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

WTF!

5 out 9 justices believed as Kennedy did enough to let him write the majority opinion. The other 4 did not believe marriage laws infringed upon the 14th Amendment. Not because they did not believe that gays should be denied the right to form unions, but that other union was different than marriage. Marriage after all was a contract specifying a relationship between one man and one woman. No motives or outcomes matter in that definition.

Nothing prevents the creation of a different union specifying same sex relations with the identical or different set of rights and responsibilities associated with that new union. This is not separate but equal because the prior definition of marriage and the laws stemming from them ignored love, contentment and domestic felicity in the description of what marriage was. Marriage was a specific contract available to anyone within the criteria described in that contract. It did not prohibit other contracts whatsoever.

Those 5 Justices DID change the definition of marriage for everyone. They had the authority to do that. They do not have the authority to write the changes their declaration might require. Please see how the South Carolina law needs to be rewritten in a previous post. The new definition DOES include love and domestic felicity as an essential element in the definition of marriage. Under the NEW definition of marriage asserted by 5 unelected Justices the old marriage laws DO violate the 14th Amendment. Those 5 had the authority to do that. Even so, please don't delude yourself into thinking that no one else was impacted. Everyone in the US was. Since we all were, we all should have had some influence in how that change will apply to us.

hanuman wrote:
No no no! Obergefell in no way changed a single provision of the US Constitution. That is a fallacy that's been advocated by rightwing politicians like Huckabee, Jindal and Cruz who wouldn't recognize the meaning of the word 'truth' if you spoonfed it to them.

The SCOTUS examined the plaintiffs' case and agreed with them that same sex marriage bans violated same sex couples' Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to due process and equal protection under the law. Obergefell certainly did not introduce a new fundamental human right. You are being disingenuous, Sir.

Yes, each society adheres to a slightly different definition or understanding of what exactly the concept of 'human rights' entails. I wish to mention two points here.

First, in every society that actually practices what they preach, that understanding is based on a core that was derived from American principles of human freedom, including freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and equal status under the law.

Second, in the United States as in my own country and many others, those rights are entrenched in the national constitutions, and have been thusly enacted through a democratic process.

As such, the fundamental right of same sex couples to wed, as confirmed by the SCOTUS on the basis of the Fourteenth's provisions, have already been established by the American people at the moment the Fourteenth was enacted as the law of the land.

Whether the American people (or rather, their representatives) realized that at some point in the future the Fourteenth's provisions might be used to benefit a class of people that was suspect then and remains so to a certain degree really is besides the point. What matters is that those rights were enacted, that they apply to "all persons" and that the SCOTUS eventually recognized that through a legal process that was entirely in line with its constitutional mandate.

If the other type of contract has all the same legal rights and priviledges as civil marriage (which it would need to), it's easier to just call it civil marriage than go back and amend all the existing laws that it would impact so it applies equally to them as well.

This is not, nor has it ever been, about religious marriage, so religious beliefs should have no bearing on the discussion.

PeterZ wrote:WTF!

5 out 9 justices believed as Kennedy did enough to let him write the majority opinion. The other 4 did not believe marriage laws infringed upon the 14th Amendment. Not because they did not believe that gays should be denied the right to form unions, but that other union was different than marriage. Marriage after all was a contract specifying a relationship between one man and one woman. No motives or outcomes matter in that definition.

Nothing prevents the creation of a different union specifying same sex relations with the identical or different set of rights and responsibilities associated with that new union. This is not separate but equal because the prior definition of marriage and the laws stemming from them ignored love, contentment and domestic felicity in the description of what marriage was. Marriage was a specific contract available to anyone within the criteria described in that contract. It did not prohibit other contracts whatsoever.

Those 5 Justices DID change the definition of marriage for everyone. They had the authority to do that. They do not have the authority to write the changes their declaration might require. Please see how the South Carolina law needs to be rewritten in a previous post. The new definition DOES include love and domestic felicity as an essential element in the definition of marriage. Under the NEW definition of marriage asserted by 5 unelected Justices the old marriage laws DO violate the 14th Amendment. Those 5 had the authority to do that. Even so, please don't delude yourself into thinking that no one else was impacted. Everyone in the US was. Since we all were, we all should have had some influence in how that change will apply to us.

hanuman wrote:
No no no! Obergefell in no way changed a single provision of the US Constitution. That is a fallacy that's been advocated by rightwing politicians like Huckabee, Jindal and Cruz who wouldn't recognize the meaning of the word 'truth' if you spoonfed it to them.

The SCOTUS examined the plaintiffs' case and agreed with them that same sex marriage bans violated same sex couples' Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to due process and equal protection under the law. Obergefell certainly did not introduce a new fundamental human right. You are being disingenuous, Sir.

Yes, each society adheres to a slightly different definition or understanding of what exactly the concept of 'human rights' entails. I wish to mention two points here.

First, in every society that actually practices what they preach, that understanding is based on a core that was derived from American principles of human freedom, including freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and equal status under the law.

Second, in the United States as in my own country and many others, those rights are entrenched in the national constitutions, and have been thusly enacted through a democratic process.

As such, the fundamental right of same sex couples to wed, as confirmed by the SCOTUS on the basis of the Fourteenth's provisions, have already been established by the American people at the moment the Fourteenth was enacted as the law of the land.

Whether the American people (or rather, their representatives) realized that at some point in the future the Fourteenth's provisions might be used to benefit a class of people that was suspect then and remains so to a certain degree really is besides the point. What matters is that those rights were enacted, that they apply to "all persons" and that the SCOTUS eventually recognized that through a legal process that was entirely in line with its constitutional mandate.

No one is compelled to be a baker or run a bakery. If they cannot follow relevant laws then they shouldn't be running a bakery. Would you allow someone running a bakery or restaurant a religious exemption from public health sanitation laws?

If someone is not willing/able to follow the laws governing the actions they are taking they should not be taking those actions.

PeterZ wrote:I ask you if a pious Jewish baker was asked to bake a cake that says "Jesus is my Lord and Savior". Could he decline?

I recall a conversation with a Jewish friend about this topic. He always referred to dates as B.C.E or C.E. I asked why. He replied that could not even say words that acknowledged any other god but his as his Lord. He could not say anno Domini in good conscience. He would be saying the year of our Lord.

Must the Jewish baker be forced to accept my commission or be fined? Be forced to create words that break religious law he is morally obligated to follow? Is the 1st Amendment no protection? If it is then why this part of the First Amendment and not the other?

No. The First Amendment is the sine qua non of American liberty. If government can limit speech for any reason other than to protect life, we have no liberty at all. So, an American can refuse a request to perform activities that violate his/her conscience with impunity from government.

So the baker is not discriminating based the customers sexual orientation, he discriminating against performing an activity that violates his conscience, if he believes SSM is a sin. The same would be true of the Jewish baker. After all the law allows us to discriminate for any reason other than for race, creed, religion, age, national origin and sexual orientation. The prohibition against discrimination is much narrower than the limits on 1A.

So I can discriminate against people who are not dressed properly, against folks who are overly liberals or progressives, against left footed field goal Kickers and even ex-Presidents of the US. I can discriminate in all those ways but not against protected classes. Yet, I can only be limited in my speech when inciting violence or when the nature of my speech threatens life like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I really don't buy your logic at all. Liberty is ensured by securing our most important freedoms not by allowing government to secure a very limited prohibition.

Peter, you are really being obtuse and offensive now.

Same sex families are no different from opposite sex families in any fundamental way. Same sex marriage is no different than opposite sex marriage. If you can name a single specific of marriage beyond the fact that both partners can now be of the same sex I would agree with you, but you cannot.

Civil unions for same sex couples have been tried, yet not in a single State have such unions been granted the same legal status, burdens or privileges as marriage. Once again, the implication of your argument is that LGBT folk should be satisfied with being reduced to a second class status, to not being accepted as human enough to qualify for the protections the US Constitution grants "all persons".

You keep shifting your arguments, trying to find a way to escape the logic of Obergefell and full LGBT equality. You keep denying our right to be treated as human beings rather than subhumans. Your every attempt has failed, Sir. While I salute your determination, I have to lament your dishonesty.

Here are the pertinent facts, once again:

a. There is no such thing, legally, as same sex marriage, because there are no legal distinctions between marriage between same sex couples and straight couples.

b. Obergefell was determined on the basis of the Fourteenth's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the law to "all persons".

c. LGBT folks are in fact fully human and as such the SCOTUS has ruled that we too are included in the protections named in (b.).

d. Obergefell was in no way an attempt to 'legislate from the bench', since it was limited purely to an interpretation of the US Constitution. It did not introduce any new rights or protections, but strictly held that the existing rights enumerated in the Constitution apply to a particular class of people.

e. Those rights and protections were in fact enacted by way of a democratic process.

Once again, the only way you could possibly win this discussion is by showing a single instance where the legal provisions of any State's standard marriage contract had to be altered to accommodate same sex couples, beyond the elimination of gender-specific terms.

Also, please demonstrate how the ability of same sex couples to get married impacted you or any other straight person, because I can literally not think of a single way in which it did so.

Donnachaidh wrote:No one is compelled to be a baker or run a bakery. If they cannot follow relevant laws then they shouldn't be running a bakery. Would you allow someone running a bakery or restaurant a religious exemption from public health sanitation laws?

If someone is not willing/able to follow the laws governing the actions they are taking they should not be taking those actions.

Following the law in commerce should not violate one's liberty. If it can then, the very act of engaging in commerce is to suspend one's protections contained in the Constitution. Forcing someone to act in ways counter to his conscience in order to avoid a legal penalty. Just as I cannot use the power of government to force the Jewish baker to perform an act that goes against his conscience, nor can I use the power of government to force someone to say or express themselves in ways they do not wish to.

Btw, we are not discussing a baker not selling anything at all to the same sex couple. They are free to make any purchase they desire. The baker simply refuses the commission to express support for something he does not in fact support. Its like asking ex-president Clinton to give a speech on why traditional marriage is superior to SSM during his wife's campaign. The president takes money for speeches and he accepts guidance on what he will say in those speeches. If he refuses the commission, is he refusing based on the religious nature of his speech? If so, then he is discriminating against his would be employer based on the religious nature of the speech. He is discriminating against a protected class. The prospective employer cannot then appeal to the government to either compel President Clinton to make the speech or fine him into ruin.

Sorry but I find that ridiculous. The President can decline making a speech about something he does not believe in even if he is in business to make speeches.

So, following the relevant laws should not force people to be amoral. Amoral in the sense that the individual does not use morality to guide their actions, ONLY the law. That encourages people to follow the letter of the law not the spirit.

Do you disagree that discriminating is being a dick?

If so, follow Wheaton's Law: Don't be a dick.

PeterZ wrote:

Donnachaidh wrote:No one is compelled to be a baker or run a bakery. If they cannot follow relevant laws then they shouldn't be running a bakery. Would you allow someone running a bakery or restaurant a religious exemption from public health sanitation laws?

If someone is not willing/able to follow the laws governing the actions they are taking they should not be taking those actions.

Following the law in commerce should not violate one's liberty. If it can then, the very act of engaging in commerce is to suspend one's protections contained in the Constitution. Forcing someone to act in ways counter to his conscience in order to avoid a legal penalty. Just as I cannot use the power of government to force the Jewish baker to perform an act that goes against his conscience, nor can I use the power of government to force someone to say or express themselves in ways they do not wish to.

Btw, we are not discussing a baker not selling anything at all to the same sex couple. They are free to make any purchase they desire. The baker simply refuses the commission to express support for something he does not in fact support. Its like asking ex-president Clinton to give a speech on why traditional marriage is superior to SSM during his wife's campaign. The president takes money for speeches and he accepts guidance on what he will say in those speeches. If he refuses the commission, is he refusing based on the religious nature of his speech? If so, then he is discriminating against his would be employer based on the religious nature of the speech. He is discriminating against a protected class. The prospective employer cannot then appeal to the government to either compel President Clinton to make the speech or fine him into ruin.

Sorry but I find that ridiculous. The President can decline making a speech about something he does not believe in even if he is in business to make speeches.

So, following the relevant laws should not force people to be amoral. Amoral in the sense that the individual does not use morality to guide their actions, ONLY the law. That encourages people to follow the letter of the law not the spirit.

Do you disagree that the law allows us to discriminate against anyone not in the protected classes? Is it being a dick to follow the law and to discriminate in ways not proscribed by the law?

Following the law while doing what is morally appropriate requires the exercise of conscience. Exercising conscience freely either in business or in private requires the 1st Amendment protections.

So, in order not to be a dick, I need to act in accordance with my conscience. Other wise I may discriminate and still follow the law. In other words I would be a dick while following the law.

Donnachaidh wrote:Do you disagree that discriminating is being a dick?

If so, follow Wheaton's Law: Don't be a dick.

Except its not violating your liberty. The law is supposing that a business is a business, no matter the size, so it assumes for equality of the law that a business with one baker is subject to the same anti discrimination laws as one with 1000, and says that while individuals can opinionate and discriminate as part of free speech, a business can not, and that a theoretically perfect business without workers must serve these couples to avoid breaking the law, and that personal != (does not equal) commercial. Had the bakery two or more bakers, they would still be required to bake the cake, albeit to the bakeries need to either change the baker to one who will make it, or firing the baker for refusal to complete his job tasks. You are allowed personal discrimination, just not commercialised discrimination is what the law says.

As for the preident bit, probably depends on how he words his service commission.... If its titled as speeches on my viewpoints, or some such, probably legal, as he would be refusing on the grounds that its not actually a viewpoint of his.

These laws are not forcing people to be amoral, they are designed to force businesses to follow the government guidelines on amorality in business, and ensure that the businesses do not grow morals that oppose the functioning of the society through illegality.....

PeterZ wrote:
Following the law in commerce should not violate one's liberty. If it can then, the very act of engaging in commerce is to suspend one's protections contained in the Constitution. Forcing someone to act in ways counter to his conscience in order to avoid a legal penalty. Just as I cannot use the power of government to force the Jewish baker to perform an act that goes against his conscience, nor can I use the power of government to force someone to say or express themselves in ways they do not wish to.

Btw, we are not discussing a baker not selling anything at all to the same sex couple. They are free to make any purchase they desire. The baker simply refuses the commission to express support for something he does not in fact support. Its like asking ex-president Clinton to give a speech on why traditional marriage is superior to SSM during his wife's campaign. The president takes money for speeches and he accepts guidance on what he will say in those speeches. If he refuses the commission, is he refusing based on the religious nature of his speech? If so, then he is discriminating against his would be employer based on the religious nature of the speech. He is discriminating against a protected class. The prospective employer cannot then appeal to the government to either compel President Clinton to make the speech or fine him into ruin.

Sorry but I find that ridiculous. The President can decline making a speech about something he does not believe in even if he is in business to make speeches.

So, following the relevant laws should not force people to be amoral. Amoral in the sense that the individual does not use morality to guide their actions, ONLY the law. That encourages people to follow the letter of the law not the spirit.

PeterZ wrote:Do you disagree that the law allows us to discriminate against anyone not in the protected classes? Is it being a dick to follow the law and to discriminate in ways not proscribed by the law?

Following the law while doing what is morally appropriate requires the exercise of conscience. Exercising conscience freely either in business or in private requires the 1st Amendment protections.

So, in order not to be a dick, I need to act in accordance with my conscience. Other wise I may discriminate and still follow the law. In other words I would be a dick while following the law.

Thank you, your post has made me realize what the true problem is. The Supreme Court did not go far enough, they should have declared same-sex orientation and transgender identity as protected classes.

I agree that one cannot discriminate with whom one does business. I never disagreed with this. I asserted that government could not force an individual to say, write or express in some way anything he or she do not wish to. It does not matter if that speech or expression is private or commercial.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free execise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech. The First Amendment agrees with me.

The baker in question was willing to sell anything in the store or that he could order from his sources. He was not declining to do business with this couple. He was declining to express himself in ways inconsistent with his conscience or participate in an activity that was inconsistent with his religious beliefs.

The government cannot force the baker to practice his religion in ways that are inconsistent with conscience nor say or express himself in ways he chooses not to.

I reiterate, the baker does not decline to do business with the couple. He does decline to participate in a ceremony his religion disagrees with by making the cake specifically for the ceremony. He will sell any existing cake or product, but will not express himself in ways that support the SSM ceremony.

I believe the baker is within his rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

Spacekiwi wrote:Except its not violating your liberty. The law is supposing that a business is a business, no matter the size, so it assumes for equality of the law that a business with one baker is subject to the same anti discrimination laws as one with 1000, and says that while individuals can opinionate and discriminate as part of free speech, a business can not, and that a theoretically perfect business without workers must serve these couples to avoid breaking the law, and that personal != (does not equal) commercial. Had the bakery two or more bakers, they would still be required to bake the cake, albeit to the bakeries need to either change the baker to oneness who will make it, or firing the baker for refusal to complete his job tasks. You are allowed personal discrimination, just not commercialised discrimination is what the law says.

As for the preident bit, probably depends on how he words his service commission.... If its titled as speeches on my viewpoints, or some such, probably legal, as he would be refusing on the grounds that its not actually a viewpoint of his.

These laws are not forcing people to be amoral, they are designed to force businesses to follow the government guidelines on amorality in business, and ensure that the businesses do not grow morals that oppose the functioning of the society through illegality.....