Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. (Plus some stuff about recognizing marriages from other states that is largely redundant in view of the main holding).
So, this result is largely expected and was a 5-4 vote. All four dissenting judges wrote a dissent, so there is a lot of material to cover. Whether you are a proponent of gay marriage or not, the law is now "settled" and the country can move forward. Please keep your discussion in this thread related to debate regarding the opinion and it's impact. The broader questions of morality are a different topic.
Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. (Plus some stuff about recognizing marriages from other states that is largely redundant in view of the main holding).
So, this result is largely expected and was a 5-4 vote. All four dissenting judges wrote a dissent, so there is a lot of material to cover. Whether you are a proponent of gay marriage or not, the law is now "settled" and the country can move forward. Please keep your discussion in this thread related to debate regarding the opinion and it's impact. The broader questions of morality are a different topic.
Thoughts?
I'm mostly interested in where the jurisprudence will evolve from here. I haven't read the opinion, but I recall some law school discussions about whether the 14th amendment requires legal polygamy as well. I was persuaded at the time that it does, but I'd have to think through the arguments again in light of recent developments. (Please understand, I'm not saying gay marriage = polygamy. I'm saying some of the same legal principles that required a holding in favor of gay marriage today likely also support a holding in favor of legal polygamy).
Holding: Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. (Plus some stuff about recognizing marriages from other states that is largely redundant in view of the main holding).
So, this result is largely expected and was a 5-4 vote. All four dissenting judges wrote a dissent, so there is a lot of material to cover. Whether you are a proponent of gay marriage or not, the law is now "settled" and the country can move forward. Please keep your discussion in this thread related to debate regarding the opinion and it's impact. The broader questions of morality are a different topic.
Thoughts?
I agree there is no reason now not to move forward and allow close relatives to marry.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
I'm mostly interested in where the jurisprudence will evolve from here. I haven't read the opinion, but I recall some law school discussions about whether the 14th amendment requires legal polygamy as well. I was persuaded at the time that it does, but I'd have to think through the arguments again in light of recent developments. (Please understand, I'm not saying gay marriage = polygamy. I'm saying some of the same legal principles that required a holding in favor of gay marriage today likely also support a holding in favor of legal polygamy).
I'm mostly interested in where the jurisprudence will evolve from here. I haven't read the opinion, but I recall some law school discussions about whether the 14th amendment requires legal polygamy as well. I was persuaded at the time that it does, but I'd have to think through the arguments again in light of recent developments. (Please understand, I'm not saying gay marriage = polygamy. I'm saying some of the same legal principles that required a holding in favor of gay marriage today likely also support a holding in favor of legal polygamy).
I agree there is no reason now not to move forward and allow close relatives to marry.
What now?
The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean-ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean-ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person
I'm mostly interested in where the jurisprudence will evolve from here. I haven't read the opinion, but I recall some law school discussions about whether the 14th amendment requires legal polygamy as well. I was persuaded at the time that it does, but I'd have to think through the arguments again in light of recent developments. (Please understand, I'm not saying gay marriage = polygamy. I'm saying some of the same legal principles that required a holding in favor of gay marriage today likely also support a holding in favor of legal polygamy).
On what grounds?
I haven't read this case yet, so I'm not going to make case-specific comments.
But I can explain the concept generally. When something is protected under the 14th amendment, the government needs to show a "compelling state interest" in order to restrict it. The government also needs to show that restricting the activity is the "least restrictive means" of accomplishing the compelling state interest. Both of these are very high bars that are almost never overcome.
If marriage is a right protected by the 14th amendment, what is the government's "compelling state interest" in preventing two people, one or more of whom is already married to someone else, from getting married to each other? In other words, what is the compelling interest in restricting a person's marital rights based on their preexisting marital status? We might say that polygamy and "polydivorce" would be hard to legally administer, but difficulty in administering something is a logistical problem, not a "compelling state interest." The other arguments would be similar to the ones advanced against gay marriage - it will hurt the kids, it will undermine "traditional marriage," blah, blah. If these aren't compelling in the gay marriage context, why are they compelling in the polygamy context? Further, there are likely less restrictive means of policing these issues.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it, bitterroot. The laws against gay marriage are unjust discrimination against a homosexual couple who wish to exercise the same existing rights as any heterosexual couple.
That's a completely different issue from overturning laws against bigamy.
The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean-ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person
And your point is?
14th ammendment can be read just as easily to protect a brother and sister ability to get married.
If you support gay marriage I cant see how you can not support sibling-sibling parent-sibling marriage.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Yeah, I'm not seeing it, bitterroot. The laws against gay marriage are unjust discrimination against a homosexual couple who wish to exercise the same existing rights as any heterosexual couple.
That's a completely different issue from overturning laws against bigamy.
Summarizing the constitutional rationale for gay marriage in a single sentence is a bit disingenuous, but while we're at it:
The laws against polygamy are unjust discrimination against a couple composed of already-married people who wish to exercise the same existing rights as any heterosexual couple.
Your response will undoubtedly be "yes, but these people already had the right to get married. They already married other people!" Which is fundamentally the same argument as "gay people already had the right to get married to people of the opposite sex."
14th ammendment can be read just as easily to protect a brother and sister ability to get married.
If you support gay marriage I cant see how you can not support sibling-sibling parent-sibling marriage.
I have to ask, do you legitimately believe this or are you just spiteful over the supreme court ruling and are resorting to one of the classic fallacious arguments of the anti-gay marriage movement?
The state has a compelling interest in not allowing immediate family to marry, for obvious reasons. If they're not obvious to you, let me know and I'll explain why.
Note: I'm referring to immediate family here, not cousins and more distant relations, that marriage of which is already legal in some states, or at least has been at some point in recent memory.
14th ammendment can be read just as easily to protect a brother and sister ability to get married.
If you support gay marriage I cant see how you can not support sibling-sibling parent-sibling marriage.
I have to ask, do you legitimately believe this or are you just spiteful over the supreme court ruling and are resorting to one of the classic fallacious arguments of the anti-gay marriage movement?
The state has a compelling interest in not allowing immediate family to marry, for obvious reasons. If they're not obvious to you, let me know and I'll explain why.
Note: I'm referring to immediate family here, not cousins and more distant relations.
Do states not allow people with recessive genetic disorders from marrying?
Also why does procreation have any relevance on marriage anymore?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
Summarizing the constitutional rationale for gay marriage in a single sentence is a bit disingenuous,
Is it now? Tell me what you felt that sentence missed.
The laws against polygamy are unjust discrimination against a couple composed of already-married people who wish to exercise the same existing rights as any heterosexual couple.
Except they're not the same existing rights. The existing rights are for a person to be legally married to one other person, which is entirely different from a scenario in which a person is allowed to enter into a legal marriage with an indefinite number of people.
Your response will undoubtedly be "yes, but these people already had the right to get married. They already married other people!" Which is fundamentally the same argument as "gay people already had the right to get married to people of the opposite sex."
Except, no, it's not the same argument at all.
First of all, the Fourteenth Amendment says the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, gay marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Note Loving v. Virginia, which ruled on behalf of interracial marriages on the same grounds.
However, in the case of polygamous marriages vs. bigamy laws, that's a completely different matter altogether. You cannot argue unequal protection under the law in this case.
You also cannot say that, "there is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious... discrimination which justifies this classification," because there are, as you've stated, an abundance of logistical distinctions between the allowing of polygamous marriage vs. allowing monogamous, homosexual marriage.
Summarizing the constitutional rationale for gay marriage in a single sentence is a bit disingenuous,
Is it now? Tell me what you felt that sentence missed.
The term "unjust discrimination" is buzzword that glosses over all the details of the 14th amendment analysis.
The laws against polygamy are unjust discrimination against a couple composed of already-married people who wish to exercise the same existing rights as any heterosexual couple.
Except they're not the same existing rights. The existing rights are for a person to be legally married to one other person, which is entirely different from a scenario in which a person is allowed to enter into a legal marriage with an indefinite number of people.
Up until today, the existing rights were "for a person to be legally married to one other person of the opposite gender." What makes the restriction "one" fundamentally different from the restriction "of the opposite gender?"
And to nitpick: it's not about the right to enter into one marriage with an indefinite number of people, it's about the right to enter into another marriage while already married.
Your response will undoubtedly be "yes, but these people already had the right to get married. They already married other people!" Which is fundamentally the same argument as "gay people already had the right to get married to people of the opposite sex."
Except, no, it's not the same argument at all.
First of all, the Fourteenth Amendment says the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, gay marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Note Loving v. Virginia, which ruled on behalf of interracial marriages on the same grounds.
However, in the case of polygamous marriages vs. bigamy laws, that's a completely different matter altogether. You cannot argue unequal protection under the law in this case.
Again you're vastly oversimplifying, but let's go with it: "Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, multiple marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between already-married and not-already-married couples."
Do states not allow people with recessive genetic disorders from marrying?
Also why does procreation have any relevance on marriage anymore?
I noticed how you didn't answer my question. I suppose that means the latter?
Procreation is irrelevant to the discussion.
If we don't allow incest because in opposite-sex marriages, we can equally not allow it for same-sex marriage. The problem with incest is that it often involves a lack of consent, rape, coercion, etc. Maybe with more data it can be shown that these kinds of relationships aren't harmful.
I'm also not a lawyer, so I'll wait and see what bLatch and bitteroot have to say about the decision, because it's not entirely clear to me what the reasoning is, so it would be pointless for me to argue it further until I understand it better.
And, honestly, if an incestuous couple wants to fight their way to the supreme court on this subject, let them. There are plenty of countries where it isn't specifically illegal, and if you can satisfy the abuse issues, I logically don't have a problem with it. Unless there is another issue I'm missing.
The other arguments would be similar to the ones advanced against gay marriage - it will hurt the kids, it will undermine "traditional marriage," blah, blah. If these aren't compelling in the gay marriage context, why are they compelling in the polygamy context?
Well, hold on. The sanctity of marriage and the recognition of it as "a keystone of the Nation's social order," are cited in the recent ruling among the reasons the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of marriage.
The idea of "traditional marriage" in the sense of conservative Christianity's view of marriage, however, is not compelling in and of itself, no. That's part-and-parcel with liberty.
Quote from "bitterroot »
The term "unjust discrimination" is buzzword that glosses over all the details of the 14th amendment analysis.
Isn't that akin to saying "the term 'free speech' is a buzzword that glosses over all the details of the 1st amendment analysis"?
It's an amendment that says the government must provide equal protection under the law, bitterroot. How would you expect the words "unjust discrimination" not to come up?
Up until today, the existing rights were "for a person to be legally married to one other person of the opposite gender." What makes the restriction "one" fundamentally different from the restriction "of the opposite gender?"
Because in the case of gay marriage, these people wanted the same rights as other people, denied to them because they were homosexual couples as opposed to heterosexual ones, and as such this was unequal protection under the law.
That's completely different from bigamy and polygamous marriage. No one has the right to polygamous marriage. The question is whether or not they should.
And to nitpick: it's not about the right to enter into one marriage with an indefinite number of people, it's about the right to enter into another marriage while already married.
Aren't they the same thing?
Again you're vastly oversimplifying,
Would you care to elaborate as to how?
but let's go with it: "Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, multiple marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between already-married and not-already-married couples."
Except it's not the same thing. In one, it's a group of people asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their sexual orientation. In another, it's a group of people asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include multiple marriages, which is currently illegal.
They're not the same thing, bitterroot. There are precedents that work in favor of gay marriage that do not hold in the case of polygamous marriage.
but let's go with it: "Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, multiple marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between already-married and not-already-married couples."
Except it's not the same thing. In one, it's a group of people asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their sexual orientation. In another, it's a group of people asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include multiple marriages, which is currently illegal.
They're not the same thing, bitterroot.
(Standard disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer)
I wouldn't have thought they need to be the same thing - just to share particular qualities.
a) People asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their sexual orientation
b) People asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their marital status
OR
a) People asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include same-sex couples which (was previously) is currently illegal
b) People asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include already-married-to-others couples which is currently illegal
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Up until today, the existing rights were "for a person to be legally married to one other person of the opposite gender." What makes the restriction "one" fundamentally different from the restriction "of the opposite gender?"
And to nitpick: it's not about the right to enter into one marriage with an indefinite number of people, it's about the right to enter into another marriage while already married.
The problem with this argument is that a marriage between a man and a woman is the exact same institution as the marriage between a man and a man, with the only difference being the sex of one of the members of the party.
Conversely, there is a massive difference in the institution when we talk about polygamous marriage. The legal benefits and standing that "being married" conveys do not apply to groups larger than 2. You would have to redefine those laws and remap the benefits to accommodate a new arrangement which is inherently different from the arrangement that exists between exactly two people. The laws are simple for a couple of two, not so or a couple of 3+. How do you reconcile who has precedence when there are 3 people involved in the contract? You're turning marriage into a board of directors, or something, I don't even know. But like I already said, there is no inherent difference in the dynamic of the relationship between two men and the relationship between a man and a woman, so their relationships should be represented equally by the law.
This begins to go under a more conservative foundation, that is getting the government out of your religion. Roberts here is simply wrong, and he has let his religion override his understanding of the Constitution. The basic foundations of the Constitution in the great experiment was not to repeat Europe's past mistakes, such in this case where religion reigned supreme and was as an issue to start wars and oppress others. I think this is a part of Bork's ghost here with originalist thinking and the fear that legislatures always know best. If we see with the Confederate flag still waving above state capitals, is that states don't always "get it" and that voting isn't always efficient.
Christianity, not the Constitution, is a part of the problem. It is in this case that we can thank the Constitution over Christianity for failing people and stepping up the plate to leave people alone and practice their own religious practices. We have been far enough removed from the Civil Rights Movement for people to see "government as the problem," however this is similar to the Obamacare measure that Catholics and other religious institutions are fighting against by having to provide birth control and the like. Why is it so different for one religion to be for banning gay marriage, yet be against abortions? Is it only whenever the religion itself proper that is forced onto it's back that people see this as an abomination? Then I feel this is why people do not follow Church Doctrine as much as people would like, this is why you see people falling away from the faith because people are being tired of religion, not government, getting in the way.
Many call for Islam to have a large rethink, but modern social conservatives need a large rethink. I am a social conservative, I believe that the family is the most important institution. We've seen what hundreds of years of discrimination did to one select group of people, and with the one terrorist attack against a black church we see again the stupidity in persecuting people through law. It's time to give up a portion of the foundational myth that America is the special chosen place of God. It never was, there was never a Covenant, it was with Israel. Our culture has taken too long to adapt to new realities, while neglecting ancient evils such as poverty, disease, and war. Perhaps once Christianity finds its original calls to be in this society, we must therefore become more amenable to the realities that gay marriage is not the great sin. It is the evil that we can destroy, it is the evil through hard work we can devote ourselves as a nation.
Instead of worrying about gay couples, we need to focus on what matters like people living out on the street. Children without parents. The elderly who live hand to mouth. People having children and abusing them. Parents without resources to "get ahead" so they can invest their time into actually being parents. These are the evils of our time that have went on for centuries, that we instead neglect for flavor of the month social crusades because someone calls us a Moral Majority. No, we conservatives do not practice enough of what we preach, and we do not set a great example against leftists. Market and Biblical fundamentalism crowd out basic, tenable ideas. We eschew the true blessings of this nation to damn the few who mean us no harm. It is time for the villainy to stop, and the faith to return back to its core principles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
The state has a compelling interest in not allowing immediate family to marry, for obvious reasons. If they're not obvious to you, let me know and I'll explain why.
Oh come on, you knew when you wrote this that you were eventually going to have to.
Do states not allow people with recessive genetic disorders from marrying?
Also why does procreation have any relevance on marriage anymore?
I noticed how you didn't answer my question. I suppose that means the latter?
Procreation is irrelevant to the discussion.
If we don't allow incest because in opposite-sex marriages, we can equally not allow it for same-sex marriage. The problem with incest is that it often involves a lack of consent, rape, coercion, etc. Maybe with more data it can be shown that these kinds of relationships aren't harmful.
I'm also not a lawyer, so I'll wait and see what bLatch and bitteroot have to say about the decision, because it's not entirely clear to me what the reasoning is, so it would be pointless for me to argue it further until I understand it better.
And, honestly, if an incestuous couple wants to fight their way to the supreme court on this subject, let them. There are plenty of countries where it isn't specifically illegal, and if you can satisfy the abuse issues, I logically don't have a problem with it. Unless there is another issue I'm missing.
1. I am actually torn, part of me is happy for my gay friends because I know it was important to them. But part of me knows that its not a good thing and as much as I would like to I would ignore that part of my concious as I could.
The reason incest (Between consenting adults) between close family members is that it causes genetic disorders and is bad for the kids because of this, we dont do the same for people with recessive gene linked disorders is because A. We didn't have gene typing for a long period of time and B. Its an impractical thing to enforce.
My point is that Marriage is not just an esoteric concept with a few legal and financial boons attached to it, its the vector of creating and raising a new generation and society can be restrictive on its definition.
Also I dont see how this doesnt set up a show down between Churches and the State if Marriage is protected under the 14th amendment how can Churches refuse to hand out marriage licence, the 1st amendment protected them before Marriage was protected under the 14th amendment. Even in the chief opinion in merely states Churches are allow to have beliefs that marriage is only between a man and woman (Mighty white of them) but it doesn't say anything about actually marriage licences.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
A brother and sister or a father and his dughter of consenting age have the right to a marriage.
Its the exact same institution except they are closely related.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
1. I am actually torn, part of me is happy for my gay friends because I know it was important to them. But part of me knows that its not a good thing
"Knows" it's not a good thing? How do you know it's not a good thing?
My point is that Marriage is not just an esoteric concept with a few legal and financial boons attached to it, its the vector of creating and raising a new generation and society can be restrictive on its definition.
So why does this restrict gay marriage?
Also I dont see how this doesnt set up a show down between Churches and the State if Marriage is protected under the 14th amendment how can Churches refuse to hand out marriage licence,
Because churches aren't the institutions in charge of who is legally married. The state is. A church can deny people get married under its rules, that's perfectly fine.
The problem with this argument is that a marriage between a man and a woman is the exact same institution as the marriage between a man and a man, with the only difference being the sex of one of the members of the party.
Conversely, there is a massive difference in the institution when we talk about polygamous marriage. The legal benefits and standing that "being married" conveys do not apply to groups larger than 2. You would have to redefine those laws and remap the benefits to accommodate a new arrangement which is inherently different from the arrangement that exists between exactly two people. The laws are simple for a couple of two, not so or a couple of 3+. How do you reconcile who has precedence when there are 3 people involved in the contract? You're turning marriage into a board of directors, or something, I don't even know. But like I already said, there is no inherent difference in the dynamic of the relationship between two men and the relationship between a man and a woman, so their relationships should be represented equally by the law.
I agree with your analysis that polygamy has a different dynamic than monogamy, but I don't think that overcomes bitterroot's objection that the difference presents a mere logistical problem and does not pass the test of "compelling state interest".
And, honestly, if an incestuous couple wants to fight their way to the supreme court on this subject, let them. There are plenty of countries where it isn't specifically illegal, and if you can satisfy the abuse issues, I logically don't have a problem with it. Unless there is another issue I'm missing.
You know, I hadn't thought about it before, but there are a lot of parallels between incestuous relationships and gay relationships. In both cases, society's fundamental objection seems to be "ew, squick", but because that doesn't actually count as an argument, we've made up ad hoc justifications for opposition on the grounds of procreation issues, abusive dynamics, and public health. All of which are either totally made up, or not intrinsically a problem with the relationship.
So thanks, BurningPaladin, for your thought-provoking and eye-opening comment. You've convinced me: incestuous marriage should be legal.
I'm yanking your chain a bit here, but I am serious. The idea of a brother and sister banging strikes me as gross as hell, but just because I find it gross as hell doesn't mean it should be illegal. I find a lot of stuff gross as hell - two dudes banging, old people banging, people banging in fursuits, people eating at Taco Bell - but we're supposed to be living in a free country, right? I'd be more skeptical of parent-child incest because power dynamic issues seem more inherent to the situation - even stipulating that the child is an adult, of course, because if they aren't that's a whole different issue. So I'm with Jay here. Unless there's a stronger objection than "ew, squick" that we're not seeing, your logic is compelling, and we should get the law out of the way of healthy, stable incestuous relationships.
(Protip: reductio ad absurdum arguments risk backfiring like this unless you're very careful to establish beforehand why the supposed absurdity is absurd. Don't assume people will automatically think it's absurd just because you do.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, this result is largely expected and was a 5-4 vote. All four dissenting judges wrote a dissent, so there is a lot of material to cover. Whether you are a proponent of gay marriage or not, the law is now "settled" and the country can move forward. Please keep your discussion in this thread related to debate regarding the opinion and it's impact. The broader questions of morality are a different topic.
Thoughts?
UWRMiraclesRWU
Modern
UWRControlRWU
Standard
Ummm no...
Trade Thread
I'm mostly interested in where the jurisprudence will evolve from here. I haven't read the opinion, but I recall some law school discussions about whether the 14th amendment requires legal polygamy as well. I was persuaded at the time that it does, but I'd have to think through the arguments again in light of recent developments. (Please understand, I'm not saying gay marriage = polygamy. I'm saying some of the same legal principles that required a holding in favor of gay marriage today likely also support a holding in favor of legal polygamy).
People really learn how to tie bow ties correctly. It's not that hard.
I agree there is no reason now not to move forward and allow close relatives to marry.
What now?
The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean-ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest
The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person
I haven't read this case yet, so I'm not going to make case-specific comments.
But I can explain the concept generally. When something is protected under the 14th amendment, the government needs to show a "compelling state interest" in order to restrict it. The government also needs to show that restricting the activity is the "least restrictive means" of accomplishing the compelling state interest. Both of these are very high bars that are almost never overcome.
If marriage is a right protected by the 14th amendment, what is the government's "compelling state interest" in preventing two people, one or more of whom is already married to someone else, from getting married to each other? In other words, what is the compelling interest in restricting a person's marital rights based on their preexisting marital status? We might say that polygamy and "polydivorce" would be hard to legally administer, but difficulty in administering something is a logistical problem, not a "compelling state interest." The other arguments would be similar to the ones advanced against gay marriage - it will hurt the kids, it will undermine "traditional marriage," blah, blah. If these aren't compelling in the gay marriage context, why are they compelling in the polygamy context? Further, there are likely less restrictive means of policing these issues.
That's a completely different issue from overturning laws against bigamy.
14th ammendment can be read just as easily to protect a brother and sister ability to get married.
If you support gay marriage I cant see how you can not support sibling-sibling parent-sibling marriage.
Summarizing the constitutional rationale for gay marriage in a single sentence is a bit disingenuous, but while we're at it:
The laws against polygamy are unjust discrimination against a couple composed of already-married people who wish to exercise the same existing rights as any heterosexual couple.
Your response will undoubtedly be "yes, but these people already had the right to get married. They already married other people!" Which is fundamentally the same argument as "gay people already had the right to get married to people of the opposite sex."
The state has a compelling interest in not allowing immediate family to marry, for obvious reasons. If they're not obvious to you, let me know and I'll explain why.
Note: I'm referring to immediate family here, not cousins and more distant relations, that marriage of which is already legal in some states, or at least has been at some point in recent memory.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Do states not allow people with recessive genetic disorders from marrying?
Also why does procreation have any relevance on marriage anymore?
Except they're not the same existing rights. The existing rights are for a person to be legally married to one other person, which is entirely different from a scenario in which a person is allowed to enter into a legal marriage with an indefinite number of people.
Except, no, it's not the same argument at all.
First of all, the Fourteenth Amendment says the following: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, gay marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between heterosexual and homosexual couples. Note Loving v. Virginia, which ruled on behalf of interracial marriages on the same grounds.
However, in the case of polygamous marriages vs. bigamy laws, that's a completely different matter altogether. You cannot argue unequal protection under the law in this case.
You also cannot say that, "there is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious... discrimination which justifies this classification," because there are, as you've stated, an abundance of logistical distinctions between the allowing of polygamous marriage vs. allowing monogamous, homosexual marriage.
The term "unjust discrimination" is buzzword that glosses over all the details of the 14th amendment analysis.
Up until today, the existing rights were "for a person to be legally married to one other person of the opposite gender." What makes the restriction "one" fundamentally different from the restriction "of the opposite gender?"
And to nitpick: it's not about the right to enter into one marriage with an indefinite number of people, it's about the right to enter into another marriage while already married.
Again you're vastly oversimplifying, but let's go with it: "Under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore, multiple marriage must then be allowed, because to do otherwise would be unequal protection under the law between already-married and not-already-married couples."
Procreation is irrelevant to the discussion.
If we don't allow incest because in opposite-sex marriages, we can equally not allow it for same-sex marriage. The problem with incest is that it often involves a lack of consent, rape, coercion, etc. Maybe with more data it can be shown that these kinds of relationships aren't harmful.
I'm also not a lawyer, so I'll wait and see what bLatch and bitteroot have to say about the decision, because it's not entirely clear to me what the reasoning is, so it would be pointless for me to argue it further until I understand it better.
And, honestly, if an incestuous couple wants to fight their way to the supreme court on this subject, let them. There are plenty of countries where it isn't specifically illegal, and if you can satisfy the abuse issues, I logically don't have a problem with it. Unless there is another issue I'm missing.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Well, hold on. The sanctity of marriage and the recognition of it as "a keystone of the Nation's social order," are cited in the recent ruling among the reasons the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of marriage.
The idea of "traditional marriage" in the sense of conservative Christianity's view of marriage, however, is not compelling in and of itself, no. That's part-and-parcel with liberty.
Isn't that akin to saying "the term 'free speech' is a buzzword that glosses over all the details of the 1st amendment analysis"?
It's an amendment that says the government must provide equal protection under the law, bitterroot. How would you expect the words "unjust discrimination" not to come up?
Because in the case of gay marriage, these people wanted the same rights as other people, denied to them because they were homosexual couples as opposed to heterosexual ones, and as such this was unequal protection under the law.
That's completely different from bigamy and polygamous marriage. No one has the right to polygamous marriage. The question is whether or not they should.
Aren't they the same thing?
Would you care to elaborate as to how?
Except it's not the same thing. In one, it's a group of people asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their sexual orientation. In another, it's a group of people asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include multiple marriages, which is currently illegal.
They're not the same thing, bitterroot. There are precedents that work in favor of gay marriage that do not hold in the case of polygamous marriage.
(Standard disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer)
I wouldn't have thought they need to be the same thing - just to share particular qualities.
a) People asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their sexual orientation
b) People asking for the same rights as everyone else but denied because of their marital status
OR
a) People asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include same-sex couples which (was previously) is currently illegal
b) People asking for an expansion of rights of marriage to include already-married-to-others couples which is currently illegal
The problem with this argument is that a marriage between a man and a woman is the exact same institution as the marriage between a man and a man, with the only difference being the sex of one of the members of the party.
Conversely, there is a massive difference in the institution when we talk about polygamous marriage. The legal benefits and standing that "being married" conveys do not apply to groups larger than 2. You would have to redefine those laws and remap the benefits to accommodate a new arrangement which is inherently different from the arrangement that exists between exactly two people. The laws are simple for a couple of two, not so or a couple of 3+. How do you reconcile who has precedence when there are 3 people involved in the contract? You're turning marriage into a board of directors, or something, I don't even know. But like I already said, there is no inherent difference in the dynamic of the relationship between two men and the relationship between a man and a woman, so their relationships should be represented equally by the law.
Christianity, not the Constitution, is a part of the problem. It is in this case that we can thank the Constitution over Christianity for failing people and stepping up the plate to leave people alone and practice their own religious practices. We have been far enough removed from the Civil Rights Movement for people to see "government as the problem," however this is similar to the Obamacare measure that Catholics and other religious institutions are fighting against by having to provide birth control and the like. Why is it so different for one religion to be for banning gay marriage, yet be against abortions? Is it only whenever the religion itself proper that is forced onto it's back that people see this as an abomination? Then I feel this is why people do not follow Church Doctrine as much as people would like, this is why you see people falling away from the faith because people are being tired of religion, not government, getting in the way.
Many call for Islam to have a large rethink, but modern social conservatives need a large rethink. I am a social conservative, I believe that the family is the most important institution. We've seen what hundreds of years of discrimination did to one select group of people, and with the one terrorist attack against a black church we see again the stupidity in persecuting people through law. It's time to give up a portion of the foundational myth that America is the special chosen place of God. It never was, there was never a Covenant, it was with Israel. Our culture has taken too long to adapt to new realities, while neglecting ancient evils such as poverty, disease, and war. Perhaps once Christianity finds its original calls to be in this society, we must therefore become more amenable to the realities that gay marriage is not the great sin. It is the evil that we can destroy, it is the evil through hard work we can devote ourselves as a nation.
Instead of worrying about gay couples, we need to focus on what matters like people living out on the street. Children without parents. The elderly who live hand to mouth. People having children and abusing them. Parents without resources to "get ahead" so they can invest their time into actually being parents. These are the evils of our time that have went on for centuries, that we instead neglect for flavor of the month social crusades because someone calls us a Moral Majority. No, we conservatives do not practice enough of what we preach, and we do not set a great example against leftists. Market and Biblical fundamentalism crowd out basic, tenable ideas. We eschew the true blessings of this nation to damn the few who mean us no harm. It is time for the villainy to stop, and the faith to return back to its core principles.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
HOW could it be read as such?
And don't just say, "Well I read it as such." Make an actual argument in which you cite legal precedent.
If I support something that doesn't involve incest, I must support incest? How does that make sense?
Oh come on, you knew when you wrote this that you were eventually going to have to.
1. I am actually torn, part of me is happy for my gay friends because I know it was important to them. But part of me knows that its not a good thing and as much as I would like to I would ignore that part of my concious as I could.
The reason incest (Between consenting adults) between close family members is that it causes genetic disorders and is bad for the kids because of this, we dont do the same for people with recessive gene linked disorders is because A. We didn't have gene typing for a long period of time and B. Its an impractical thing to enforce.
My point is that Marriage is not just an esoteric concept with a few legal and financial boons attached to it, its the vector of creating and raising a new generation and society can be restrictive on its definition.
Also I dont see how this doesnt set up a show down between Churches and the State if Marriage is protected under the 14th amendment how can Churches refuse to hand out marriage licence, the 1st amendment protected them before Marriage was protected under the 14th amendment. Even in the chief opinion in merely states Churches are allow to have beliefs that marriage is only between a man and woman (Mighty white of them) but it doesn't say anything about actually marriage licences.
Its the exact same institution except they are closely related.
So why does this restrict gay marriage?
Because churches aren't the institutions in charge of who is legally married. The state is. A church can deny people get married under its rules, that's perfectly fine.
Based on what?
Which is a relevant distinction that gives the state an extremely good reason to forbid it.
You know, I hadn't thought about it before, but there are a lot of parallels between incestuous relationships and gay relationships. In both cases, society's fundamental objection seems to be "ew, squick", but because that doesn't actually count as an argument, we've made up ad hoc justifications for opposition on the grounds of procreation issues, abusive dynamics, and public health. All of which are either totally made up, or not intrinsically a problem with the relationship.
So thanks, BurningPaladin, for your thought-provoking and eye-opening comment. You've convinced me: incestuous marriage should be legal.
I'm yanking your chain a bit here, but I am serious. The idea of a brother and sister banging strikes me as gross as hell, but just because I find it gross as hell doesn't mean it should be illegal. I find a lot of stuff gross as hell - two dudes banging, old people banging, people banging in fursuits, people eating at Taco Bell - but we're supposed to be living in a free country, right? I'd be more skeptical of parent-child incest because power dynamic issues seem more inherent to the situation - even stipulating that the child is an adult, of course, because if they aren't that's a whole different issue. So I'm with Jay here. Unless there's a stronger objection than "ew, squick" that we're not seeing, your logic is compelling, and we should get the law out of the way of healthy, stable incestuous relationships.
(Protip: reductio ad absurdum arguments risk backfiring like this unless you're very careful to establish beforehand why the supposed absurdity is absurd. Don't assume people will automatically think it's absurd just because you do.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.