US Supreme Court lets Mass. Gay Marriage law stand
- Thread starter teiresias
- Start date
- Status
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yay!
Phoenix said:
But it also let it stand that the states can deny gays rights. Had they ruled otherwise then all the states that passed anti gay marriage amedments would have had them strip away, as well as Mass. gay marriage law. As it stands only one state has pro gay marriage and I believe over 10 have anti gay laws. It was in the rights favor to have this ruling come down this way.
maharg said:
even if it had gone before a federal court, I believe it'd have still been reviewed under Mass State law since it began as a state issue.
This was the best decision... federal courts have generally not touched issues of marriage and chld custody, so they really shouldn't start now. It didn't even get to that though, they just said that the ones filing the suit had suffered no injury and had no cause of action.
Spiritreaver
Member
Yay MA! Keep it that way. God I wish some of these other states had more sense.... 49 to 1. :/
Phoenix said:
Was it defined before the defense of marriage act? And what federal court defined marriage? I'm not arguing, I'm asking cause I don't know... I thought the DoMA was pretty useless since it defined marriage for federal purposes, which is pretty close to nothing when talking about domestic issues.
Has anyone ever tried to challenge a clause in a state constitution at the federal level as being unconstitutional (to the federal constitution)?
I'm pretty sure you just quoted the Defense of Marriage Act, which is generally considered the "beginning of all of this foolishness." I like Clinton, but damn did he screw that one up.
I'm pretty sure you just quoted the Defense of Marriage Act, which is generally considered the "beginning of all of this foolishness." I like Clinton, but damn did he screw that one up.
teiresias said:
This is what I'm wondering as well. I would think that to some degree, this is what was going on with the Jim Crow segregation laws. Were they embedded in state constitutions? I would think a state constitution can't violate the federal constitution.
[Never mind. It was an interpretation of the federal constitution that allowed the segregations to exist]
maharg,
You're right, but with marriage and other family law issues, Federal courts are very reluctant to step in at all, much less hand out a ruling. For the same reason, I don't see how a federal amendment banning gay marriage could survive.
You're right, but with marriage and other family law issues, Federal courts are very reluctant to step in at all, much less hand out a ruling. For the same reason, I don't see how a federal amendment banning gay marriage could survive.
Phoenix
Member
teiresias said:
Of course, all the time. The problem only comes in defining whether or not the law is in the domain of the states or the federal government.
Nah, the "beginning of all this foolishness" as far as I'm concerned was this election. Marriage needed to be defined because it was ambiguous at the legal level within the states and the constitution and too open to interpretation.
Phoenix said:
How about "The legal union of two consenting adults?"
Seems a-okay to me. I can marry a chick, my gay friends can marry dudes, lesbians can marry women, and everyone's happy. The "sanctity" of marriage was lost on this country long ago, trotting it out to defend it against the phantom "gay agenda" - which deserves no less respect than the civil rights movement of the 60s, or the earliest pushes to let women vote - is beyond cynical.
levious said:
Well, they got involved in 1967 in the case of Loving vs. Virginia, where Virginia had a constitutional amendment banning interracial marriage and nullified all similar amendments across the country. This is probably the best eventuality that can be hoped for in the case of gay marriage.
Here's the lower court ruling on that one, by the way, which is shocking and rather reminiscent of recent views on gay marriage to me:
Here's an article on the Supreme Court's overturning of that from the New York Times. It was a 9-0 ruling. And here's a quote on a previous, positive, ruling on a similar constitutional issue in Alabama in the 1880s:
Phoenix
Member
xsarien said:
I don't care what the definition is so long as its well defined and unambiguous so people know what is and isn't allowed. The problem before was that there was NO definition. Now that we have one if people want to take shots at it, they can. Before it was open to whomever happened to be hearing the case.
Apharmd Battler
Member
Dan said:
Good point
Phoenix
Member
Dan said:
There is a religious institution of marriage and a state institution of marriage - both are different. States regulate marriage to the extent that they can regulate the state granted benefits of marriage. They are different and should be open to debate. The church can ban you from being married and yet you can be married in the eyes of the state - takes 5 minutes and doesn't even require a blood test in most states.
levious said:
I dunno, I think there's probably a larger movement of people who are willing to allow gay marriage than there was for interracial marriage in '67. And an even larger number of people who actively want it for themselves.
Besides, that shouldn't matter. Social motivations are exactly what the courts are supposed to ignore. At the very least, that case provides precedent -- and apparently it was one of the precedents used in the mass. ruling.
If it goes to federal court, expect to hear about that case a lot. It'll probably be the centerpiece of the argument against gay marriage bans.
And keep in mind, that was in 1967, only 37 years ago. Segregation in general had its roots in the united states for at least a century, longer if you include slavery as part of segregation. The point isn't that it's going to get to the supreme court any time soon, or even that it should (this is probably a very risky thing at this point -- the ruling could go either way, and if it's heard a year from now it could be very bad), but that sooner or later it probably will.
Spiritreaver
Member
God I agree, I'm more concerned privledges with adoption than marriage, honestly. The fact that gay couples are below some of the worst households is just sickening to me.levious said:
Oh, I'm aware of this, but the vast majority of the US population fails to realize that there's a divide. Most adults that I talk to who are against gay marriage cite the fact that marriage is a holy sacrament and all that stuff. I simply ask them where they got marriage license from and it takes them completely by surprise. I'll go on to say that I don't give a crap how religions treat gay marriage, but that the government shouldn't be preventing it, and most tend to find this somewhat reasonable. I find most of the ridiculous claims about the gay marriage topic come from ignorance related to the purpose of the judicial branches of government and the legal institution of marriage. I find going those routes is more effective in convincing people gay marriage bans are wrong than by any moral argument.Phoenix said:
levious said:
Well, I think they go hand in hand. Once you get a ruling that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against the constitution, adoption should follow soon. It's perhaps more important to do it this way around because:
- What's one of the reasons people are against gay marriage? Because it 'harms the children' who they might raise. Demonstrating that that's not a valid reason (and the argument was apparently used in Loving vs. Virginia as well) will go a long way towards encouraging adoption rights. It may even, by making them married, raise their status in that way -- depending on the actual policies that currently deny gay adoption rights.
- Because as single people by force of government statute, even if the bar is raised for gay adoption, they will still rate fairly low on the scale of adoptability. Married couples will probably always be more likely to be allowed to adopt, so getting one without the other is not necessarily going to be that helpful.
FortNinety
Member
The funny thing is, every gay man and woman that I personally know who wants to be married seem far more dedicated and mature to the task at hand then some of the heterosexual idiots I know. Some would make excellent mothers and fathers. I'd rather have two men raising a child because they give a shit then most couples who have children and one runs off while the other struggles, that is if he or she gives a damn.
So anyway, step one: get every state to legalize gay marriage. Step two: give them adoption rights, cuz Lord knows we need it. Actually, kids need it.
So anyway, step one: get every state to legalize gay marriage. Step two: give them adoption rights, cuz Lord knows we need it. Actually, kids need it.
brooklyngooner
Member
FortNinety said:
Nice post, agree 100%. Think of how much more tolerant their children could be raised, considering what the parents had to go through to get them. Shit, I always think about my friend Dana and Damon who take their dog Romy to doggie day care every morning in a Polo sweater, they'd be the best parents I ever met. Better than mine at any rate.
maharg said:
People always play the race card when they talk about homosexuality and they have nothing to do with each other.
Sure people back then were ignorant in their thinking about race. However, homosexuality is a choice (if you want to believe this or not is up to you) and is a sin.
Mixing races isn't a sin, the Bible doesn't say anything about that as it's not something that even Jesus Christ worried about. He was more conserned about the people over any race issues. In fact he was at a well giving a Samiritan woman a drink and that was against the Jewish law to have anything to do with them, but he went over racial boundaries.
However, in the Bible it has homosexuality as a sin in Leviticus as well as other books in the Bible.
Also I want it to be known that I don't hate anyone either. They are people of course, but they are taking sin and turning it into a lifestyle.
It is kind of like Me cheating on my wife and then having a lifestyle out of it and getting mad because I don't have the attention on me and I want to parade myself around to get attention to me.
For the trolling conserned, I am not trolling here. Just wanted to voice my conserns as we know everyone in this thread is either gay or has friends who are gay.
Did you know that when I lived in West Hollywood, my wife would have to get here yearly check up at Lambda? Which is a gay/lesbian org that treats mainly gay/lesbians but also strait people as well. Several people who were strait thought they came to the wrong place.
Dice: This isn't Iran, we don't rule according to the dictates of a religion, or at least we shouldn't. Furthermore, when you make a testable claim such as "homosexuality is a choice", don't run off thinking that ignorance is a valid point of view. As much as it is your right to think so, it is also our right to rebut you with actual evidence.
They are making an analogy between two groups of minorities which are struggling for equal rights. In that respect, they DO have something in common.Docwiz said:
I think xsarien is entirely on point with his response:
1) You offer no proof for your statement. Based on myriad other threads on this topic, I'm actually going to encourage you NOT to try to dig up "evidence" at this point since we've been there and done that and I don't feel like reading all of that crap again. It is annoying, however, that you once AGAIN show up in a thread proclaiming unsubstantiated opinions as "facts." It's a bad habit, amigo.
2) The opinion of a particular religion on whether or not a certain behavior is sinful has NOTHING to do with its status under the law. Quite frankly, it's disturbing that you think your own personal moral beliefs ought to be the basis of laws affecting EVERYONE.
So what is your judgment on them, if not "hate?" If you are honestly willing to let them do their thing and let God hand out the test scores later, then shouldn't you actually be in FAVOR of allowing them equal rights?
The movement for gay rights is not to "get attention," and I'm personally offended at your offhand trivializing of what's really at stake -- civil liberties -- by comparing it to, say, a two-year-old throwing a tantrum in a crowded store. Attention-getting my ass.
When someone starts a comment with, "No offense, but..." or "Don't take this the wrong way, but..." guess what is about to follow? Something offensive. Want to guess what I think of people who open with, "This isn't trolling?"
Finally, it's S-T-R-A-I-G-H-T.
FortNinety
Member
Docwiz said:
That's what they all say. You just can't stand people wanting to pursue happiness, and are more than willing to brand them sinners in the process.
By the way, Jesus was black. Maybe this has no bearing on you, or the argument at hand, but I just love pointing this out.
FortNinety
Member
teiresias said:
Proof that religion should not be confused with ignorance. I know plenty of religious folks are quite content with not shoving thier beliefs down everyone's throats.
Too bad idiots tend to be too load for anyone's good.
Docwiz said:
So, they have nothing to do with each other. Except, for example, that they're both about people who love each other wanting to get married and persue all the protections that affords under the law. Nah, nothing to do with each other. Nor that the same arguments are being used (including the regular courts' opinion that interracial marriage is a sin due to God's will in the creation of diverse peoples, and the supposed negative environment and stigma for a child such a union would produce).
The supreme court of Mass. seemed to think they were similar enough. Could you please qualify this a bit further? Maybe debunk the supposed similarities?
And yes, I'd like you to do it without mention of religion. Especially without quoting the Old Testement. I could perhaps forgive you for using some direct quotes from Jesus and not his lackey Paul, but the fact remains the sinfulness of it is irrelevent.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked