Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

dscott8 wrote:
There's a big difference between a politician expressing personal faith and one who wants to use an elected position to force their beliefs on others and limit people's rights. Which is the crux of the Kim Davis case.

hanuman wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Sure, obey the judges. What Law might those judges administer, Annachie? Considering these words are from Moses after he gave the Israelites the Law, you have distilled the issues surrounding the county clerk to their essence.

The entire issues with said clerk revolves about this point: to follow what she considers an immoral law or find a moral response to her situation. Those are the options before her. Regardless of what I think is her moral course, she did not face any dilemma prior the SC decision. After that decision the clerk faces further limits on how she might act in accordance with her conscience.

Effectively changing the Constitution alters our sovereignty; our ability to live life as we see fit consistent with our conscience and the law. Having the SC interpret the Constitution to effect significant change allows the governmental body furthest removed from popular election to make those significant changes which impact everyone's sovereignty.

Those sorts of sweeping changes are best done in ways that involve as many of the citizens as possible. That way the results will have broad support. Changing things in this way simply crystalizes opposing views. That makes it difficult to ever really resolve.

I have a question, did you react the same way when the SCOTUS made the Hobby Lobby ruling a while back, or the 'corporations are persons' ruling before that?

The US Constitution does guarantee equal treatment under the law for everyone, and since the government is in fact in the business of regulating and enforcing contracts (including civil marriage contracts), I think that its Obergefell ruling was indeed based on a sound constitutionalist interpretation of the US Constitution.

The SCOTUS did not, in fact, establish a new right or enact a new law. It identified an existing right and used existing constitutional principles to rule that the aforementioned preexisting right must apply to everyone. That is ALL it did.

With the 'corporations are persons' ruling - which is a conservative darling, by the way - it went far beyond that. Nowhere in the US Constitution are corporations accorded personhood, yet that was the SCOTUS' finding. In that case it did in fact establish and enact an entirely original 'right'. To date I still have not heard a single conservative complain about that ruling.

PeterZ wrote:Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman. Love was incidental. Anyone can marry a willing partner of marriageable age of the opposite sex that is not too closely related prior to this ruling. This applied equally to everyone, including gays. The current SC ruling establishes that any two people of marriageable age not too closely related might marry.

That does indeed establish a new law or definition of marriage. The old definition of marriage applied equally to both gays and straits. I doubt we will agree on this, but that's not the point.

The point is that this change is sweeping and will impact more than a few people. That sort of change is best done as a legislative matter. Otherwise, there will be those that will feel imposed upon rather than willingly follow the law.

hanuman wrote:I do not understand how marriage rights for same sex couples can be said to impose upon heterosexual couples, unless it's a question of the kindergarten bully not wanting to share the toys with the strange kid?

Legally, same sex marriage is no different whatsoever than opposite sex marriage. No new definitions have been introduced, no new legal requirements, no new legal benefits, no new legal burdens, no new legal consequences. I dare you, show me a single facet of marriage law that had to be changed beyond the fact that now one's spouse may be of the sex one is actually attracted to.

PeterZ wrote:
That's truly not the point. Change the law through the legislative process or the Constitutional Amendment process

PeterZ wrote:Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman. Love was incidental. Anyone can marry a willing partner of marriageable age of the opposite sex that is not too closely related prior to this ruling. This applied equally to everyone, including gays. The current SC ruling establishes that any two people of marriageable age not too closely related might marry.

That does indeed establish a new law or definition of marriage. The old definition of marriage applied equally to both gays and straits. I doubt we will agree on this, but that's not the point.

The point is that this change is sweeping and will impact more than a few people. That sort of change is best done as a legislative matter. Otherwise, there will be those that will feel imposed upon rather than willingly follow the law.

hanuman wrote:[quote="PeterZ"]Sure, obey the judges. What Law might those judges administer, Annachie? Considering these words are from Moses after he gave the Israelites the Law, you have distilled the issues surrounding the county clerk to their essence.

The entire issues with said clerk revolves about this point: to follow what she considers an immoral law or find a moral response to her situation. Those are the options before her. Regardless of what I think is her moral course, she did not face any dilemma prior the SC decision. After that decision the clerk faces further limits on how she might act in accordance with her conscience.

Effectively changing the Constitution alters our sovereignty; our ability to live life as we see fit consistent with our conscience and the law. Having the SC interpret the Constitution to effect significant change allows the governmental body furthest removed from popular election to make those significant changes which impact everyone's sovereignty.

Those sorts of sweeping changes are best done in ways that involve as many of the citizens as possible. That way the results will have broad support. Changing things in this way simply crystalizes opposing views. That makes it difficult to ever really resolve.

I have a question, did you react the same way when the SCOTUS made the Hobby Lobby ruling a while back, or the 'corporations are persons' ruling before that?

The US Constitution does guarantee equal treatment under the law for everyone, and since the government is in fact in the business of regulating and enforcing contracts (including civil marriage contracts), I think that its Obergefell ruling was indeed based on a sound constitutionalist interpretation of the US Constitution.

The SCOTUS did not, in fact, establish a new right or enact a new law. It identified an existing right and used existing constitutional principles to rule that the aforementioned preexisting right must apply to everyone. That is ALL it did.

With the 'corporations are persons' ruling - which is a conservative darling, by the way - it went far beyond that. Nowhere in the US Constitution are corporations accorded personhood, yet that was the SCOTUS' finding. In that case it did in fact establish and enact an entirely original 'right'. To date I still have not heard a single conservative complain about that ruling.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
That's truly not the point. Change the law through the legislative process or the Constitutional Amendment process

No. Because they already did that. Specifically the 14th Amendment.

That some people don't like what that means today is their problem, not everyone else's... so they can go through the Constitutional Amendment process and try repealing the 14th if they want to change what the law says.

Stop trying to turn things backwards.

hanuman wrote:

gcomeau wrote:

Thank you! As I tried to explain to PeterZ, the SCOTUS interpreted the US Constitution - which is its job - and determined that existing constitutional provisions established the right of same sex couples to be treated equally under the law.

Methinks his protests have less to do with the 'democratic process' and more with personal bias. Maybe he should consider that the Supreme Court justices are appointed by way of the 'democratic process' before employing that argument. Also, democracy isn't just about voting. That is a truly simplistic view.

PeterZ wrote:Dude! You have no idea what I believe on this issue. The SCOTUS decision was not unanimous, was it? 4 out of nine disagreed with the logic. How many Amercians will continue to agree with the dissenters? Here's a hint. Roe v Wade is still controversial.

My point still stands. Making fundamental changes to our society is best done involving as broad a base of our citizenry as possible.

PeterZ wrote:
Dude! You have no idea what I believe on this issue. The SCOTUS decision was not unanimous, was it? 4 out of nine disagreed with the logic. How many Amercians will continue to agree with the dissenters? Here's a hint. Roe v Wade is still controversial.

My point still stands. Making fundamental changes to our society is best done involving as broad a base of our citizenry as possible.