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

PeterZ wrote: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.

In other words, some people are more people than others, and "same for all" is only valid as long as they don´t tread on your prejudice toes.

Your argument is rubbish make-belief, because it isn´t even an argument.

PeterZ wrote:That institution has historically been described as union between one man and one woman.

And that is a lie. "Historically", covers a BIG chunk of time, and LOTS of cultures, many which had various institutions of marriage, or similar, or both, that did not have that limit OR had other limits.

Your argument is therefore completely invalid. In fact, by that argument, you should probably say that´s about time...

PeterZ wrote: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.

That´s just because the current "SCOTUS" is dreadfully reactionary conservative.

Either the 14th amendment is valid, then the ruling is correct, or it is invalid and USA has a bunch of leftover laws that suddenly are still valid that makes it look embarassingly much like Apartheid South Africa.

PeterZ wrote: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.

Eh, no it isn´t.

True. Justice Scalia is well known for ignoring the law in favour of his own prejudices and beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Except for the tax advantages, the ability to make medical decisions for your partner, reduced complexity of will surrounding inheritance by your partner, benefits structured government help that aids married couples, etc. Yes, these can be individually collectable, but require effort and legwork and contracts, and may not have been valid everywhere, and missing one piece could screw you over forever. Marriage does all this and more with one signature on the marriage document, and confers every advantage given to married couples by the governement in one go, automatically, without the need for 40 or more hours of lawyer work for something that may not work, or may be disregarded by the courts in the future, or be prevented to you as a non married couple, such as adoption places that require a married couple.


So same sex marriage does confer advantages over the previous status quo, by dint of it being official marriage......

PeterZ wrote: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.

Now-days? Yes, Love probably is the defining point of marriages, with all the bonus of marriage discussed above thrown in. You love the other person, and want to spend your life with them (barring shotgun and arranged marriages), and you do so through marriage and its associated benefits.

Marriage offers benefits best to those with children, but it still offers more benefits to those without then those not married. A marriage is always useful.

I love my partner, plan to spend the rest of my life with her, and recognize that the law requires we be married to ensure a smoother time through life, up to and including the ending of it. had we been gay, your belief that marriage is not required would be legally, financially, and socially excluding us from situations which a hetero couple enjoys. As such, gay marriage is a definite requirement for treating those of non standard gender alignment like the normal people they are. To do otherwise is discriminating against them, and breaks your 14th, and the universal bill of rights, signed by the US among others, pretty much exactly as inter racial marriages used to be treated.

Luke 6:31. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

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 marriage 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.

Have I not been saying that legislating the terms of a SSM contract was my preferred solution? The SCOTUS decision forces their preferred alterations to the definition of marriage rather than allowing We The People to more directly influence any alteration with our own preferences. As it was more and more States were developing their own solutions to these inequities. SCOTUS imposed their preference and denied our opportunity to more directly shape the laws that govern us.

Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the tax advantages, the ability to make medical decisions for your partner, reduced complexity of will surrounding inheritance by your partner, benefits structured government help that aids married couples, etc. Yes, these can be individually collectable, but require effort and legwork and contracts, and may not have been valid everywhere, and missing one piece could screw you over forever. Marriage does all this and more with one signature on the marriage document, and confers every advantage given to married couples by the governement in one go, automatically, without the need for 40 or more hours of lawyer work for something that may not work, or may be disregarded by the courts in the future, or be prevented to you as a non married couple, such as adoption places that require a married couple.


So same sex marriage does confer advantages over the previous status quo, by dint of it being official marriage......

PeterZ wrote: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.

Now-days? Yes, Love probably is the defining point of marriages, with all the bonus of marriage discussed above thrown in. You love the other person, and want to spend your life with them (barring shotgun and arranged marriages), and you do so through marriage and its associated benefits.

Marriage offers benefits best to those with children, but it still offers more benefits to those without then those not married. A marriage is always useful.

I love my partner, plan to spend the rest of my life with her, and recognize that the law requires we be married to ensure a smoother time through life, up to and including the ending of it. had we been gay, your belief that marriage is not required would be legally, financially, and socially excluding us from situations which a hetero couple enjoys. As such, gay marriage is a definite requirement for treating those of non standard gender alignment like the normal people they are. To do otherwise is discriminating against them, and breaks your 14th, and the universal bill of rights, signed by the US among others, pretty much exactly as inter racial marriages used to be treated.

Luke 6:31. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

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 marriage 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.

PeterZ wrote:Have I not been saying that legislating the terms of a SSM contract was my preferred solution?

THE. FOURTEENTH. AMENDMENT. ALREADY. LEGISLATED. IT.


ffs...

Peter, you are now not even biased anymore; now you're moving towards being deliberately obtuse.

The ONLY change to the standard marriage contract of any State that was effected by Obergefell was the replacement of the gender-specific words with gender-neutral words. Other than that NONE of the specific legal provisions, obligations, burdens and commitments in any State's existing standard marriage contract have had to be changed to accommodate same sex couples. Not a single one.

That is what is meant by marriage equality, exactly the same legal obligations, responsibilities and privileges that straight couples are accorded. Not some equal-but-separate monstrosity, because those never turn out equal, do they?

Your last post brings us right back to the question, why was it okay for the SCOTUS to legalize interracial marriage but not same sex marriage? Had the SCOTUS not issued Loving, some states in the Deep South would still outlaw interracial marriage, and most States would have done so till well into the 90s. Similarly, my peers in a sizable number of States would have to wait till Kingdom Come to get married, if they had waited for those States' legislatures to act.

It is not right, morally or legally, to give a majority the right to determine when a detested or distrusted minority might be deemed human enough to be granted equal legal status and rights. To argue differently is in fact a mark of bigotry.

Because SCOTUS cannot change the wording of any law, the state legislatures still must alter these laws. Some will need minor alteration and others will need quite a bit. The South Carolina law is a case in point.

You allude to a tyrrany of the majority. Is that worse than the tyrrany by a minority? Shall revisions promulgated by a minute minority carry more weight than one supported by a majority? Your comments reinforce my point.

I have read that this law impacts only the LGBT community. Please tell that to the Colorado baker being beggared by fines for refusing to make a special cake celebrating what he does not morally support. He was more than willing to sell whatever was for sale in his store. He refused to accept a commission to make a special cake and is being fined massively.

That does not strike me as not impacting anyone except LGBT. So, might those of us not LGBT have some say in laws that may well have powerful impact on our lives? I submit that we should have a say.

hanuman wrote:Peter, you are now not even biased anymore; now you're moving towards being deliberately obtuse.

The ONLY change to the standard marriage contract of any State that was effected by Obergefell was the replacement of the gender-specific words with gender-neutral words. Other than that NONE of the specific legal provisions, obligations, burdens and commitments in any State's existing standard marriage contract have had to be changed to accommodate same sex couples. Not a single one.

That is what is meant by marriage equality, exactly the same legal obligations, responsibilities and privileges that straight couples are accorded. Not some equal-but-separate monstrosity, because those never turn out equal, do they?

Your last post brings us right back to the question, why was it okay for the SCOTUS to legalize interracial marriage but not same sex marriage? Had the SCOTUS not issued Loving, some states in the Deep South would still outlaw interracial marriage, and most States would have done so till well into the 90s. Similarly, my peers in a sizable number of States would have to wait till Kingdom Come to get married, if they had waited for those States' legislatures to act.

It is not right, morally or legally, to give a majority the right to determine when a detested or distrusted minority might be deemed human enough to be granted equal legal status and rights. To argue differently is in fact a mark of bigotry.

What tyranny? How does allowing same sex couple to marry change anything for anyone else?

As far as your baker goes, they would have been treated the same way under the law if they had refused to make a special cake for an interracial couple or a Jewish couple or a Mexican couple. Any of those would have violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fact that they were willing to sell non-special cakes is immaterial to the fact that they refused to perform the service they chose to commercialize on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. If the baker had not created special cakes for anyone, then refusing to make one for that couple would have been legally acceptable but they chose to create special cakes for others so refusing is not legal.


Freedom of Religion does not mean you get to impose your faith on others, that baker doesn't seem to understand that; if you'd like a more recent example, Kim Davis and her supporters don't either.

PeterZ wrote:Because SCOTUS cannot change the wording of any law, the state legislatures still must alter these laws. Some will need minor alteration and others will need quite a bit. The South Carolina law is a case in point.

You allude to a tyrrany of the majority. Is that worse than the tyrrany by a minority? Shall revisions promulgated by a minute minority carry more weight than one supported by a majority? Your comments reinforce my point.

I have read that this law impacts only the LGBT community. Please tell that to the Colorado baker being beggared by fines for refusing to make a special cake celebrating what he does not morally support. He was more than willing to sell whatever was for sale in his store. He refused to accept a commission to make a special cake and is being fined massively.

That does not strike me as not impacting anyone except LGBT. So, might those of us not LGBT have some say in laws that may well have powerful impact on our lives? I submit that we should have a say.

hanuman wrote:Peter, you are now not even biased anymore; now you're moving towards being deliberately obtuse.

The ONLY change to the standard marriage contract of any State that was effected by Obergefell was the replacement of the gender-specific words with gender-neutral words. Other than that NONE of the specific legal provisions, obligations, burdens and commitments in any State's existing standard marriage contract have had to be changed to accommodate same sex couples. Not a single one.

That is what is meant by marriage equality, exactly the same legal obligations, responsibilities and privileges that straight couples are accorded. Not some equal-but-separate monstrosity, because those never turn out equal, do they?

Your last post brings us right back to the question, why was it okay for the SCOTUS to legalize interracial marriage but not same sex marriage? Had the SCOTUS not issued Loving, some states in the Deep South would still outlaw interracial marriage, and most States would have done so till well into the 90s. Similarly, my peers in a sizable number of States would have to wait till Kingdom Come to get married, if they had waited for those States' legislatures to act.

It is not right, morally or legally, to give a majority the right to determine when a detested or distrusted minority might be deemed human enough to be granted equal legal status and rights. To argue differently is in fact a mark of bigotry.

That baker's, or any other vendor's, troubles do NOT stem from same sex couples' legal right to marry, but instead from an entirely different issue to which same sex marriage is only incidental. Their troubles concern the question of whether a private business can refuse service to members of the public on grounds of personal dislike or conscience.

Personally, I find myself in two minds about it. On the one hand, I'd rather take my money to a business that would treat me with the respect and dignity I am entitled to as a human being. On the other hand, allowing people to turn away customers simply because of a particular identity would set a precedent for all kinds of discriminatory practices. That baker might just as well have refused service to a Muslim couple, or a Hindu couple, or on the basis of a profound personal bias against people of colour.

That is why I said same sex marriage is just incidental to the question of service refusal by private businesses. This is a question I cannot get involved in, because my country's particular history of institutionalized racism predisposes me to not caring for 'whites only' notices, even on the basis of religious conscience.

As for your tyranny of the minority remark, that is a baseless argument art same sex marriage. The couples involved in Obergefell did not seek special treatment at the expense of the majority. Obergefell took nothing away from the majority; the SCOTUS simply confirmed that the Fourteenth's provisions applied equally to same sex couples. That is hardly 'tyranny'.

hanuman wrote:That baker's, or any other vendor's, troubles do NOT stem from same sex couples' legal right to marry, but instead from an entirely different issue to which same sex marriage is only incidental. Their troubles concern the question of whether a private business can refuse service to members of the public on grounds of personal dislike or conscience.

Personally, I find myself in two minds about it. On the one hand, I'd rather take my money to a business that would treat me with the respect and dignity I am entitled to as a human being. On the other hand, allowing people to turn away customers simply because of a particular identity would set a precedent for all kinds of discriminatory practices. That baker might just as well have refused service to a Muslim couple, or a Hindu couple, or on the basis of a profound personal bias against people of colour.

That is why I said same sex marriage is just incidental to the question of service refusal by private businesses. This is a question I cannot get involved in, because my country's particular history of institutionalized racism predisposes me to not caring for 'whites only' notices, even on the basis of religious conscience.

As for your tyranny of the minority remark, that is a baseless argument art same sex marriage. The couples involved in Obergefell did not seek special treatment at the expense of the majority. Obergefell took nothing away from the majority; the SCOTUS simply confirmed that the Fourteenth's provisions applied equally to same sex couples. That is hardly 'tyranny'.

My comment was not directed at the plaintiffs, but at SCOTUS. The plaintiff availed themselves of the court system to address a grievance. That is a right all Americans have and should never squander. SCOTUS' judgment required the definition of marriage to be altered in the way that was preferred by those 5 judges. Sending the case back to the states with the ruling that the law needs to be rewritten to allow same sex marriage would have let the states refine their laws to allow SSM without SCOTUS in any way imposing the views of a very limited few on how that needs to be accomplished.

I agree with your reservations on the baker. Yet the distinction I make relies on the 1st Amendment. The 1st allows me and anyone the freedom to speak as I see fit so long as I do not endanger anyone or incite violence. That means that I can also choose not to speak or express myself. Creating art or objects of personal expression is an extension of this freedom of speech. That means the government can take no action that infringes upon this right. No fines. Private individuals may boycott or retaliate in legal ways to their hearts content, just no government fines.

If the baker refuses commercial services offered to anyone else that does not involve his creative efforts, he then can be fined into ruin. The distinction is perhaps small but in my eyes a clear demarcation.