Justice Kennedy might have opened the floodgates

[JustRalph]

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others."

Any comment?

The way it's written is surely to become a point of order in the future, for lesser courts.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I expected this to be the decision and haven't had the inclination to yet read the opinions. The equal protection language is no surprise, but it is a little odd that what you excerpted is phrased in such a way that it almost implies that the federal law should be invalidated because of the intent of a state law. I can't believe that was his implication, so I guess I ought to read it in its entirety for the full context, but what you clipped is interpretable in more than one way.

For the record, I wish they'd just get out of the wedding business altogether.

[classhandicapper]

For the record, I wish they'd just get out of the wedding business altogether.

That makes two of us.

If the government IS going to be in the marriage business, then I think religious institutions that don't approve of gay marriage should simply redefine their own institutional joining of men and women. Gays can call themselves married and have legal equality (which IMHO they should) and religious folk that don't approve can still have a distinct institution in their own churches where God only joins men and women in a religious ceremony. Call it "spiritual joining under God".

If gays then insist on being married in St Patrick's Cathedral and we start seeing lawsuits and the government getting involved in that, I'll probably just leave the country because I can't take this stupid shit anymore. The world economy is going to hell in a hand basket, the US is as close to an economic collapse as it has ever been in its history, and these idiots are worried about marriage. :bang:

[Mike at A+]

What bothers me most about all this nonsense is the fact that a few loudmouth activists are pushing an agenda for the sole reason of rubbing it in the faces of people of faith. I know many gay people, some in my own family and none of them support the concept of same sex marriage. Sure they want equal rights as any other human but changing the age old meaning of the word "marriage" isn't a priority. As for myself, I am all for people keeping their private lives to themselves. What you do behind closed doors isn't my business and I don't really need to know your preferences or orientation. I will continue to believe that homosexuality is more of a choice than a genetic condition. I believe there may be influences experienced during the formative years that lead people into that choice such as being bullied or brought up by neglectful parents. Whatever the reason, I believe in live and let live but I stop short of changing the meaning of marriage. Especially for "in your face" reasons.

[JustRalph]

I expected this to be the decision and haven't had the inclination to yet read the opinions. The equal protection language is no surprise, but it is a little odd that what you excerpted is phrased in such a way that it almost implies that the federal law should be invalidated because of the intent of a state law. I can't believe that was his implication, so I guess I ought to read it in its entirety for the full context, but what you clipped is interpretable in more than one way.

For the record, I wish they'd just get out of the wedding business altogether.

If you were a bloodhound you would be on the right track. Kennedy ignored the concept of Federalism completely. The floodgates I speak of have to do with your point. This decision says that the state laws take precedent. It invalidates Federal legislation that was passed by Congress. That is a tall tall hammer to yield. It applies to marriage only. Specifically, recognized marriages in specific state law(s)

This means that "any" marriage law in effect as of this decision really doesn't change. But the equal protection provided at the Federal level applies. Therefore Federal benefits etc will apply to same sex marriages. States that specifically only recognize male-female marriages specifically in their law actually get a boost under this decision. I'm no lawyer but that's how I read it.

Now, take that concept one step further. Think about the next law that passes.....no matter what it is, if the state calls it a marriage, it will be recognized by Federal authorities, and qualify for Federal bennies etc

In the wording of this decision, and the philosophy it proposes, State legislatures could make anything a marriage. There lies the interesting part.

[TJDave]

What bothers me most about all this nonsense is the fact that a few loudmouth activists are pushing an agenda for the sole reason of rubbing it in the faces of people of faith.


I'm not pushing anything. I am happy that gays can now marry and experience the bliss that was once limited to only us hetrosexuals. ;)

However, the fact that it PO's what you would call "people of faith" is the icing on the cake. :ThmbUp:

[jballscalls]

What bothers me most about all this nonsense is the fact that a few loudmouth activists are pushing an agenda for the sole reason of rubbing it in the faces of people of faith. I know many gay people, some in my own family and none of them support the concept of same sex marriage. Sure they want equal rights as any other human but changing the age old meaning of the word "marriage" isn't a priority. As for myself, I am all for people keeping their private lives to themselves. What you do behind closed doors isn't my business and I don't really need to know your preferences or orientation. I will continue to believe that homosexuality is more of a choice than a genetic condition. I believe there may be influences experienced during the formative years that lead people into that choice such as being bullied or brought up by neglectful parents. Whatever the reason, I believe in live and let live but I stop short of changing the meaning of marriage. Especially for "in your face" reasons.

I disagree with a lot of this, but respect your opinion. I've never understood why anyone would care if gays want to marry. It doesn't hurt or effect anyone (that I can see, maybe you have a way that it does?). I'm actually still surprised when people think that being gay is a choice. I usually respond with "is being straight a choice you had?" and then they say no and some get it, and then some make an excuse.

Nothing in your face about it for me, I just have many friends and family who are now given a right that I've always had, to marry the person we love.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Come 'round more often Jason. Some of us miss your good natured self here. :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

I disagree with a lot of this, but respect your opinion. I've never understood why anyone would care if gays want to marry. It doesn't hurt or effect anyone (that I can see, maybe you have a way that it does?). I'm actually still surprised when people think that being gay is a choice. I usually respond with "is being straight a choice you had?" and then they say no and some get it, and then some make an excuse.

Nothing in your face about it for me, I just have many friends and family who are now given a right that I've always had, to marry the person we love.

Lets keep the thread on topic. I could give a shit about whether gays can marry. I do find the legal implications of the decision much more interesting.

I can't wait to see what happens .....legally.

[jballscalls]

Lets keep the thread on topic. I could give a shit about whether gays can marry. I do find the legal implications of the decision much more interesting.

I can't wait to see what happens .....legally.

Sorry for having an opinion Ralph. I'll leave again. Good luck to you

[FantasticDan]

I will continue to believe that homosexuality is more of a choice than a genetic condition. I believe there may be influences experienced during the formative years that lead people into that choice such as being bullied or brought up by neglectful parents.Wow, that's really tremendous. Why did Billy or Janey turn out gay? Cuz they were bullied or mom and dad didn't love 'em enough. I guess it was either that or a life of crime or substance abuse...

Just top-notch stuff. Kudos! :ThmbUp:

[JustRalph]

Sorry for having an opinion Ralph. I'll leave again. Good luck to you

You know better than that. I don't mind an opinion. But the subject has been covered ad nauseam in older threads. The legal implications I think are very interesting, thus the thread.

[TJDave]

I could give a shit about whether gays can marry.

You do.

Gay marriage now has federal legal standing. That's what this decision means and it affects everyone who pays taxes and/or collects benefits.

You can be for or against but not caring is no longer an option.

[Mike at A+]

I'm not pushing anything. I am happy that gays can now marry and experience the bliss that was once limited to only us hetrosexuals. ;)

However, the fact that it PO's what you would call "people of faith" is the icing on the cake. :ThmbUp:
I never said it "PO's" anyone. I was implying that many homosexuals hate people of faith because they adhere to and believe in the teachings of their churches. I consider myself a person of faith but same sex marriage doesn't push any of my buttons. I feel it's not valid in the true sense of marriage but I want everyone to have the same legal rights including visitation, inheritance, insurance, etc. I just don't recognize the word marriage for same sex couples and never will regardless of any laws passed. It will always be a civil union to me. Loud and obnoxious doesn't equal correct and that seems to be a tactic of the left not only in this issue but in many others. They wish to shout down opponents and not allow the opinions of others to be voiced. This is why I could never respect the vast majority of far left folks.

[Tom]

Obviously,the court is out of control and filled with looneys.
Scary that 9 un-elected men of such low character wield so much power.
It doesn't fit at all with our idea of a democratic government.
More along the line of some totalitarian banana republic.
And boys lose the black dresses - you look silly.

[Mike at A+]

Wow, that's really tremendous. Why did Billy or Janey turn out gay? Cuz they were bullied or mom and dad didn't love 'em enough. I guess it was either that or a life of crime or substance abuse...

Just top-notch stuff. Kudos! :ThmbUp:
So you say it's genetic? Is there a "gay gene"? Is it hereditary?

[iwearpurple]

Obviously,the court is out of control and filled with looneys.
Scary that 9 un-elected men of such low character wield so much power.
It doesn't fit at all with our idea of a democratic government.
More along the line of some totalitarian banana republic.
And boys lose the black dresses - you look silly.

Well Tom, some of these judges are women. None that will ever grace the pages of Playboy, but female nonetheless.

[menifee]

Obviously,the court is out of control and filled with looneys.
Scary that 9 un-elected men of such low character wield so much power.
It doesn't fit at all with our idea of a democratic government.
More along the line of some totalitarian banana republic.
And boys lose the black dresses - you look silly.

There are three women on the Court.

BTW, regardless of what you think about the decisions today, the Supreme Court has done quite a bit to advance freedom and liberty in this country. It is the ultimate democratic institution because regardless of the political movements of the day, it is guided by the basic principles endowed in our Constitution. Not saying they get it right all the time, but often they do.

[Tom]

Read Men in Black.

[TJDave]

Read Men in Black.

There was a book?

[Tom]

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095

[JustRalph]

There are three women on the Court.

BTW, regardless of what you think about the decisions today, the Supreme Court has done quite a bit to advance freedom and liberty in this country. It is the ultimate democratic institution because regardless of the political movements of the day, it is guided by the basic principles endowed in our Constitution. Not saying they get it right all the time, but often they do.

But totally ignored the Constitution. Federalism is a basic part of the constitution. Giving the States carte blanche on a single issue under the guise of equal protection, and reinforcing the current laws, was a strange way to go about it. The majority could have just ruled on the broader equal protection argument. Why they relied on the state laws as part of the ruling is perplexing. The more broad equal protection argument was a layup. Easy to explain etc.

[JustRalph]

You do.

Gay marriage now has federal legal standing. That's what this decision means and it affects everyone who pays taxes and/or collects benefits.

You can be for or against but not caring is no longer an option.

In the more broad sense, I guess so.

[TJDave]

But totally ignored the Constitution. Federalism is a basic part of the constitution. Giving the States carte blanche on a single issue under the guise of equal protection, and reinforcing the current laws, was a strange way to go about it. The majority could have just ruled on the broader equal protection argument. Why they relied on the state laws as part of the ruling is perplexing. The more broad equal protection argument was a layup. Easy to explain etc.

Federalsim was not before the Court. This was a case filed in Federal court, not a particular State. Sec III was ruled unconstitutional. There was no argument brought against Section II.

[mostpost]

Sorry for having an opinion Ralph. I'll leave again. Good luck to you
Personally, I hope you don't leave. Two and a half years between posts is just to long. Your opinion is just as valid as JR's. I also would not want him to leave.

[jballscalls]

Personally, I hope you don't leave. Two and a half years between posts is just to long. Your opinion is just as valid as JR's. I also would not want him to leave.

I just found it interesting that I was the one he quoted and asked to stay on topic, when I was responding to someone who had taken it off topic and why he didn't quote that person. But I'm gonna stay in the shallow waters of the racing section, I'm in over my head back here.

[Robert Goren]

Obviously,the court is out of control and filled with looneys.
Scary that 9 un-elected men of such low character wield so much power.
It doesn't fit at all with our idea of a democratic government.
More along the line of some totalitarian banana republic.
And boys lose the black dresses - you look silly. I got to agree with you on this one. Some times the decisions themselves are right, but the strange reasoning that they say they used to reach them leaves one shaking one's head. I guess this is what you get, when the major reason somebody gets to sit on court is decided by how people think they feel about one issue, abortion. That issue on one side or the other has played a major part in putting all the current justices on the court. Not one was put there because they were considered to have the best legal mind in the country. No one even bothered to pretended that was case when they were nominated and confirmed.

[burnsy]

I'm not pushing anything. I am happy that gays can now marry and experience the bliss that was once limited to only us hetrosexuals. ;)

However, the fact that it PO's what you would call "people of faith" is the icing on the cake. :ThmbUp:

Amen......to that. The government and the church need to leave people alone. A friend of mine wrote a great book recently called The Five rights of the Individual, by Philip Schuyler, hes a really good horse player and a brilliant libretarian. The government makes 350 pages of new laws a DAY! Many of them restricting what consenting adults can or can not do. He cites the increase in population in the last 40 years at 50% yet the prison population increased some 1000% during this period, mostly due to the drug laws. He uses terms like American gulag and spying when it comes to our government. No known democracy has this large a percentage behind bars. An incarceration rate that is 7 times most industrial countries! Gee, i wonder if theres money in locking people up????? The 5 rights are, Right to life, The right to liberty, The right to property, The right to persue hapiness (this includes whether it is self destructive or peceived to be self destructive or not). It does not matter what the church, govt. or what God thinks. Happiness is defined by the individual. The right to equality before the law is the 5th right.

I'm not gay, i'm divorced though. So yeah, marriage is such a sucess in this country :confused: . But its none of my business, doesn't matter what MY GOD thinks or what any one else thinks....its between the people invovled. Rights are for the individual as long as coercion or deception is not used.

I don't see how these holyier than though people get any say in what people do....you have not sinned? Toss the first stone....moron. Clearly, these people are being deprived of happiness and being deprived of equality before the law.........that simple. Of course, our system will make a big, slow moving, complicated mess of it....that was the founders intentions too....that we debate the issue without a quick outcome or turn around. It takes years to change things here and it was DESIGNED that way.....but its easy to see that this horse has left the barn and change is coming. Just when i lose faith in this country,,,,,things like this are happening which restores it. The govt. has way too much control, these rulings and the pot movement are going to give people MORE freedom and free MORE people from our "for profit" gulag system.......The government, The use of religion to scare people, Santa won't grant you eternal life if you piss him off.....:lol: yeah ok, who meets those standards? All of it....is crap. We have laws where people have to RESPECT each others rights and thats all we NEED.

[classhandicapper]

Loud and obnoxious doesn't equal correct and that seems to be a tactic of the left not only in this issue but in many others. They wish to shout down opponents and not allow the opinions of others to be voiced. This is why I could never respect the vast majority of far left folks.

I object to is the use of the word "hate" for people of faith that want to preserve traditional marriage. Right or wrong, you can disagree with someone without hating them.

I also don't see morality in specifically trying to annoy religious people and then getting joy in doing so. I see that as a very negative and unproductive actions and emotion.

All in all though I think this is a preposterously idiotic issue to be spending so much time and energy on when the US and world economy remains on the precipice.

[Tom]

Only one man in the history of the world was fit to serve a lifetime job.
Jesus Christ.

And he scheduled his own retirement.

[classhandicapper]

If there is a lawyer here, could you please answer a question for me. This is a serious question. I'm not trying to make a point.

Is there some underlying principle in what we are doing here that would allow us to differentiate between gays getting married and polygamy (which actually has a long history and religious tradition) or brother and sister getting married (there are cases of siblings actually falling in love with each other), or an adult marrying a 15 year post pubescent (man or woman) etc....

It seems to me that all are moral standards that we have set out that could potentially interfere with the happiness and equality of some people in society that disagree with those standards. In fact, those standards could and have changed with time.

Are we simply changing the moral standards or is there a constitutional principle involved?

[JustRalph]

If there is a lawyer here, could you please answer a question for me. This is a serious question. I'm not trying to make a point.

Is there some underlying principle in what we are doing here that would allow us to differentiate between gays getting married and polygamy (which actually has a long history and religious tradition) or brother and sister getting married (there are cases of siblings actually falling in love with each other), or an adult marrying a 15 year post pubescent (man or woman) etc....

It seems to me that all are moral standards that we have set out that could potentially interfere with the happiness and equality of some people in society that disagree with those standards. In fact, those standards could and have changed with time.

Are we simply changing the moral standards or is there a constitutional principle involved?

Now we are getting somewhere. It took almost a day. Under the wording of Kennedy's decision, any law or more precisely any "marriage" recognized by the state, is now Federally protected and recognized.

Think about that. How long until a State like California decides to recognize multiple wives or husbands? How about a State that decides to recognize marriages that are allowable under Sharia law? That's up to four wives.

All that has to occur is the State to pass a law, or just decide to issue marriage licenses based on the Governors order as some states have tried to do previously, and bingo the marriage is recognized Federally.

It could get interesting. A quick repeal of some bigamy laws would be required, but takes nothing more than an extra paragraph in any new law.

This is why I find the way the majority went about this ruling as odd.

[classhandicapper]

Now we are getting somewhere. It took almost a day. Under the wording of Kennedy's decision, any law or more precisely any "marriage" recognized by the state, is now Federally protected and recognized.

Think about that. How long until a State like California decides to recognize multiple wives or husbands? How about a State that decides to recognize marriages that are allowable under Sharia law? That's up to four wives.

All that has to occur is the State to pass a law, or just decide to issue marriage licenses based on the Governors order as some states have tried to do previously, and bingo the marriage is recognized Federally.

It could get interesting. A quick repeal of some bigamy laws would be required, but takes nothing more than an extra paragraph in any new law.

This is why I find the way the majority went about this ruling as odd.

Thanks Ralph.

I may have to think about this ruling some more. It's sounds like they screwed up attempting to do something I am generally OK with.

Is this why Scalia went off?

[JustRalph]

Thanks Ralph.

I may have to think about this ruling some more. It's sounds like they screwed up attempting to do something I am generally OK with.

Is this why Scalia went off?

It's one of the reasons. His main thrust was that the majority was ignoring Congress and their passing of this DOMA law, and Clinton signing it. Scalia implied that the majority was putting forth the theory that Congress and Clinton were duly elected and acting in their prescribed role, yet they were somehow purposely punishing Gays. He implied in his dissent that if this law was passed by Congress and signed by a president, it should be changed the same way.

I believe he is right and made a good argument that Federalism was ignored. Even if he didn't say it directly. Alito and Roberts points were more direct, and maybe more legally sound on the merits of States vs Federal rights, but Scalia's points were more pointed at the spirit of the majority opinion.

Either way, the majority had to step over some prickly thorns to get where they were going. But nullifying a properly passed and totally sound Federal law on the basis they did was not so much high handed as it was choosing to purposely add weight to the state laws.

A simple equal protection argument would have worked and in my eye probably been legally correct. Instead they impugned Congress and added to the states mess.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper
If there is a lawyer here, could you please answer a question for me. This is a serious question. I'm not trying to make a point.

Is there some underlying principle in what we are doing here that would allow us to differentiate between gays getting married and polygamy (which actually has a long history and religious tradition) or brother and sister getting married (there are cases of siblings actually falling in love with each other), or an adult marrying a 15 year post pubescent (man or woman) etc....

It seems to me that all are moral standards that we have set out that could potentially interfere with the happiness and equality of some people in society that disagree with those standards. In fact, those standards could and have changed with time.

Are we simply changing the moral standards or is there a constitutional principle involved?
Response by JustRalph

Now we are getting somewhere. It took almost a day. Under the wording of Kennedy's decision, any law or more precisely any "marriage" recognized by the state, is now Federally protected and recognized.

Think about that. How long until a State like California decides to recognize multiple wives or husbands? How about a State that decides to recognize marriages that are allowable under Sharia law? That's up to four wives.

All that has to occur is the State to pass a law, or just decide to issue marriage licenses based on the Governors order as some states have tried to do previously, and bingo the marriage is recognized Federally.

It could get interesting. A quick repeal of some bigamy laws would be required, but takes nothing more than an extra paragraph in any new law.

This is why I find the way the majority went about this ruling as odd.


Gay marriage is one thing. Polygamy is another thing and marriage between siblings is quite another. We established these laws because of practical concerns not morality, although morality enters in on a personal level.

For example Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Fridays, not because Christ died on a Friday, but because the Pope was trying to protect the Italian fishing industry. And the original reason Jews and Muslims don't eat pork is because so many died from eating improperly prepared pork.

There are practical reasons to oppose Polygamy including the fact that it limits the gene pool to have one man father children with many wives. Also, if one man has a lot of wives and wives can only have one husband, then many men will have no wives at all. Add to that the financial difficulties of one man supporting multiple wives, each with one or more children.

The stricture against brother marrying sister is also based on genetics. When both sides of the marriage contribute the same defect, it is that much more likely to be passed on to the child.

As to gay marriages, I see neither the moral nor the practical rationale behind prohibiting them. If two people, regardless of gender, are going to cohabit: they are going to do so regardless of legal status. Is it not better for them to do so with the approval of the law?

The practical argument against gay marriage is that two persons of the same sex cannot produce children-the old biblical adage "Multiply and subdue the earth." (I always imagine the earth crying out, "Enough already, I'm subdued, I'm subdued")

It is no longer true that same-sex couples cannot have children that are biologically the children of at least one of the partners. My sister, who is definitely heterosexual, has two Lesbian friends who are in a committed relationship. One of the ladies has twice been inseminated by a donor and has twice given birth to a baby girl. They used the same donor each time so the girls are biological sisters. Believe me when I say the two women are as good parents as any Hetero couple-maybe better.

Same sex couple can also adopt. There are millions of children in the world who have no home. A gay man whom I am friends with and his partner have adopted three boys from Guatemala.

This reply is getting too long-it's almost Boxcarian, so let me close by responding to JustRalph's fear that states will now OK polygamy, bigamy, incest, bestiality etc. Nonsense-utter nonsense; no states have given any indication of any desire to do any such thing.

[classhandicapper]

Gay marriage is one thing. Polygamy is another thing and marriage between siblings is quite another. We established these laws because of practical concerns not morality, although morality enters in on a personal level.

For example Catholics were forbidden to eat meat on Fridays, not because Christ died on a Friday, but because the Pope was trying to protect the Italian fishing industry. And the original reason Jews and Muslims don't eat pork is because so many died from eating improperly prepared pork.

There are practical reasons to oppose Polygamy including the fact that it limits the gene pool to have one man father children with many wives. Also, if one man has a lot of wives and wives can only have one husband, then many men will have no wives at all. Add to that the financial difficulties of one man supporting multiple wives, each with one or more children.

The stricture against brother marrying sister is also based on genetics. When both sides of the marriage contribute the same defect, it is that much more likely to be passed on to the child.

As to gay marriages, I see neither the moral nor the practical rationale behind prohibiting them. If two people, regardless of gender, are going to cohabit: they are going to do so regardless of legal status. Is it not better for them to do so with the approval of the law?

The practical argument against gay marriage is that two persons of the same sex cannot produce children-the old biblical adage "Multiply and subdue the earth." (I always imagine the earth crying out, "Enough already, I'm subdued, I'm subdued")

It is no longer true that same-sex couples cannot have children that are biologically the children of at least one of the partners. My sister, who is definitely heterosexual, has two Lesbian friends who are in a committed relationship. One of the ladies has twice been inseminated by a donor and has twice given birth to a baby girl. They used the same donor each time so the girls are biological sisters. Believe me when I say the two women are as good parents as any Hetero couple-maybe better.

Same sex couple can also adopt. There are millions of children in the world who have no home. A gay man whom I am friends with and his partner have adopted three boys from Guatemala.

This reply is getting too long-it's almost Boxcarian, so let me close by responding to JustRalph's fear that states will now OK polygamy, bigamy, incest, bestiality etc. Nonsense-utter nonsense; no states have given any indication of any desire to do any such thing.

This isn't something I am well versed in, but I could shoot so many holes in this there would be more holes than content. I just don't want to deal with the many responses my post would provoke. I have already spent too much time on it. This topic is like fiddling while Rome is burning for me. I'm way more interested in determining when western Europe and the US are going to collapse economically.

I'll just say there were reasons other than God or morality that homosexual behavior was frowned upon historically.

[JustRalph]

This reply is getting too long-it's almost Boxcarian, so let me close by responding to JustRalph's fear that states will now OK polygamy, bigamy, incest, bestiality etc. Nonsense-utter nonsense; no states have given any indication of any desire to do any such thing.

I never said I feared it.

But, if the looney tunes in CA decide multiple partners in a marriage is ok, they now have federal standing.