|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 26, 2015 18:33:55 GMT -5
The decisionA 5-4 vote. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts dissenting; their opinions appear near the end of the document. You need a PDF reader to see the document. The majority opinion holds that the Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection, extends to gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 26, 2015 19:20:06 GMT -5
It's disappointing.. but not terribly surprising. And all 9 of them got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 26, 2015 20:26:07 GMT -5
Roberts' opinion is consistent with previous positions he has held, which is that the court is not to make large scale changes in the social structure. I found his allusion to the fallacy of "judicial activism" unpalatable. Alito, Thomas and Scalia's opinions were fairly thinly-veiled attempts to inject their conservative ideology into the decision, which is sort of the definition of judicial activism. Maybe the dissenters should have a chat before they write their opinions? It seems to me that the Fourteenth Amendment reasoning of the majority is solid. But, then, I tend to favor Constitutional interpretations that take powers away from government. In this case, the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is inherent, and therefore deserving of such protection.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 26, 2015 20:38:51 GMT -5
But they didn't "take power away from the government', they usurped state powers. And they didn't just open the door to one perversion, but all of them. If gays can "marry", then so can polygamists, incestuous "couples", and pedophiles, eventually. Since there is no age lmit stated in the Constitution, there is nothing preventing the underage from suing for their "rights".
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Jun 26, 2015 22:22:45 GMT -5
Not really surprised. I doubt much will change, as gay couples have always been around. Maybe they'll be allies in getting rid of the marriage penalties in tax law. With luck, they'll advocate for monogamy and premarital chastity. Wouldn't that be fun? I do think lighting up the White House with rainbow lights was a bit tacky-- partly because I like rainbows and don't like seeing them co-opted with a sexual reference. It's, also, a bit too gaga celebratory for my taste. redleg polygamy, we'll probably get due to the increasing number of Muslims in the US. Incest has been defined differently in different times. The desire to commit incest is rare. That's why we have the expression, "It's like kissing your sister." The underage are restricted when it comes to signing legal contracts. Marriage is already allowed with parental consent in most states, isn't it? Mostly, this is a blow to caterers in states that already allow gay marriage-- no more out-of-state clients with lots of money to spend.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 27, 2015 6:54:56 GMT -5
Roberts' opinion is consistent with previous positions he has held, which is that the court is not to make large scale changes in the social structure. I found his allusion to the fallacy of "judicial activism" unpalatable. Alito, Thomas and Scalia's opinions were fairly thinly-veiled attempts to inject their conservative ideology into the decision, which is sort of the definition of judicial activism. Maybe the dissenters should have a chat before they write their opinions? It seems to me that the Fourteenth Amendment reasoning of the majority is solid. But, then, I tend to favor Constitutional interpretations that take powers away from government. In this case, the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is inherent, and therefore deserving of such protection. The flaw in the majority's opinion isn't that there's no constitutional equal protection issue, because there is. The error is they simply accept the assertion that government treats people differently based on sexual orientation. Because it doesn't. The government treats gays the same way it treats single people. The equal protection issue arises because it treats people differently based on marital status. The correct solution under the 14th Amendment is to de-regulate marriage, and to have the government treat everyone as individuals. The religious right needs to learn you can't protect something sacred like marriage with something profane like government.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 27, 2015 8:09:38 GMT -5
Not really surprised. I doubt much will change, as gay couples have always been around. Maybe they'll be allies in getting rid of the marriage penalties in tax law. With luck, they'll advocate for monogamy and premarital chastity. Wouldn't that be fun? I do think lighting up the White House with rainbow lights was a bit tacky-- partly because I like rainbows and don't like seeing them co-opted with a sexual reference. It's, also, a bit too gaga celebratory for my taste. redleg polygamy, we'll probably get due to the increasing number of Muslims in the US. Incest has been defined differently in different times. The desire to commit incest is rare. That's why we have the expression, "It's like kissing your sister." The underage are restricted when it comes to signing legal contracts. Marriage is already allowed with parental consent in most states, isn't it? Mostly, this is a blow to caterers in states that already allow gay marriage-- no more out-of-state clients with lots of money to spend. The goal was not to ensure "rights" for gays, it was to destroy the morality and culture of the country. There are only about 2% the population that are "gay", and many of them are simply youth that have been indoctrinated by the Left into thinking they were "gay". Incest will now "come out of the closet", and so will pedophilia. As I said, there is no age limit in the Constitution, except for President and Congress. You will see pedophiles, and maybe their 'lovers' suing for their "right" to marry. The Parental Consent laws are based on a certain age, usually 15 or 16.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 27, 2015 8:11:21 GMT -5
Roberts' opinion is consistent with previous positions he has held, which is that the court is not to make large scale changes in the social structure. I found his allusion to the fallacy of "judicial activism" unpalatable. Alito, Thomas and Scalia's opinions were fairly thinly-veiled attempts to inject their conservative ideology into the decision, which is sort of the definition of judicial activism. Maybe the dissenters should have a chat before they write their opinions? It seems to me that the Fourteenth Amendment reasoning of the majority is solid. But, then, I tend to favor Constitutional interpretations that take powers away from government. In this case, the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is inherent, and therefore deserving of such protection. The flaw in the majority's opinion isn't that there's no constitutional equal protection issue, because there is. The error is they simply accept the assertion that government treats people differently based on sexual orientation. Because it doesn't. The government treats gays the same way it treats single people. The equal protection issue arises because it treats people differently based on marital status. The correct solution under the 14th Amendment is to de-regulate marriage, and to have the government treat everyone as individuals. The religious right needs to learn you can't protect something sacred like marriage with something profane like government. What the court should have done was declare marriage a state issue, and drop the whole thing. It is. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds control over marriage. Go to a flat tax, and kill the whole argument.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 27, 2015 8:46:54 GMT -5
The flaw in the majority's opinion isn't that there's no constitutional equal protection issue, because there is. The error is they simply accept the assertion that government treats people differently based on sexual orientation. Because it doesn't. The government treats gays the same way it treats single people. The equal protection issue arises because it treats people differently based on marital status. The correct solution under the 14th Amendment is to de-regulate marriage, and to have the government treat everyone as individuals. The religious right needs to learn you can't protect something sacred like marriage with something profane like government. What the court should have done was declare marriage a state issue, and drop the whole thing. It is. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds control over marriage. Go to a flat tax, and kill the whole argument. The 14th Amendment entitles everyone to equal protection under the law. So, yes, the Constitution does give Feds control over marriage where marriage results in inequal treatment. Again, though, that issue isn't a gay versus straight problem. It's a married versus single problem. Plus, the idea of going to the state for approval of ones relationship status is just creepy.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 27, 2015 10:37:38 GMT -5
But they didn't "take power away from the government', they usurped state powers. Exactly. They took a power away from state governments. And they didn't just open the door to one perversion, but all of them. If gays can "marry", then so can polygamists, incestuous "couples", and pedophiles, eventually. Since there is no age lmit stated in the Constitution, there is nothing preventing the underage from suing for their "rights". The slippery slope argument's validity depends very much on how slippery and how steep the slope is. The hyperreligious 1 believe it's very slippery and steep. I tend to doubt it. 1 People whose decisions are controlled chiefly by their religious beliefs and almost never by other inputs. That's your Dobsons, Falwells, and suchlike.
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jun 27, 2015 11:02:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Jun 27, 2015 11:19:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 27, 2015 12:41:01 GMT -5
Polygamy is likely to work both ways today. In centuries past, a man with multiple wives was the stereotype. I suspect we'd find women with multiple husbands today as well. Other kinds of relationships will also probably be developed. Like, for example, Bill and Hillary Clinton obviously have a marriage of convenience based on something other than love and physical attraction. No doubt people in similar situations in the future will not have to actually get married, but simply be recognized as domestic partners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2015 23:26:07 GMT -5
Roberts' opinion is consistent with previous positions he has held, which is that the court is not to make large scale changes in the social structure. I found his allusion to the fallacy of "judicial activism" unpalatable. Alito, Thomas and Scalia's opinions were fairly thinly-veiled attempts to inject their conservative ideology into the decision, which is sort of the definition of judicial activism. Maybe the dissenters should have a chat before they write their opinions? It seems to me that the Fourteenth Amendment reasoning of the majority is solid. But, then, I tend to favor Constitutional interpretations that take powers away from government. In this case, the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is inherent, and therefore deserving of such protection. Perhaps, but as another poster referenced, there's nothing in the Constitution which requires all 50 states to redefine marriage or what policy goals it should be designed to serve. While there may be good policy arguments on both sides, justices should not insert their own preferences regarding marriage under the guise that they are required under the Constitution. No such condition exists.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 5:20:54 GMT -5
Roberts' opinion is consistent with previous positions he has held, which is that the court is not to make large scale changes in the social structure. I found his allusion to the fallacy of "judicial activism" unpalatable. Alito, Thomas and Scalia's opinions were fairly thinly-veiled attempts to inject their conservative ideology into the decision, which is sort of the definition of judicial activism. Maybe the dissenters should have a chat before they write their opinions? It seems to me that the Fourteenth Amendment reasoning of the majority is solid. But, then, I tend to favor Constitutional interpretations that take powers away from government. In this case, the power to discriminate based on sexual orientation, which is inherent, and therefore deserving of such protection. Perhaps, but as another poster referenced, there's nothing in the Constitution which requires all 50 states to redefine marriage or what policy goals it should be designed to serve. While there may be good policy arguments on both sides, justices should not insert their own preferences regarding marriage under the guise that they are required under the Constitution. No such condition exists.
In the era of the founders, marriage was thought to be not a government matter at all. Federal, state or otherwise. The error was when the states began trying to regulate it... Mostly with the goal of trying to stop inter-racial, and inter-religious marriage. Again, the correct decision, the constitutional decision, is to de-regulate it entirely. Make it, once again, the institution that the founders would have recognized.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 5:41:54 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages.
The only way to protect the church is to end the claim that some sort of legal benefit can be obtained by getting married. That is the ONLY way to end the equal protection claim.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jun 28, 2015 6:08:56 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. The only way to protect the church is to end the claim that some sort of legal benefit can be obtained by getting married. That is the ONLY way to end the equal protection claim. I fear you have a point there.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 28, 2015 10:04:33 GMT -5
The flaw in the majority's opinion isn't that there's no constitutional equal protection issue, because there is. The error is they simply accept the assertion that government treats people differently based on sexual orientation. Because it doesn't. The government treats gays the same way it treats single people. The equal protection issue arises because it treats people differently based on marital status. The correct solution under the 14th Amendment is to de-regulate marriage, and to have the government treat everyone as individuals. The religious right needs to learn you can't protect something sacred like marriage with something profane like government. I don't wholly disagree with this. One of the issues has been that hospitals, and other such places, have refused to recognize gay partners in healthcare situations because of their rules that only married individuals can visit, can make healthcare decisions, and so forth. That's also been true of automatic beneficiaries (i.e. in most states if I die my wife more or less automatically becomes the sole owner of joint property without a lot of court involvement). If you want government to deregulate marriage, which I support, then you'd also need laws requiring an organization - government or private - to accept anyone as a beneficiary, having visitation rights or decision making powers, etc. (healthcare situations). A wise person takes care of this with the appropriate legal paperwork ahead of time, but as has been proven from time to time not everyone plans ahead. I don't believe those that don't should be made to suffer needlessly because someone else disapproves of their choices.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 28, 2015 10:05:08 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. Zero chance this goes anywhere. The First Amendment would prohibit it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 11:06:32 GMT -5
Ultimately, we're going to have to de-regulate marriage, because this fight isn't over by a long-shot. The next round of legal action is going to be attempts to require the Catholic Church to perform gay marriages. Zero chance this goes anywhere. The First Amendment would prohibit it. I would have thought that about florists, caterers and photographers as well, but that hasn't worked out. Or, for that matter, finding ways to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 11:20:10 GMT -5
The flaw in the majority's opinion isn't that there's no constitutional equal protection issue, because there is. The error is they simply accept the assertion that government treats people differently based on sexual orientation. Because it doesn't. The government treats gays the same way it treats single people. The equal protection issue arises because it treats people differently based on marital status. The correct solution under the 14th Amendment is to de-regulate marriage, and to have the government treat everyone as individuals. The religious right needs to learn you can't protect something sacred like marriage with something profane like government. I don't wholly disagree with this. One of the issues has been that hospitals, and other such places, have refused to recognize gay partners in healthcare situations because of their rules that only married individuals can visit, can make healthcare decisions, and so forth. That's also been true of automatic beneficiaries (i.e. in most states if I die my wife more or less automatically becomes the sole owner of joint property without a lot of court involvement). If you want government to deregulate marriage, which I support, then you'd also need laws requiring an organization - government or private - to accept anyone as a beneficiary, having visitation rights or decision making powers, etc. (healthcare situations). A wise person takes care of this with the appropriate legal paperwork ahead of time, but as has been proven from time to time not everyone plans ahead. I don't believe those that don't should be made to suffer needlessly because someone else disapproves of their choices. Most of this has already happened. The hospitals - at least around here - are basically fine with any visitor patients don't object to. There is also a simple medical power of attorney used in PA and a few other states called "5 wishes" that allows a patient to lay out their care if they become incapacitated. Hospitals hand out the document free of charge, the patient fills it out, and you only need a couple of witnesses to execute it. Such a document really ought to be done whether your married or not. So this piece of the puzzle is already all but solved. Automatic inheretance is also an easy enough thing to take care of with a will. And let's face it, if you own anything of value, (and care who gets it when you die) you should have one of those too. If not, if you're married, chances are your spouse or domestic partner is already on the deed to the house, and its contents are under their control. Beyond that, there's no reason the law can't default to next of kin being children, parents and siblings first. I lost a long-term girlfriend to cancer about a year ago. We were never married, and PA doesn't have common law marriage. She had that 5 Wishes document to get us through her end-of-life care. Her brother and I sorted out what was left of her estate just by being reasonable with each other. So from personal experience, hospitals and estate planning are only really an issue for people who need them to be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 28, 2015 11:35:11 GMT -5
Zero chance this goes anywhere. The First Amendment would prohibit it. I would have thought that about florists, caterers and photographers as well, but that hasn't worked out. Or, for that matter, finding ways to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. 1. Not religions (they may be religious, but that is not the same thing. They have to resolve the conflict between their their religion and their responsibilities as a public accommodation in a legal way. If they can't, then maybe they need to be in another line of work. 2. If the electorate has decided that businesses have certain responsibilities to their employees, and those are irreconcilable with religion, then the churches can sell those businesses. Render unto Caesar, and all that. If you allow individuals to disregard basic laws such as those governing public accommodations for vague reasons, such as "my religion has a problem with it" then you're legalizing discrimination. Religious folks have been shrilling about the slippery slope as regards this particular USSC decision, but seem curiously unable to see the slippery slope of allowing individuals to discriminate for arbitrary reasons. Keep faith in church and home. At work, set it aside.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jun 28, 2015 11:38:14 GMT -5
It also kind of amazes me that this is getting so much press while Obama and the Republicans (an unholy union indeed) prepare to sell us out with the TPP. That's going to have a *much greater impact* on folks' future than whether or not Adam and Steve get married.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 28, 2015 12:18:53 GMT -5
I would have thought that about florists, caterers and photographers as well, but that hasn't worked out. Or, for that matter, finding ways to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. 1. Not religions (they may be religious, but that is not the same thing. They have to resolve the conflict between their their religion and their responsibilities as a public accommodation in a legal way. If they can't, then maybe they need to be in another line of work. 2. If the electorate has decided that businesses have certain responsibilities to their employees, and those are irreconcilable with religion, then the churches can sell those businesses. Render unto Caesar, and all that. If you allow individuals to disregard basic laws such as those governing public accommodations for vague reasons, such as "my religion has a problem with it" then you're legalizing discrimination. Religious folks have been shrilling about the slippery slope as regards this particular USSC decision, but seem curiously unable to see the slippery slope of allowing individuals to discriminate for arbitrary reasons. Keep faith in church and home. At work, set it aside. Individual freedom of conscience issues aside, the government requires the church to provide abortion coverage to nuns. There will be a lawsuit to make them perform gay weddings, and the outcome is not at all as clear as it would be in a truly free society.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jun 28, 2015 16:46:13 GMT -5
It also kind of amazes me that this is getting so much press while Obama and the Republicans (an unholy union indeed) prepare to sell us out with the TPP. That's going to have a *much greater impact* on folks' future than whether or not Adam and Steve get married. Our government is all smoke and mirrors. In this case the gay marriage smoke is being used to hide the TPP in the mirror
|
|