It's 2015 and SCOTUS Takes Up Same Sex Marriage...Again

[iNow]

Do you think same sex marriage should be made legal by SCOTUS? Why or why not?

 

 

Do you have a half hour? If so, this collection of clips from the arguments conducted just today at the Supreme Court of the United States is really digestible and well edited:

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/super-cuts-from-same-sex-marriage-arguments/

Super-cuts from same-sex marriage arguments

The Court heard two-and-a-half hours of oral argument regarding same-sex marriage today. Weve condensed that into thirty-six minutes of the most interesting and informative questions and answers. We identify the core themes in the argument, the key Justices questions, and the advocates strongest moments. And as a bonus, weve got audio of a protester screaming his head off.

Direct link to the above referenced audio (so well done and so timely!):

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/SSM-Supercut-Small.m4a

[StringJunky]

If SCOTUS decides for the whole country, it's about time. This sort of fundamental issue is well beyond the scope of a state entity to decide. On matters like this, there must be a consistent policy between states.

[iNow]

Indeed. One of the justices (I think it was Ginsberg) noted how strange it would be for states to recognize divorces from other states but not marriages.

[Greg H.]

What kills me is that this should have been settled by the full faith and credit clause (the same clause that makes sure states recognize things like legal judgements and traditional marriages from other states) . Once they're legal in one state, the other states should have to recognize them, even if they don't allow them to take place within their borders.

 

However, just as with interracial marriages in the 1960s, no one seems to be pushing that issue.

[iNow]

You refer to Article 4, and Scalia actually raised this, even quoted it. Counsel used a strange argument that the full faith and credit clause does not apply to marriages, but retreated pretty quickly when it drew criticism from several justices.

 

Ginsburg later suggested full faith and credit may not be the best framework under which to view the issue since it applies to judgments, not "choice of law" which is what states are doing when choosing not to recognize some marriages on the basis of plumbing alone (though, the justice obviously didn't use the term plumbing in the court).

[Greg H.]

I can see Ginsburg's point, but in common usage not recognizing the marriages of one state in another leads to all sorts of issues concerning rights of survivorship and the like. You can argue that Article 4 doesn't explicitly call out marriages, but I think SCOTUS understands that a common sense application of the article needs to be used to avoid the utter chaos that would erupt if states could suddenly stop recognizing marriages from other states, regardless of the legality of the marriage itself in either jurisdiction.

[Delta1212]

I think based on how things have gone so far that a ruling mandating that states recognize the marriages of other states is coming down. Especially if even Scalia is quoting the full faith and credit clause at them.

 

Regardless of how they rule on making same sex marriage actually legal in every state, that first ruling is going to be the final nail in the coffin of marriage bans.

 

If all you have to do to get married is cross state lines and then come home after the ceremony, that battle is utterly and completely lost on the part of those trying to stop it.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Delta1212

[Greg H.]

I think at some point it will have to. Otherwise, a single state could simply say you know what, we recognize gay marriage, and we refuse to recognize any marriage performed in a state where they are illegal.

 

And watch the chaos ensue.

[Harold Squared]

Gay people have always had the right to marry. They have only been forbidden from marrying the person of their choice.

 

My pet solution, not that anyone cares, is called, "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice". Bob and Ted place a personal ad for Carol and Alice, he marries her, she marries him, they sign powers of attorney and live wherever they please, with whoever they please.

 

If anyone has tried this and made it work, it would be of interest to me, but to tell the truth plain vanilla matrimony seems like more of a challenge than it is worth.

[swansont]

Gay people have always had the right to marry. They have only been forbidden from marrying the person of their choice.

 

My pet solution, not that anyone cares, is called, "Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice". Bob and Ted place a personal ad for Carol and Alice, he marries her, she marries him, they sign powers of attorney and live wherever they please, with whoever they please.

 

If anyone has tried this and made it work, it would be of interest to me, but to tell the truth plain vanilla matrimony seems like more of a challenge than it is worth.

 

There was a time, not long ago, that this would not have been viable, since various aspects of such relationships would have been illegal. Why go through all of those hoops? Why not just recognize that everyone should be able to marry the person that they choose, with no other caveats?

[Harold Squared]

Violates tradition, mostly. And the consensus regarding sexual matters as being exclusively for procreation.

 

Brave new world and that.

 

Marriage was, and still is to many people, not just a contract but a sacrament.

 

There was a time, not long ago, that this would not have been viable, since various aspects of such relationships would have been illegal. Why go through all of those hoops? Why not just recognize that everyone should be able to marry the person that they choose, with no other caveats?

Well, mostly, I am not aware of any statute demanding that spouses actively cohabit, or am I wrong? Military life frequently enforces periods of separation of various lengths. Just an example. Edited June 22, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Violates tradition, mostly. And the consensus regarding sexual matters as being exclusively for procreation.

 

Slavery was a tradition. No interracial marriage was a tradition. Tradition for tradition's sake isn't an argument. Tradition often sucks.

 

As for procreation, that would eliminate marriage for post-menopausal women or in the case where someone is sterile. Do we do that, he asked rhetorically? So that's another BS objection.

 

As far as consensus goes, who cares? This is about rights, and the majority is not supposed to get to dictate rights.

"Majority rule will only work if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep vote on what they want to have for supper." (L. Flynt)

[iNow]

EDIT: Cross-posted with swansont

 

Violates tradition, mostly.

"That's how we've always done it" is not a valid argument for continuing a practice. See also: Slavery and letting horses shit wherever they want to in the streets.

 

Further, you've already accepted a violation from traditional marriage since you're not equally speaking out against treating women as property or using them to pay off debts, trading them for sheep and land and cattle, forcing arranged marriages to people they don't love, forcing the marriages of 8 year girls to 50 & 60 year old men, etc. You're not defending tradition. You're defending your personal version of bigotry.

 

If we really want to argue "traditional marriage," perhaps you should know that back in the 800s-1200s through the middle ages and before, Christian leaders both performed and sanctioned same sex marriage. There was also gay marriage back in 100 AD.

 

It really doesn't get any more "traditional" than that, though let's be honest... I'm sure you'll find a convenient way to ignore these facts and rationalize them away so as to ensure your predispositions and ideological preferences can be maintained.

 

http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe

http://io9.com/gay-marriage-in-the-year-100-ad-951140108

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-08/news/ls-1848_1_roman-catholic-church

 

 

And the consensus regarding sexual matters as being exclusively for procreation.

Which is precisely why we don't allow the infertile, the elderly, those who have illness preventing procreation, the post-menopausal, or those who simply choose not to have children to marry. Oh wait...

 

Marriage was, and still is to many people, not just a contract but a sacrament.

Good for them, but as for the rest of us atheists and practitioners of other faiths, it sure is a good thing we have the separation of church and state as well as clear words written directly into our constitution that no one faith will be prioritized over others by US laws and policies. Edited June 22, 2015 by iNow

[StringJunky]

"Tradition", as often used, means: Only as far back as necessary that supports my argument.

[zapatos]

And the consensus regarding sexual matters as being exclusively for procreation.

Is there really a consensus for that? I've been having sex for 40 years and in that entire time, there were exactly two occasions when it was done for procreation.

[iNow]

And then, it finally happened.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8823655/gay-marriage-legal-scotus-obergefell-v-hodges

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court on June 26 struck down states' same-sex marriage bans, effectively bringing marriage equality to the entire US.

 

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family," Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined the court's liberals in the majority opinion, wrote. "[The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

[zapatos]

And then, it finally happened.

 

 

I usually try to keep my comments here a little more dignified, but I'm going to make an exception in this case.

 

SUCK IT, HATERS!

 

 

Ah, that felt good.

[StringJunky]

Commonsense prevails. Quite an achievment to get that across all states.

[imatfaal]

5/4 majority with Kennedy (a Reagan nominee) as the swing voter.

 

From his judgment in the Federal case a few months ago

 

"But that assumes that same-sex couples could not have the more noble purpose, and that's the whole point. Same-sex couples say, 'Of course we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can't procreate. But we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled.'"

[pzkpfw]

Congratulations, America. Another step towards civilisation. ( ;-) )

 

I really don't understand why the opponents feel so strongly about it. Last Month an Australian couple (straight, married, with two kids) said they'd get divorced if same-sex marriage was made legal there, as it offended their concept of marriage so much. That's just astounding.

[iNow]

Small actions can be like pebbles being thrown into a small lake and ripples of hope cascade outwards and change the world.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUk8oq5cpsc

[Unity+]

I think, in the secular context, it should be constitutional.

 

To be honest, I had my original opinion(that it shouldn't be allowed) of it formed by parental upbringing. I originally thought it was conducted within a religious church and that the decision would force such an action, even when against the will of the religious church. While it can be, in the sense to satisfy the spouses involved, I figured out that it was conducted on a secular level. My original opinion of it was formed by ignorance from upbringing.

[Delta1212]

And then, it finally happened.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8823655/gay-marriage-legal-scotus-obergefell-v-hodges

 

 

Kennedy is fairly conservative, but he did come out of the Ninth Circuit and has always had something of a pro-gay rights bent. There's a reason he's usually the swing vote that breaks with other four conservative justices, especially on this issue.

[swansont]

a pro-gay rights bent

 

Or just equal rights, and this is the group being denied them in this case

[Delta1212]

 

Or just equal rights, and this is the group being denied them in this case

Lots of people have certain rights denied to them, especially felons and the mentally ill. It's easy to say that you are for equal rights and much harder to define what qualifies as a right and whether there are circumstances where that right shouldn't apply.

 

I was simply pointing out that where Kennedy stood on that issue as it pertains to the rights of gay people has been pretty apparent for a long time.

 

And to be clear, I think that's a good thing.