US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


people who argue over the use of a word on a piece of paper are doing their movement a disservice.

You know what it really is about? Money.

If the people who represented the gay community and the people who represented the religious community came to an agreement about this then there would be no more money lining their pockets.

That's the real issue.

As far as the wording of the document you receive, it really does not matter, period. The whole point of marriage equality is the right to receive the BENEFITS provided from entering a marriage contract with the state/fed government.

It makes absolutely NO difference, legally, what it's called, which is EXACTLY what people are fighting for. If they are going to spit in the face of a solution, over semantics like wording, then I'm sorry but the gay community doesn't deserve those rights then.

Legal rights are legal rights, regardless of what the document you receive is titled.

Anytying else is just pandering to the lowest common denominator in an effor to prolong and already non issue into something of national importance, which it is not.

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I was wondering if you'd be back

little bit of déjà vu here tothetenthpower - you and I have been at this exact same place before I think

I owe you a real reply - but for now - good post

I don't agree of course - but, still...

:-)

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

Now it is the gay community challenging the law.

As they should. As is their right to seek redress to an issue. Regardless of where people come down on this issue, this is exactly the way it's supposed to work.

The SCOTUS can not, in good conscience, allow DOMA to stand, or any similar legislation. It would be tantamount to OK'ing discrimination of any minority group.

reply to post by seagull


In regards to DOMA, which really isn't defense of the act of marriage or even saying that only a man and wife can be bound legally, but rather the defense of the word "marriage" and "spouse" as it pertains to the Federal government and its use in legislation. That particular portion of U.S.C. is found here:

1 USC § 7 - Definition of “marriage” and “spouse”

In full it reads:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

The argument here (and until we see merits and amicus briefs, it is speculation) should be more on the "spouse" portion of that particular piece of law. It is there that I feel is best argument to be made. Do remember that "DOMA" pertains to the legal definition of how the Federal government utilizes the word when placed in "any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States".

That case is Windsor v. United States, which held that section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional (it is noted that in the Act, it is Section 3 and as coded it is 1 U.S.C. Section 7 as linked above). Their argument was specific on the definition of "marriage" and the equal protection clause of the 5th Amendment. Specifically, if they are legally married in a State that has same-sex marriages, they should be afforded 5th Amendment protection in other states.

Ultimately, the government's argument in defense of the section is that it only applies to federal statutes and programs. In that case, if States enact legislation that brings same-sex marriage into its fold or even if they don't, but still recognize a legal contract (same-sex marriage) of a union, that couple, no matter what state they are in, are excluded from federal programs that pertain to marriage status of "married".

Several things to note:
-- This case isn't about same-sex marriage. This is about equal protection under the law and access to Federal benefits and programs for same-sex couples that are legally married in states that have such provisions.

[Removed] found information otherwise.

It will be interesting, but this particular case, has little to do with settling if States have the ability to not recognize same-sex marriages. That case is the other in this, Hollingsworth v. Perry. I will give my summary on that one later.

Post Script:
From the petition for writ of certiorari, the court recognizes the following in terms of DOMA:

(Caps carry over from the petition; sorry I am not trying to make emphasis here)

DOMA DOES NOT, STRICTLY SPEAKING, “PRESERVE” THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS ONE
BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. tHE STATUTE CREATES A FEDERAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. bUT THAT DEFINITION DOES NOT GIVE CONTENT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO MARRY

Post Post Script:
My prediction regarding this particular case. The Court will not rule on anything to do with the "fundamental right to marry", that isn't the scope of this case. Instead, they will rule that the language of DOMA be removed and Windsor will receiver her justice in regards to her late partner. The only reason I cannot see this happening is if the Supreme Court finds some failed logic in the District Court of Appeals ruling.

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
All of your arguments and misguided attempts at liberty are meaningless outside of the goal of the amalgamated consciousness. The conservative ideology will fade away with this issue by the year 2016.

Marriage will be known as a union between two consenting adults of requisite mental capacity.

Don't feel bad, or cheated. This is the way causality has flowed. You can not stand against the rapids, least you be washed away and forgotten. Join the flow, willingly or by force. It's your choice. There is no umbrella for this torrential flow. No rafts, no lifevests.

I'm content to watch your efforts to fight against, but then again...I'll be there to give you a friendly pat on the back when you realize that my words were true. I'll console you, and be sure to tell you that everything will be ok. Remember, two adults consenting in this union. It's the way things will be. Just wait, and watch.

If you're talking to me, you're talking out of your tail-end. I fully support the right of two people contacting with each other for anything that isn't illegal, and for the courts to protect the contract.

I'm not a conservative, and liberty has been thwarted by attempts to curtail the union of people for the purpose of living as a family, is any liberty-minded person.

/TOA

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by Helious

 

Yup I'm for two kinds of marriage.

Officially churched recognized marriage.

Civil Partnerships for the government program that provides the extra rights.

~Tenth

We already have this. Churches pretty much are already free to decide who in their view is "legitimately" married by their own doctrines for their own purposes. They are free to choose who they will and won't marry as well. Legalizing same sex marriage does not change any of this, the only argument to be made is what interest does the state have in denying those rights and protections to same sex couples. I can't find one legitimate reason why or how a Country ran by secular laws should have any interest in the matter.

reply to post by tothetenthpower

people who argue over the use of a word on a piece of paper are doing their movement a disservice.

You know what it really is about? Money.

Just as slavery was about money. And - not about money

Do you think it's over-dramatic to compare this to that, now to then?

I really don't. You and I live in societies that have been changing the way things have always been and creating new levels of acceptance - and if not acceptance at the very least tolerance. All of it comes down to words on paper in the end

Believe me, in my country at least - there will be quite bit of paper involved in deciding this no matter which way it goes - this is how it works

You are pragmatic - and apparently willing to settle. I hear you saying that as long as it's more or less - or even exactly the same in most respects - why push for that last niggling little thing? Why make people uncomfortable? Why change the comfort zone of some people to please the rest?

What's in a word?

Equality

Justice Scalia thinks morality is all the same flavor - and that a people who find murder or bestiality abhorrent should be able to say that homosexuality is also repugnant - morally reprehensible

I seriously hope he's just playing some kind of intellectual mind game and is just toying with us - because what's right is right - and right isn't camouflaged in consensus any more - we are changing

I'm reminded that very smart people are not always wise

We see things differently now - some of us - more of us is the key

Denying any one group of people even the ability to use the same words as another group of people is not equal - it makes a distinction and draws a line

Would a rose by any other name still smell as sweet? :-)

As far as this goes I'm going to say no

I'm also going to say: to thine own self be true

No one wins if we settle - pragmatism is not always enough

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Ah yes the different but equal is not equal argument. I use to follow that ideology regarding the whole marriage thing, until I realized that the only problem argument I had for it, was emotional in nature.

It wasn't based in any kind of real logic. It didn't take into account the other side's feelings on the issue. Now mind you, I'm not one to respect the wishes of bigots and charlatans, which is why I mostly disagree with any church doctrine or religious group hell bent on making the lives of others as similar to theirs as possible.

I have no problem with people deciding that being gay is immoral and a danger to the moral fabric of society. It's no more so than the perpetual wars we wage on the children of other nations, or the economic slavery we agree to sign up for in order to have som semblance of monetary security from the ones who claim to work for us.

The fact is that we live in world of gray, not black and white and these sorts of forward thinking processes ( gay marriage for example) must be approached with that in mind. No one side is going to get what they want and whenever they do it's usually for the mutual benefit of very few people as opposed to those the decision actually effects.

In this case, what do you suppose is better?

That we continue the debate at this roadblock, meaning that the religious groups and whoever else opposed gets exactly what they want, meanwhile the gay community is left holding a bag of non existant rights they should be afforded.

OR

Do we move forward, agree to a compromise for the time being and continue the good fight from a position of powere as opposed to a position of weakness. I would think that transitioning from a two paper solution ( marriage vs civil union) to a one process solution would far easier if there were already hundreds of thousands of them completed.

Today's idea of acceptance doesn't begin with tolerance, it begins with showing folks that those they oppose are here to stay and eventually the idea that this is the norm simply trickles down and acceptance is born.

But if you never move forward and just remain at a stalemate, then in the end, nobody wins.

One of my favorite quotes:

-An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.-

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower

The fact is that we live in world of gray, not black and white and these sorts of forward thinking processes ( gay marriage for example) must be approached with that in mind. No one side is going to get what they want and whenever they do it's usually for the mutual benefit of very few people as opposed to those the decision actually effects.

For the first time I begin to understand where you're coming from

You're more cautious and patient than I am. I don't get why we aren't better than we are. So many people have been putting up with a whole lot of crap for so long. Times have changed so much and it was only because people forced the issue. More and more people have been moving out of the black and white into that grey area because it was all put in front of them and they were forced to think about it

Having said that - I agree with this. Mostly. Because if things don't go the right way right now we're looking at a good long time before we get another crack at it

Today's idea of acceptance doesn't begin with tolerance, it begins with showing folks that those they oppose are here to stay and eventually the idea that this is the norm simply trickles down and acceptance is born.

And here you had me convinced you actually thought the whole thing was just about money :-)

But if you never move forward and just remain at a stalemate, then in the end, nobody wins.

I'm guessing you've been around long enough to see how much things have changed - as have I. So, if not now - when? We are moving forward. You think it's too fast - strategically speaking. I hope you're wrong - but we'll find out soon enough

I've been reading a lot on this subject the past few days - then reading some more. When SCOTUS let out they were going to consider these two cases the first reactions were pure joy and premature claims of some kind of victory. Then - fear set in. You could hear all the doubts start creeping in from every direction...

Let's hope it's not too soon and reason will win out

We live in a republic because the founding fathers didn't believe in a larger majority browbeating a minority. And that is exactly what happened in California.

So the fact that it is being reviewed and questioned is what the designers had in mind.

The government is involved because if the marriage ends, the government is involved. Very few people are amicable enough to settle money, houses, cars, and custody of children without a court.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

And here you had me convinced you actually thought the whole thing was just about money :-)

Only for those who at the top of the pile either on the Gay side, or the religious/conservative side. They are making money hand over fist.

For those of us who actually care about the issue, well you can see where we both stand.

I'm guessing you've been around long enough to see how much things have changed - as have I. So, if not now - when? We are moving forward. You think it's too fast - strategically speaking. I hope you're wrong - but we'll find out soon enough

I sure have, I was gay in the days where you were most likely going to get beat to an inch of your life and dumped in a back alley, only to file a police report and it be ignored. ( trust me that's a personal story)

I've been reading a lot on this subject the past few days - then reading some more. When SCOTUS let out they were going to consider these two cases the first reactions were pure joy and premature claims of some kind of victory. Then - fear set in. You could hear all the doubts start creeping in from every direction...

It was a victory that SCOTUS decided to hear the case, this means that there is a proper legal challenge to be made.

The question is who and how good are the lawyers that will be arguing it.

See, you were wrong, look how worthy you were

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Thankfully that was then and this is now. It's not perfect - but better is still better

Here's to even better times in the future - for everyone

and - thanks 10th - much

see you around

:-)