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

PeterZ wrote: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.

Sigh... no. They stated EXACTLY the law that replaces it. Namely that the state now licenses those marriages.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf


"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.


State law on the matter became irrelevant the second that opinion was delivered. South Carolina's... and every other state's... law NOW is that they issue marriage licenses to gay people and they recognize the resulting marriages. The Supreme Court made SSM the law of the land. Period. All conflicting state laws were immediately superseded.

PeterZ wrote: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.

As I understand, as soon as SCOTUS ruled that barring gay marriage is unconstitutional, the sections of any law prohibiting it are void, but the rest of the law is still in force, although the law must be read with the ruling in mind. So in the case of the SC law above, the section prohibiting SSM is void, and the sections regarding incest apply to both same- and opposite-sex marriage, but the law in general still applies.

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.

As several posters have noted, the same arguments apply to interracial marriage. Loving vs Virginia was in 1967. Interracial marriage was contraversial at he time and AFAICT it's only in the last decade or two that it's really become widely acceptable (and it's not universally acepted in the US even today). Do you think mixed race couples should have waited another thirty or forty years for the general public to accept them? (And arguably it would have taken longer, as presumably the existence of interracial couples gave the pursuadable part of the public more expsure to to
em and quickened aceptance).

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.

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.

Btw, legislation of the civil rights act did not take decades and is hardly controversial today. Roe v Wade on the other hand.....

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote: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.

As I understand, as soon as SCOTUS ruled that barring gay marriage is unconstitutional, the sections of any law prohibiting it are void, but the rest of the law is still in force, although the law must be read with the ruling in mind. So in the case of the SC law above, the section prohibiting SSM is void, and the sections regarding incest apply to both same- and opposite-sex marriage, but the law in general still applies.

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.

As several posters have noted, the same arguments apply to interracial marriage. Loving vs Virginia was in 1967. Interracial marriage was contraversial at he time and AFAICT it's only in the last decade or two that it's really become widely acceptable (and it's not universally acepted in the US even today). Do you think mixed race couples should have waited another thirty or forty years for the general public to accept them? (And arguably it would have taken longer, as presumably the existence of interracial couples gave the pursuadable part of the public more expsure to to
em and quickened aceptance).

How so on the same sex incest? that sounds like some weird wording of the laws if so, as opposed to a law stating you cant marry within 1 bloodline step, which would prevent marriage to parents, children and siblings, with less verbiage.

If a law needs being changed, I would argue the change is due to bad wording in it, not gay marriage.



For the civil rights legislation and enactment, Wikipedia states the legislation and constitutional cases took place between 1954( brown vs BOE, Topeka) through to the civil rights act of 68, and the Gates vs Collier case(72), so the overall effect took 18 years or so, with the civil rights act by itself taking place in 2 parts begining with inception in 63, through to the second part enacted in 68, so almost two decades, not quite a few decades, but close enough for the saying. And while not controversial today, it certainly was then. Half a century later, its not as controversial however, so expect gay marriage to have about the same controversy in 2065 as inter-racial marriage does now.

PeterZ wrote: 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.

Btw, legislation of the civil rights act did not take decades and is hardly controversial today. Roe v Wade on the other hand.....

The wording assumed marriage would always be between one man and one woman. Under that assumption the clear descriptions made for easy to understand prohibition. Change that assumptions and clarity evaporates.

Of course the Civil rights acts were controversial. Yet the process of legislative change also changed hearts and minds. Roe v Wade bypassed that legislative process and remains as controversial today as when SCOTUS rendered its decision. I fear SSM will suffer the same fate for the same reason, a lack of buy in from the citizenry.

Spacekiwi wrote:How so on the same sex incest? that sounds like some weird wording of the laws if so, as opposed to a law stating you cant marry within 1 bloodline step, which would prevent marriage to parents, children and siblings, with less verbiage.

If a law needs being changed, I would argue the change is due to bad wording in it, not gay marriage.



For the civil rights legislation and enactment, Wikipedia states the legislation and constitutional cases took place between 1954( brown vs BOE, Topeka) through to the civil rights act of 68, and the Gates vs Collier case(72), so the overall effect took 18 years or so, with the civil rights act by itself taking place in 2 parts begining with inception in 63, through to the second part enacted in 68, so almost two decades, not quite a few decades, but close enough for the saying. And while not controversial today, it certainly was then. Half a century later, its not as controversial however, so expect gay marriage to have about the same controversy in 2065 as inter-racial marriage does now.

PeterZ wrote: 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.

Btw, legislation of the civil rights act did not take decades and is hardly controversial today. Roe v Wade on the other hand.....

Strangely enough, the latest Washington Post poll shows that 63% of American voters believe that Davis should have issued the marriage lice ces in the first place.

By the way, Peter, interracial marriage might have become legal in 1967, but it did not become generally acceptable to a majority of Americans till the late nineties.

Roe & Wade is controversial because it potentially affects 95% of Americans, because abortion is an emotional issue that revolves around two equally emotional and fundamental issues (women's rights over their own bodies and the right to life of a foetus), and because the religious conservative movement has used it as a rallying point in their drive to gain political power.

Same sex marriage ultimately affects less than 5% of Americans, it involves no truly controversial issues, and it ultimately makes for a rather poor political rallying point, as more and more Americans come into contact with LGBT folks.

There are no differences to speak of between same sex families and opposite sex families, and the longer same sex marriage is legal, the more people will realize that an attack on same sex marriage is an attack on their own marriages.

The process through which same sex marriage became legal countrywide was exactly the same as that of interracial marriage. It was fully in accordance with the American political and legal system. The Court's ruling was a sound legal argument, and once the subjective emotional crap is removed from the debate, even the most conservative legal experts will have to acknowledge that.

For my American peers, the fight is not over, though. There are still laws on the books that make it possible for an employer to dismiss someone simply for being queer. In a majority of states landlords can still evict queer folk for no other reason. The South is indeed solid when it comes to discriminatory practices and policies - never mind popular attitudes - against queer people.

There is a long way to go before we achieve full equality in the US, but legal access to marriage was probably, hopefully, the major turning point we needed. After all, once people see that we are just as committed to our families as they are, and that our families are just like theirs, it becomes that much more difficult to support policies that reduce us to second-class status.

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.

Man that SC marriage law needs rewriting. Breaks the Federal Constitution on equal protection, allows for Bigamy, hell it even fails on first amendment grounds.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Marriage has always been about joint property, it creates a legal entity above the individuals involved. It is a contract.

Now if you want to see it in extreme forms read Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Here we see line marriage where the family, like a corporation, the marriage is immortal acquires assets over long periods of time individual members join (opted in by vote of other spouses) or leave (death or divorce). Traditional marriage is a partnership, ending when a partner is divorced or dies.

Poker

Fair enough, but that suggests that the problem is still at least partially due to the wording of the bill, although in this case due to specificity as opposed to vagueness....


I think the controversy over gay marriage will be a lot less than that over Roe v Wade, but not due to SCOTUS, but due to the fact that one side inherently views Roe v Wade as inherently encouraging murder, whereas gay marriage is in some ways a lesser sin for them. prolifers view abortion as breaking one of the ten commandments, so its big and controversial, but gay marriage? Yes the bible denotes it as a sin, but its not one of the ten, so in terms of the bible, its not as bad a sin. Given this, and the fact that polls show an ever growing acceptance of gay marriage, especially in younger generations, and I expect it will occur more like the civil rights movement than R v W. Especially as the anti gay marriage viewpoint tends to have a large share of the viepwoint in those over 40 or so, so in 50 years, the opponents will have died of old age......

PeterZ wrote:The wording assumed marriage would always be between one man and one woman. Under that assumption the clear descriptions made for easy to understand prohibition. Change that assumptions and clarity evaporates.

Of course the Civil rights acts were controversial. Yet the process of legislative change also changed hearts and minds. Roe v Wade bypassed that legislative process and remains as controversial today as when SCOTUS rendered its decision. I fear SSM will suffer the same fate for the same reason, a lack of buy in from the citizenry.