Why the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is questionable

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Meister, Jun 28, 2015.

  1. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #1
    After reading the courts decision including the dissent, I started to wonder about what's going on here.

    Then I found this intriguing article, that pretty much sums up my thoughts:

    http://theaxisofego.com/2015/06/27/what-was-lost-obergefell/

     
  2. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
  3. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #3
    Could you elaborate?
     
  4. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #4
    If you ignore all the times the US Supreme Court absolutely has stepped in as it regarding the constitutionality of state marriage law going way back (and it goes back well before Loving v. Virginia), his argument makes perfect sense.

    Gee, maybe that amendment was necessary because the original text of the Constitution explicitly restricted voting to males over age 21. If the original text (or any subsequent amendment) of the US Constitution said marriage was 1 man + 1 woman, then obviously a constitutional amendment would have been necessary to undo that as well.

    I love when these wannabe history and constitutional law buffs drop their britches and reveal just how little they understand of either.
     
  5. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #5
    Cause the argument is one sided. It doesn't cover the contrast and similarities of many other SCOTUS decisions. Hobby Lobby being the most recent which has to do with religious beliefs and personal rights.
     
  6. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #6
    Good argument!
    But I don't think that what happened here can be compared to Loving vs. Virginia. That decision:
    • was unanimous
    • gave an explanation why hetero marriage is a fundamental right, that does not apply to homo marriage.
     
  7. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #7
    Did you read the article? He isn't arguing religious beliefs vs. personal rights.
     
  8. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
    it is about gay people having the same rights and privileges as others. so the argument is freedom and equality.
     
  9. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #9
    So what. It was a popular law that had the support of the people at the time.


    I don't think you'll find text like that in the Loving v. Virginia decision anyway, but seriously, how could it? Society treated homosexuals as mentally ill criminals at the time due to moral disapproval. Interracial couples were also once subject to such widespread moral disapproval. In neither case is it a valid basis to restrict access to the fundamental right of marriage.
     
  10. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #10
    The author should really source this part.

    This other part is quite easily sourced, however it ignores issues that may not fall under state authority, such as federal income taxes. There are also the problems of child custody, inheritance, and power of attorney, which are extremely problematic if a state is just unwilling to recognize a partnership. No one really lobbied for the completely removal of civil aspects from marriage or the annulment of marriage licenses in general, so his point doesn't hold much if any water. There are probably better ways to argue this. I'll think of some later.

     
  11. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #11
    Where does the constitution guarantee a fundamental right to get married?
     
  12. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #12
    I'm not arguing that either. I'm simply saying, the argument of your posted quote seems to be only argued when it's a decision not agreed with by the right or religious. I used Hobby Lobby as an example cause of similar religious/personal belief grounds.

    "Until very recently, domestic relations law was seen as the bailiwick of the states."
    This is simply not true. Many SCOTUS examples over the decades that say differ.
     
  13. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #13
    Constitutional law also develops through court cases in the U.S. The Constitution is not a limited, enumerated list of rights where if it isn't listed, it doesn't exist. The fundamental right to marry was recognized long ago.

    The reality is social conservatives are obsessed with the past so they plan for the future pretty poorly. A federal marriage amendment would have been easy peasy 30-40 years ago. But they are, as a whole, shortsighted, so they blew it. I think they were obsessed with flag burning or something at that time. :rolleyes:
     
  14. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #14
    Why do you disagree with gay marriage Meister?

    We should probably stop calling it "gay marriage" now however and just call it "marriage".
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    The Constitution does not mention marriages (or any sort.) The Constitution does not mention the right to hunt deer or catch fish. What the Constitution does mention is the Right of All Citizens to Equal Protection before the Law.

    States grant marriage licenses, just as they grant licenses to hunt and fish. And if a State had a policy that only granted Hunting or Fishing licenses to one class of people, and specifically refused to grant them to another, then that policy would be found to be Unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause. Thats why the Supreme Court made the decision that it did.

    Its time for Conservatives to move on from this issue. You lost. You lost because you were wrong. And the more you wail and whine about it, the more spiteful, small-minded, bigoted, and ridiculous you look.

    More to the point: How is this ruling going to negatively effect anyone? Answer: It isn't. And from an economic standpoint; its probably going to be good for both the Budget deficit (all those newly married gay couples will start paying higher income taxes, filing jointly) - as well as for the economy as a whole: All those gay wedding cakes; photo sessions; and tuxedo rentals will add up to a noticeable bump in the matrimonial-industrial complex.
     
  16. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #16
    Ad hominem. What a surprise :p
     
  17. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #17
    If "hetero marriage" is a fundamental right, than the equal protection clause makes same-sex marriage that same fundamental right. It's pretty simple.
     
  18. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #18

    The blog should be taken with a grain of salt.

     
  19. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #19
    Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
     
  20. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #20
  21. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #21

    But more specifically, that blog post.
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    This ruling wont directly negatively effect many people, and possibly won't effect anyone negatively. What it will do is set a precedent that will probably require people who disagree with gay marriage to participate in the weddings such as photographers, and event planners. And then those court decisions will raise plenty of other questions about how far the protections in the 1st amendment go.

    I think the wise thing to do though would be to let it go for now, and when things settle down a bit we can see what needs to be done to protect the 1st amendment. As it is, I fully expect conservatives to keep yelling about it and trying to undo this decision until they create all the problems that they are worried about far sooner than they would come about on their own.
     
  23. sim667 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    #23
    Its a question.... not ad homim, either answer the question or don't. Your choice.
     
  24. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #24

    That doesn't actually have to do with gay marriage but laws based on discrimination that have been in effect for much longer then this issue. So no this wont set some precedent has one has nothing to do with the other.
     
  25. Meister thread starter Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #25
    You question states that I, as a person, disagree with gay marriage.
    1. That is an ad hominem (directed at me as a person)
    2. I never stated that I disagree with gay marriage
     

Share This Page