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

I am being neither, Daryl. Until recently love has been incidental to marriage. That union was used to establish families. One just needs to read Jane Austen to recognize that her criteria for desirable spouses had nothing to do with romantic love and everything to do with virtuous character traits. Her writing reflected the society she lived in.

Over the course of time that has changed. Yet to state that marriage has always been predominantly about love is absolutely wrong. There have been many more motives to marry that did not involve love at all. It was a union that could produce offspring and secure the inheritance of assets. Throughout time that union was between a man and a woman that often did not love each other at first.

Changing that definition should be done through the legislative process.

Daryl wrote:Marriage to one you love and cherish above all others has been withheld from gays. Reading your comment I'm not sure if you are being mischievous or just thick. The whole discussion is plain and simple to understand, however your comment is strange considering that you espouse (pun intended) marriage as a sacred union. Don't marry the one you love, but a convenient legal other?

I see you missed the point where same sex marriage was common enough that the first Christian emperor of Rome passed a law banning it.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:I am being neither, Daryl. Until recently love has been incidental to marriage. That union was used to establish families. One just needs to read Jane Austen to recognize that her criteria for desirable spouses had nothing to do with romantic love and everything to do with virtuous character traits. Her writing reflected the society she lived in.

Over the course of time that has changed. Yet to state that marriage has always been predominantly about love is absolutely wrong. There have been many more motives to marry that did not involve love at all. It was a union that could produce offspring and secure the inheritance of assets. Throughout time that union was between a man and a woman that often did not love each other at first.

Changing that definition should be done through the legislative process.

Daryl wrote:Marriage to one you love and cherish above all others has been withheld from gays. Reading your comment I'm not sure if you are being mischievous or just thick. The whole discussion is plain and simple to understand, however your comment is strange considering that you espouse (pun intended) marriage as a sacred union. Don't marry the one you love, but a convenient legal other?

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted by way of the legislative process, it enshrines equal treatment under the law for "all persons", the couples who challenged the same sex marriage bans contended that those bans violated the Fourteenth's protections and the SCOTUS ruled in their favour. That is how the American constitutional system was designed to work.

You still have not answered my questions. Should interracial couples have waited until the late 90s to be allowed to get married, since it was only by then that they could have counted on a popular majority? Do the Fourteenth's protections apply to LGBT individuals as well, or don't they?

Those are really simple questions to answer, Peter.

I have never argued against same sex unions so it matters not a whit what a Roman emperor bans or doesn't ban. The law throughout the life of the US has stipulated marriage is between one man and one woman. Changing that definition is best done by legislation. Ensuring that as many people are involved in that sort of meaningful change is the best way to make such changes broadly accepted. Limiting the key actors to 5 unelected judges inhibits broad acceptance. My position is that simple.

Annachie wrote:I see you missed the point where same sex marriage was common enough that the first Christian emperor of Rome passed a law banning it.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

PeterZ wrote:I have never argued against same sex unions so it matters not a whit what a Roman emperor bans or doesn't ban. The law throughout the life of the US has stipulated marriage is between one man and one woman. Changing that definition is best done by legislation. Ensuring that as many people are involved in that sort of meaningful change is the best way to make such changes broadly accepted. Limiting the key actors to 5 unelected judges inhibits broad acceptance. My position is that simple.

Annachie wrote:I see you missed the point where same sex marriage was common enough that the first Christian emperor of Rome passed a law banning it.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

So we have your answer then. Since Loving introduced a fundamental change to how marriage had been defined by the law in much of the United States throughout its existence, interracial couples should have waited for the legislative process to catch up to their desire to express their commitment to each other formally and officially. Thank you, I suppose that's as clear an admission as one could expect.

But riddle me this, why does it matter to you so much? It's not as if you're gay or bisexual yourself, so how does it affect you that same sex couples can now get married?

PeterZ wrote:I have never argued against same sex unions so it matters not a whit what a Roman emperor bans or doesn't ban. The law throughout the life of the US has stipulated marriage is between one man and one woman.

"The law throughout the life of the US has stipulated marriage is between partnes of th same race..."

It wasn't a valid argument then, it isn't a valid argument now.

Changing that definition is best done by legislation.

FFS... when is this going to penetrate your skull? How many times does it have to be pointed out to you before you stop pretending you don't know it?

The 14th amendment IS LEGISLATION. If you want to change it YOU go through the legislative process and repeal the 14th.

Several posters have written about whether
Corporations are, or can be, or can be considered as,
"persons."

Some of them imply, or even state, that a recent
Supreme Court ruling established new precedent, or law.

Histories of the Supreme Court show that the precedents
for treating corporations as "legal persons"
with all of the rights of people,
go back to the late 1800's.
The 1890's, even the 1870's.
(I forget the details.)
There was dispute about them then,
but they were taken-for-granted by 1900.
SF stories, such as the "Valentina" stories,
were based upon them.

I am somewhat surprised that all of that has been forgotten here.

HTM

I would caution you on ascribing motives or beliefs on others in prejudice. It suggests bigotry permeates your arguments.

To assume in the bolded question that my interest only run to those things that impact me directly and personally is to assume that other people do not matter to me. Only those things that touch me matter. Assuming such things of another, any other, is far more likely to be wrong than right.

Furthermore, I don't think it is a good idea to define marriage by the motives for entering marriage. Do those that enter a marriage for reasons other than love have any less right to marry that those that marry for love? I believe they do. That means if marriage is defined exclusively as a means for expressing love, those people who enter arranged marriages cannot marry. They as yet do not love each other. I don't believe the wording on any state law defining marriage include love. They define the relationships that are included, but not the motive for entering into the relationship.

Hence, I do not believe the SCOTUS' interpretation 14th Amendment stipulates that current state law on the books suddenly change to say not only one man and one woman, but 2 men or two women. Those laws have to be changed anyway before those states that do not have appropriate wording legally can issue same sex marriage licenses.

Yet my primary concern is just what I stated, in order for us to remain a country where its citizens and residents self govern, the vast majority of us must accept and willingly limit our actions to remain within the laws. Having a large majority believing the laws are clubs the elites use to abuse us is a sure road to anarchy or a police state. Think about the Black Lives Matter movement and multiply by several factors of 10.

Will we hit that threshold just on this issue? No. Will it be easier with this issue and Obamacare to persuade the US citizen that they do not have a say in the laws that govern them when this sort change happens with regularity? Yes, I am afraid it will.

hanuman wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I have never argued against same sex unions so it matters not a whit what a Roman emperor bans or doesn't ban. The law throughout the life of the US has stipulated marriage is between one man and one woman. Changing that definition is best done by legislation. Ensuring that as many people are involved in that sort of meaningful change is the best way to make such changes broadly accepted. Limiting the key actors to 5 unelected judges inhibits broad acceptance. My position is that simple.

So we have your answer then. Since Loving introduced a fundamental change to how marriage had been defined by the law in much of the United States throughout its existence, interracial couples should have waited for the legislative process to catch up to their desire to express their commitment to each other formally and officially. Thank you, I suppose that's as clear an admission as one could expect.

But riddle me this, why does it matter to you so much? It's not as if you're gay or bisexual yourself, so how does it affect you that same sex couples can now get married?

PeterZ wrote:I would caution you on ascribing motives or beliefs on others in prejudice. It suggests bigotry permeates your arguments.

To assume in the bolded question that my interest only run to those things that impact me directly and personally is to assume that other people do not matter to me. Only those things that touch me matter. Assuming such things of another, any other, is far more likely to be wrong than right.

Furthermore, I don't think it is a good idea to define marriage by the motives for entering marriage. Do those that enter a marriage for reasons other than love have any less right to marry that those that marry for love? I believe they do. That means if marriage is defined exclusively as a means for expressing love, those people who enter arranged marriages cannot marry. They as yet do not love each other. I don't believe the wording on any state law defining marriage include love. They define the relationships that are included, but not the motive for entering into the relationship.

Hence, I do not believe the SCOTUS' interpretation 14th Amendment stipulates that current state law on the books suddenly change to say not only one man and one woman, but 2 men or two women. Those laws have to be changed anyway before those states that do not have appropriate wording legally can issue same sex marriage licenses.

Yet my primary concern is just what I stated, in order for us to remain a country where its citizens and residents self govern, the vast majority of us must accept and willingly limit our actions to remain within the laws. Having a large majority believing the laws are clubs the elites use to abuse us is a sure road to anarchy or a police state. Think about the Black Lives Matter movement and multiply by several factors of 10.

Will we hit that threshold just on this issue? No. Will it be easier with this issue and Obamacare to persuade the US citizen that they do not have a say in the laws that govern them when this sort change happens with regularity? Yes, I am afraid it will.

Fair points, but ultimately your argument is flawed.

The US Constitution entrenches a number of fundamental principles that represent the consensus values and ideals of the American people. Those principles were enacted in a democratic manner by way of the amendment process. The Constitution also established the SCOTUS as the supreme court of law, with the express purpose of testing any legislation to determine whether it complies with the Constitution's provisions or not. The plaintiffs in the Obergefell case argued that the same sex marriage bans violated the equal protection and due process protections guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution, and the SCOTUS agreed.

That entire sequence of events was in accordance with how the American legal system, political system and constitutional system works. Every American has the right to appeal the constitutionality of a law to the courts and ultimately, to the SCOTUS. Take that right away and you end up with a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the political class. It is one of the fundamental checks to the power of the legislature and of the executive built into the Constitution.

As for your assertion that same sex marriage represents a fundamental redefinition of the institution, it does not. Not a single legal requirement, obligation or consequence have been necessitated. The right to marry a willing partner of the same sex was the only change to be introduced. Nothing else. How is that in any way a 'fundamental redefinition'? At most, it was an expansion of who qualifies to get wed.

hanuman wrote:
Fair points, but ultimately your argument is flawed.

The US Constitution entrenches a number of fundamental principles that represent the consensus values and ideals of the American people. Those principles were enacted in a democratic manner by way of the amendment process. The Constitution also established the SCOTUS as the supreme court of law, with the express purpose of testing any legislation to determine whether it complies with the Constitution's provisions or not. The plaintiffs in the Obergefell case argued that the same sex marriage bans violated the equal protection and due process protections guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution, and the SCOTUS agreed.

That entire sequence of events was in accordance with how the American legal system, political system and constitutional system works. Every American has the right to appeal the constitutionality of a law to the courts and ultimately, to the SCOTUS. Take that right away and you end up with a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the political class. It is one of the fundamental checks to the power of the legislature and of the executive built into the Constitution.

As for your assertion that same sex marriage represents a fundamental redefinition of the institution, it does not. Not a single legal requirement, obligation or consequence have been necessitated. The right to marry a willing partner of the same sex was the only change to be introduced. Nothing else. How is that in any way a 'fundamental redefinition'? At most, it was an expansion of who qualifies to get wed.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t20c001.php

South Carolina has to change the wording of this or the state cannot legally award same sex marriage licenses. SCOTUS' opinion merely states that this law is unconstitutional, not the exact law that must replace it. Their law does not allow same sex marriage. Yes, they must make the change but prior to making that change their state law cannot accommodate SSM. That's what I was saying.

Mind you, I do not make the claim that anything SCOTUS did was illegal. My point is that legalities don't matter nearly as much as participation. Absent participation, the laws are not accepted nearly as thoroughly. It is the acceptance of laws that make them something that people use to modify their behavior willingly rather than see as further proof of their victimization. If seen as the latter, people are as likely to break the law on general principle as follow it.

My reference to the Black Lives Matter movement is not hyperbole. Their sense of being victimized by the legal system fuels a lot of anger, justly or not. That anger has driven violent crime to unfortunately high levels in our inner cities.

As to your last point, only time will tell. If this interpretation of the 14th Amendment forces people who believe deeply that same sex unions are immoral to act either against their religious code or the law, then your point would be in error. If it would lead to a conflict with the 1st Amendment as it appears to do right now here in Colorado, then you would be in error.

We have a baker who was asked not just to sell an existing cake but to use his artistic expression to make a special cake for a gay wedding. The baker was more than willing to sell existing merchandise to the couple, but not willing to specifically make a cake for the ceremony that conflicted with his religious beliefs.

As I see it the 1st Amendment specifically protects an individual from government action that limits his ability to speak or creatively express himself. Lord knows we have seen celebrations of this with urine immersed crucifixes and the like. So, our baker in question is being forced to make that cake or suffer legal penalties. He is in fact being forced not simply to do commerce, he was already willing to do that. He is being forced to use his creative expression or suffer legal penalties. That strikes me as a conflict between this new interpretation of the 14th and the 1st. The 1st prohibits the government from limiting one's ability to speak or freely express himself/herself either through action or willful inaction.

The key issue is the creative element involved in the baker's expression of his art. I agree that no one should be able to hang out a shingle advertising a willingness to do commerce and discriminate with whom they do commerce in prohibited ways. I disagree that anyone can be forced to engage in their creative expression. That smacks too closely to slavery for me.