)]

The Case is titled: Obergefell v. Hodges, and is the consolidation of four cases the Supreme Court granted cert.

Issue One:

Four states - - Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky - - claim that states have the sole right to define marriage rather than any court - - state or federal. This is the marriage issue itself - - Can a State ban same-sex marriage? Is Same-Sex Marriage a Right guaranteed under the Constitution of the USA? This is not a trivial question, nor does it have an obvious answer.

The Supreme Court set aside 90 minutes for the argument - - that is an extra 30 minutes.

Amusingly, these 4 states that said it is only the right of the states to determine marriage have already lost their case BEFORE gay marriage was ever contemplated. This happened in 1894 when the US Congress passed, and President Cleveland signed, the Enabling Act which set forth what Utah had to do to become a state (namely, prohibit polygamy in the Utah state constitution). When Utah agreed to give up polygamy to become a US State, the precedent was set that the Federal government defines marriage in the country as a whole.

Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky

lost this case 119 years ago when Utah was admitted to the union.

Surprisingly, I've not heard anybody make this point in the present debate.

[gareth19 (imported)]

Amusingly, these 4 states that said it is only the right of the states to determine marriage have already lost their case BEFORE gay marriage was ever contemplated. This happened in 1894 when the US Congress passed, and President Cleveland signed, the Enabling Act which set forth what Utah had to do to become a state (namely, prohibit polygamy in the Utah state constitution). When Utah agreed to give up polygamy to become a US State, the precedent was set that the Federal government defines marriage in the country as a whole.

0]
Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky

lost this case 119 years ago when Utah was admitted to the union.

Surprisingly, I've not
[/quote]
heard anybody make this point in the present debate.

That's because it isn't a valid argument. Prior to its admission to the Union, Utah was a federal territory, not a state. The Federal government can and does set policy within territories, but not within states. In theory, the territory of Utah could be and was obliged under federal jurisdiction to craft a constitution renouncing plural marriage in order to become a state and therefore free of federal interference in this matter which is constitutionally reserved to the states (that is why Jerry Lee Lewis could marry his 14 year old cousin in Texas even if the rest of us thought the whole thing was icky both in terms of the bride's age and degree of consanguinity; Texas's view of marriage trumps common sense, morality, and practice), but upon becoming a state, Utah is now free to enact whatever marriage laws it wishes, so it could reinstate plural marriage [It is not likely to; the President of the Church could hardly reverse a previous divine mandate renouncing plural marriage. It is sort of like Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon; she was the widow of his brother and therefore in-law, his sister, so the marriage was technically incestuous. Henry petitioned for an exemption on grounds that 1) Arthur died before consummating the marriage, so the first marriage was illegal and 2) under Hebrew law Henry was obliged to marry his brother's childless widow and impregnate her. There are flaws with both arguments, but the Pope said "what the heck, do it." While Henry decided that all those stillborn boys was proof that his original argument was false, the next Pope was unwilling to reverse his predecessor. It makes the institution look bad].

There are two issues before the court. The first is the extent of the states' authority to regulate marriage. All agree that marriage age and consanguinity are state matters (that is because some states reject cousin marriage or marriage between spouses of siblings and others authorize it but whatever they rule, the ruling affects all citizens equally), but the Supreme court ruled that a state could not deny any of its citizens the right to marry because of racial differences. If a 20 year-old black man could marry a 20 year-old black woman, it could not deny him the right to marry a 20 year-old white woman, and that any such interracial marriage from one state has to be recognized by all states under the full faith and credit article of the Constitution.

So the court must decide if a state allows a 20 year-old man to marry a 20 year-old woman, must it allow him to marry the 20 year-old man of his dream? Can it refuse to recognize such a marriage from another state? The Supreme Court might waffle on the first issue for all of the usual bigot talking points, but it absolutely cannot waffle on the second one, for if it concedes that Kentucky can pick and chose which provision of the Constitution it will recognize, they will give states carte blanche to ignore those provisions which grant authority to the Supreme Court. The consequences of refusing to uphold gay marriage will be refusing to uphold the authority of the Court itself; it would be an act of judicial suicide.

[jacb1951 (imported)]

i have a bit of a mixed feeling on the gay marriage issue. I'm ok with gays being married.

i'm just not ok with the ramming it down people throats especially forcing businesses to accept doing something they HONESTLY feel opposed to.

We want them to accept our marriage because we HONESTLY love each other. Yet we would force them to go against their HONEST religious beliefs.

there are plenty of bakers and photographers, etc that would welcome the chance to do a gay wedding. And they would that wedding service with love and respect.

So why in the world would you to force a business that would do a terrible job not so much on purpose but more likely because their hearts and soul is not into during that service.

And what is seldom mentioned is many of these businesses gladly serve the gay community just not for a wedding. So in truth they are not anti gay just anti the marriage part.

I guess my point is by all means get married if that is what you want. But don't start it off and ruin that special day by forcing someone to be there or doing a service for you.

That is not the way to get people to understand and accept it. Instead be the bigger person and show them your love in spite of their beliefs.