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

PeterZ wrote:If the rest of the changes you envision are made through legislation, you have a better shot at reducing the time frame to general acceptance. Btw, I find your repeated asides referencing inter-racial marriage amusing. My ancestry is European, Southeast Asian and African with my paternal great-grand mother the first one to be born free in this hemisphere. My maternal line was Dutch and Indonesian. My Christian, mixed-race parents met in the most populous Muslim nation in the world. I married an American of German and Sweedish descent from Duluth, Minnesota. Our children split our complexions with one blond and blue eyed and the other a curly haired classic Eurasian.

I believe I understood your point the first time you brought it up. I would tell you that in my experience we were always accepted. We went without a second glance in the 90's. Even in Indianapolis and other parts of Indiana where I worked at that time. Sure some people will be bigots. The vast majority won't be. Using that as a working assumption is a much better way to view the world than assuming there is a closet bigot in everyone one interacts with. Especially those one might initially disagree with.

I reference interracial marriage because of two main reasons. First, because the process through which same sex marriage had been achieved was exactly the same as that for interracial marriage, as were the fundamental points of the respective SCOTUS rulings. And second, because the arguments you levied against same sex marriage were exactly the same as those levied against interracial marriage prior to Loving.

So, be amused all you want. Bigotry and prejudice have never been the exclusive domain of people of 'pure' European descent. Unfortunately, no matter how nicely you dress up your bias, the truth is that throughout this discussion you have implied both that LGBT folks are not people and that LGBT Americans are not entitled to the constitutional protections accorded all American citizens. It's sad, really.

I find that your comments equally biased against those not like you. I agree it is sad. You interpret a preference to manage changing a fundamental social and legal institution through the legislative process denying the humanity of LGBT individuals. This attitude does not show the tolerance and acceptance Justice Kennedy's soaring remarks encourages all Americans to embrace.

If as you say bigotry is not the sole province of Europeans, then tolerance is not only for the majority in society.

hanuman wrote:
I reference interracial marriage because of two main reasons. First, because the process through which same sex marriage had been achieved was exactly the same as that for interracial marriage, as were the fundamental points of the respective SCOTUS rulings. And second, because the arguments you levied against same sex marriage were exactly the same as those levied against interracial marriage prior to Loving.

So, be amused all you want. Bigotry and prejudice have never been the exclusive domain of people of 'pure' European descent. Unfortunately, no matter how nicely you dress up your bias, the truth is that throughout this discussion you have implied both that LGBT folks are not people and that LGBT Americans are not entitled to the constitutional protections accorded all American citizens. It's sad, really.

PeterZ wrote:In regards to mixed race marriages, racial differences are largely superficial. Men of different races are to a remarkably large degree the same. The same applies to women. Yet men are remarkably different from women even within one race.

This is completely irrelevant to your argument. It doesn't matter whether racial differences are superficial or not; only that they were perceived to be significant. And many of the opponents of interracial marriage considered it to be wrong, unnatural, and/or against the natural order. Nor was it generally accepted until fairly recently.

So again - how long do you think interracial couples should have waited for their unions to be sanctioned by the legislature rather than by the courts?

So, a mixed race marriage involves negligible differences while a SSM a more significant set of differences. Significant enough that the South Carolina law unless rewritten allows a man to marry his father but not his mother under this interpretation of the 14th Amendment. AAMOF, applicants are not specifically forbidden to marry close relations of the same sex but are forbidden to marry those closely related individuals of the opposite sex.

To avoid an misunderstanding or being gamed the law must be changed. Which supports my view that these differences are not nearly as insignificant as being portrayed.

How does it support your point? How does that prove there's a significant (nonligual) difference? The only reason it's an issue is that the worders of the law made it such. Had they decided to save space and phrase it as "no person may marry a parent, sibling, grandparent, etc." rather than one clause for men marrying female relatives and a second one for women marrying male relatives, it wouldn't be an issue.

And as I noted above, my understanding is that in such a case the law must be interpreted with the reality of SSM in mind. In much the same way that there are still deeds prohibitng the sale of property to a colored person, but those stipulations are considered void without invalidating the deed as a whole.

No, throughout this discussion you have maintained that the SCOTUS acted correctly when it issued the Loving ruling and that interracial couples are/were entitled to the protections guaranteed to 'all persons' and 'citizens (of the US) by the Fourteenth Amendment, yet at the same time you insisted that those protections do not apply to same sex couples. Moreover, in support of your opposition to same sex marriage you offered an argument that, if 'sex' were to be replaced with 'race', were the key argument of those who opposed interracial marriage back in the sixties.

Now, if someone were to tell you that vital, fundamental protections extended to 'all persons' did not apply to you, then the only logical conclusion you could possibly reach would be that they do not consider you to be a person, wouldn't it? That denial of individual and corporate humanity, sir, is the very heart of bigotry and prejudice.

I, on the other hand, have not once denied or rejected your humanity or your fundamental rights as a human being, including your right to express your opinion about me and mine. I have called out your bias, but I did not advocate that your right to be biased be suppressed.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:In regards to mixed race marriages, racial differences are largely superficial. Men of different races are to a remarkably large degree the same. The same applies to women. Yet men are remarkably different from women even within one race.

This is completely irrelevant to your argument. It doesn't matter whether racial differences are superficial or not; only that they were perceived to be significant. And many of the opponents of interracial marriage considered it to be wrong, unnatural, and/or against the natural order. Nor was it generally accepted until fairly recently.

So again - how long do you think interracial couples should have waited for their unions to be sanctioned by the legislature rather than by the courts?

So, a mixed race marriage involves negligible differences while a SSM a more significant set of differences. Significant enough that the South Carolina law unless rewritten allows a man to marry his father but not his mother under this interpretation of the 14th Amendment. AAMOF, applicants are not specifically forbidden to marry close relations of the same sex but are forbidden to marry those closely related individuals of the opposite sex.

To avoid an misunderstanding or being gamed the law must be changed. Which supports my view that these differences are not nearly as insignificant as being portrayed.

How does it support your point? How does that prove there's a significant (nonligual) difference? The only reason it's an issue is that the worders of the law made it such. Had they decided to save space and phrase it as "no person may marry a parent, sibling, grandparent, etc." rather than one clause for men marrying female relatives and a second one for women marrying male relatives, it wouldn't be an issue.

And as I noted above, my understanding is that in such a case the law must be interpreted with the reality of SSM in mind. In much the same way that there are still deeds prohibitng the sale of property to a colored person, but those stipulations are considered void without invalidating the deed as a whole.

My argument has been that I agree that same sex couples should be able to have that close relationship found in many marriages. However, that sort of relationship is incidental to the legal institution of marriage. That institution has historically been described as union between one man and one woman. Again motives for entering this union was not an essential element to this union. As such gays have not been barred from entering into such a union. They simply have no wish to do so, understandably in many cases. Some have married with the purpose of having children, again this is understandable. That some gays have been able to enter into marriage supports the idea that gays can marry under the old definition, so the law did not prohibit gays from marrying. I agree that changes to the law to enable gays to have that satisfying long term relationship is desirable for all.

My disagreement with the ruling stems from the definition of marriage. Historically, the legal institution did not specify the reason for entering into marriage. This ruling assumes the sine qua non of marriage is the emotional satisfaction of finding one's life partner rather than the simple legal union between one man and one woman independent of any motive for entering into the union.

I have no issues with redefining marriage to reflect the changing attitudes regarding marriage. I simply prefer to have such changes go through the legislative process rather than to imbue meaning into words the Constitution never intended. Which 4 out of 9 SCOTUS justices agreed with me on.

The difference between a union between one and and one woman is intrinsically different from that of 2 men or 2 woman, IF all motives are removed and the subject matter is the specifics of the union. The desire to find a life partner and attraction to another individual is identical between same sex couples and hetero couples. Because people are people. Conflating the two definitions of marriage when discussing this topic is what leads to all the misunderstanding.

When discussing marriage using the first definition that has historically been accepted with someone using the second and vice versa is going to make for a great deal of frustration. Prior to this ruling the definition of marriage as a legal institution held no motives intrinsic to its nature and that was how many if not most people understood it. After this ruling that definition was changed by 5 unelected judges to one where motive was the essential element to marriage.

So while I agree whole heartedly that recognizing one's hearts desire is the same for those attracted to the same sex as it is for those attracted to the opposite sex, it has nothing to do with the essential definition of marriage prior to this ruling. Since I believe this, I believe the the ruling tries to imbue meaning into the marriage laws that the drafters of all those state laws never envisioned. Not that they did not envision same sex unions per se, but that they did not view the motives of entering into marriage as essential in defining the legal institution for the citizens of their state.

SCOTUS' ruling only makes sense if the drafters of all the states marriage laws believed the sine qua non of any marriage is to find one's emotional other half. I don't believe this to be true and so disagree with the ruling.

hanuman wrote:No, throughout this discussion you have maintained that the SCOTUS acted correctly when it issued the Loving ruling and that interracial couples are/were entitled to the protections guaranteed to 'all persons' and 'citizens (of the US) by the Fourteenth Amendment, yet at the same time you insisted that those protections do not apply to same sex couples. Moreover, in support of your opposition to same sex marriage you offered an argument that, if 'sex' were to be replaced with 'race', were the key argument of those who opposed interracial marriage back in the sixties.

Now, if someone were to tell you that vital, fundamental protections extended to 'all persons' did not apply to you, then the only logical conclusion you could possibly reach would be that they do not consider you to be a person, wouldn't it? That denial of individual and corporate humanity, sir, is the very heart of bigotry and prejudice.

I, on the other hand, have not once denied or rejected your humanity or your fundamental rights as a human being, including your right to express your opinion about me and mine. I have called out your bias, but I did not advocate that your right to be biased be suppressed.

Again we disagree. You have concluded motives to my posts that do not exist. I assume part of the responsibility if I did not communicate well. Even so, jumping to that conclusion appears a very easy thing for you to do. I suspect that further exchanges will simply foster this frustration. To avoid that I bid you farewell.

PeterZ wrote:

hanuman wrote:No, throughout this discussion you have maintained that the SCOTUS acted correctly when it issued the Loving ruling and that interracial couples are/were entitled to the protections guaranteed to 'all persons' and 'citizens (of the US) by the Fourteenth Amendment, yet at the same time you insisted that those protections do not apply to same sex couples. Moreover, in support of your opposition to same sex marriage you offered an argument that, if 'sex' were to be replaced with 'race', were the key argument of those who opposed interracial marriage back in the sixties.

Now, if someone were to tell you that vital, fundamental protections extended to 'all persons' did not apply to you, then the only logical conclusion you could possibly reach would be that they do not consider you to be a person, wouldn't it? That denial of individual and corporate humanity, sir, is the very heart of bigotry and prejudice.

I, on the other hand, have not once denied or rejected your humanity or your fundamental rights as a human being, including your right to express your opinion about me and mine. I have called out your bias, but I did not advocate that your right to be biased be suppressed.

Again we disagree. You have concluded motives to my posts that do not exist. I assume part of the responsibility if I did not communicate well. Even so, jumping to that conclusion appears a very easy thing for you to do. I suspect that further exchanges will simply foster this frustration. To avoid that I bid you farewell.

There was no jumping to conclusions involved, Peter. My conclusion that you are biased against same sex couples is entirely based on a logical chain of thought. If I'm in fact wrong, that is due to your failure to express yourself clearly. However, you said in so many words that the Fourteenth's protections do not apply to LGBT folks, and since those protections are directed at 'all persons', what else am I supposed to infer from your statements?

No, I did not make such an assertion. I asserted that the institution of marriage was not applied differently to LGBT individuals than to heterosexuals under the previous definition. I believe this as I stated above because love was incidental to the institution of marriage in that previous definition. Whether entered into for love or money, marriage was between a man and woman. Kennedy's interpretation of the 14th only made sense if the institution was primarily defined as a means of recognizing emotional life partners. I don't believe this is true.

The legal institution of marriage has always been described as a set of conditions required to fullfill the contract of marriage. Love had always been incidental. Two individuals did not qualify to enter into the contract if they were of the same sex. That prohibition treated gays and straits the same because love WAS incidental.

Kennedy asserted that love SHOULD be the principle element in marriage and judged the laws did not treat people equally based criteria those laws were not written to even consider. So, yes the question is best dealt with in the legislature where the law can be rewritten using Kennedy's new priority.

PeterZ, even using your argument that marriage is solely a contract, banning same sex marriage violate section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text). That is because the a set of conditions required to fulfill the contract of marriage include a requirement that the individuals not be of the same sex. That requirement is discriminatory towards anyone who desires to enter into a marriage contract with someone of the same sex.

Remember, there was a time when the requirements of contracts meant that women and blacks couldn't enter contracts. No one would disagree now that that was not discriminatory.

PeterZ wrote:No, I did not make such an assertion. I asserted that the institution of marriage was not applied differently to LGBT individuals than to heterosexuals under the previous definition. I believe this as I stated above because love was incidental to the institution of marriage in that previous definition. Whether entered into for love or money, marriage was between a man and woman. Kennedy's interpretation of the 14th only made sense if the institution was primarily defined as a means of recognizing emotional life partners. I don't believe this is true.

The legal institution of marriage has always been described as a set of conditions required to fullfill the contract of marriage. Love had always been incidental. Two individuals did not qualify to enter into the contract if they were of the same sex. That prohibition treated gays and straits the same because love WAS incidental.

Kennedy asserted that love SHOULD be the principle element in marriage and judged the laws did not treat people equally based criteria those laws were not written to even consider. So, yes the question is best dealt with in the legislature where the law can be rewritten using Kennedy's new priority.

Marriage contracts existed to establish legal responsibility for children born to the couple and to facilitate the transfer of assets from one generation to the next. Adoption provides for children without marriage or even sex with the opposite sex and wills transferred wealth to unrelated individuals. Prior to involving I love into the definition of marriage, same sex unions offered no benefit that was not available in some other fashion.

Unless love is THE defining characteristic of marriage, the benefits of same sex unions is negligible. Since marriage offered its greatest benefits for couple who had children, the martiage contract was not seen as useful in a same sex union. Because SSM cannot produce children without one of the couple going outside the marriage to generate a child or the couple adopts. So the use of surrogates or adoption is required in those cases. Neither of which require those who use surrogates or adoption to be married.

Creating a same sex marriage contract would have been a better approach to dealing with SSM rather than going through the courts.