The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) rules on June 26, 2015 in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage in protected by the constitution.
Huzzah!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us...iage.html?_r=0
Printable View
The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) rules on June 26, 2015 in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage in protected by the constitution.
Huzzah!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us...iage.html?_r=0
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...8e5_story.html
Sick burn, Scalia!Quote:
Scalia declared that Kennedy’s writing style was “as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”
The ruling says that same-sex marriage is protected. I don't know what point you're trying to make as a differentiation between the actual document of the Constitution and the body of people whose job is to interpret said document.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The dissenting opinions agree with you, but they are the dissenters, not the majority.Quote:
And Roberts, in a biting dissent far more harsh than his usual style, said the decision was “an act of will, not legal judgment” with “no basis in the Constitution or this court’s precedent.”
I really don't understand why any form of marriage needs to involve the state, but hooray I guess. 5/4 is kind of a beat though.
As I understand it, the intent is to equalize the various religion's rites of marriage under one legal framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Let me clarify what I meant by my sarcasm (I didn't even read the article, but knew the judgement): It's not covered and should be determined on a state-by-state basis. However, the concept of states rights has been shit on so much that a lot of people sincerely think that the federal government is supposed to have authority over state government outside of things explicitly granted by the constitution. These are the same people who incorrectly think that states do not have a legal processes they can follow to secede (ie: they know just enough to make themselves sound stupid).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It just seems like all forms of partnership should be able to be handled through contracts, the contents of which should be whatever the agreeing parties want them to be. Let the legal system enforce all contracts between people and be done with it. If a married gay couple grants power of attorney to each other in the event of health catastrophe or whatever, it's covered. If a man and a woman want to have a contract that says the woman gets half of the man's shit when they split, write that shit up and move on.
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
So many contracted relationships are handled this way. Landlord/tenant, employer/employee, etc.
It doesn't seem like it would strain the system to remove the blanket terminology and legal framework from a definition of marriage.
Many couples write their own vows, or at least choose which vows to declare. Holding couples legally responsible to uphold their marriage vows to each other makes some sense. I doubt the ramifications could be worse than divorce court.
The other thing is that boilerplate contracts would evolve over time. There would still be a "default" definition of marriage, it just wouldn't be subject to state decree and every letter of it could be edited if the marrying couple wants.
The Federalism debate goes back to 1795 if not earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I think the situation is strengthened by the adamant struggle on both sides.
To the extent that we are a single nation on the world stage, a certain amount of unity among the individual states goes w/o saying.
However, we recognize the inability of a large national government to address the various resource pressures and individual needs that face each of our vast regional areas. So the national authority should be limited only to things which have the scope of affecting large-scale interstate activities and international activities... or some limitations, if those are poorly worded.
Arguing the boundary between state's jurisdiction and national jurisdiction is a good thing. There should be a balance, and the changing societies will have changing resources and needs. This changing pressure drives a need to redefine jurisdictions as resources run out or are discovered or created.
I'm such a tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
What if we had a basic of rights afforded like renter's rights or employee's rights for marriage?
What if we wanted to allow the states to do this, but there was still a perceived need for some federal regulation like a minimum wage or standards of housing?
What if the national government stepped in, then? What if they set up a basic, limited set of rights that will be afforded to marriage contracts on a national level?
I'm such a tool, because that's what I feel has happened, and I am 100% in favor of equal rights under the law for all people. If the states fail to offer equal rights, then I believe it is the national government's prerogative to step in.
For me, this is a civil rights victory. It's no comparison to race relations in the US in terms of scale, but for me, the similarities abound.
Well the issue has everything to do with the fact that a lot of partnership rights are needlessly exclusive to state-recognized forms of marriage. The state gives perks to married people only. The perks shouldn't be the state's to give. I'm happy about the decision, but it highlights something I'm deeply against: the state treating married people differently than everyone else. Now all of the single people just need to march on D.C. for a generation or two.
America: getting to the right place in the wrong way since 1776.
Yeah but if two gay men get a divorce, how do they both get fucked?
Taxes.
States have an interest in existing. Some states need to be strong to continue to exist. Part of strength is a strong, functioning society that creates a surplus of work. Inspired by religions - strong, functioning societies required certain rules and incentives to manage them effectively. One of these rules was for monogamous marriage, an institution which exclusively paired off men with women to maximize the productivity of a nation. Instead of one amazingly well groomed gorilla, flanked by a harem of gorillaesses, encircled by lazy male hangers-on, society burdened every gorilla with a demanding partner, home, and family to work for. As technology has grown, the need for this old institution has been eroded and so now we get women CEOs and gays getting married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Yeah I don't totally doubt that many of these institution may have been useful for transitioning society from barbaric times into modernity.
Whatever modernity is, we're still the same people as we were 5000 years back. (Except for like, milk drinking and bug-resistance)
lol 5,000. Try 40,000 at a bare minimum. I mean BARE minimum. Not many anthropologists would argue that homo sapiens aren't at least that old. Many anthropologists believe "modern" humans (homo sapiens) existed as much as 150,000 years ago. Some believe the species dates back even further.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Meaning that you can go back at least 40,000 years, kidnap a newborn baby, bring them back to the current time and raise them as your own. No one would be able to tell the difference by any mental or medical examination.
Assuming you are a time-traveling barbarian who kidnaps babies from unwitting families.
EDIT: correction at underline.
I find it amusing that the dissenters are so miffed about the Court deciding this, as if it were the first time the SC used the 14th amendment to invalidate State law.
Ding ding ding.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Does anyone here see any merit to the "marriage is for procreation" argument? Scotusblog is featuring mostly anti-gaymarriage blogs, and I can't stand it.
Before this opinion, the idea that marriage is for kids didn't even cross my mind. When my friends and family members would marry, I never heard a single complaint regarding a lack of babies (except from needy wannabe grandmas). No State has ever required a fertility test before couples could marry, and they also permit marriages between people who can't (or shouldnt) have kids (old people, the sterile, and teenagers in love). And if pop culture tells us anything, it's that we SHOULD marry for love.
It seems so obvious to me, that I can only think that these naysayers are just assholes who can't separate their own beliefs from what is actually, logically right.
You got it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I mean: ding ding ding
If it were about procreation, then laws should reflect as much. No marriages for post-menopausal women, or men with low sperm count. Hell, if you're married and you haven't created a child in the first X years, then you face criminal charges for fraud. Has ovarian or testicular cancer caused a change in your fertility status? Marriage void.
If any of the religious trolls had a point, then they'd be far more furious about divorce rates than gay marriage. The bible makes maybe 2 or 3 obscure references to same-sex relations. (2 of them are in Leviticus of all places. Have you read that book? It has more crushing things to say about wearing garments of more than one fiber than it has to say about "spilling seeds.") That same bible has hundreds of lines directly condemning divorce.
If we're going to have a monopoly on violence, I think it is imperative that this monopoly intervenes whenever and wherever only if it does so to create more freedom.
It's funny, I typed up a whole post explaining why I disagree with this ruling because it's federal (even though I support it on an individual level), and instead I support states rights to compete and for people to vote with their dollars and their feet. I typed up the economic principle in play about how when you make it illegal for bigots to be bigots, you discard the problems their bigotry creates for them and you discard the power others have to punish the bigots and reward the non-bigots.
But then I was talking to a good friend who doesn't follow current events and even though he agreed with the principles, he still doesn't see how the ruling isn't a good thing because it's bullshit that gay people can't do what straight people can. So I thought more about it and realized that I was forgetting that the goal of the economic principles I believe in is simply just to create more freedom. States rights is a vehicle to create freedom, so it isn't bad if the federal government supersedes to create more freedom even if some states do not want it.
Competition is good because it creates more freedom. But if something else creates even more freedom, that thing is better. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
That said, I don't think it should be illegal for businesses or individuals to not cater to gay marriage. They need to have the freedom to make bad decisions just as much as anybody. Freedom isn't when others are required to do things you want them to do. Freedom is when people have choice.
"Honestly, the government never should have gotten involved in the marriage business" my father-inlaw.
I'm glad this happened but the real victory will be in ten years when we all look back on this day and shake our heads it took this long to get here.
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
p solid writesmanship
edit
The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
Seriously, these robes seem pretty sharp.
Jkids, any good book recommendations going through the great cases and opinions of SCOTUS?
I love how they're all about "the forefathers wanted us to change shit around as needed" but are still stuck in giving the institution of marriage the respect it had 100 years ago instead of treating it like the joke it is today. It's like they only want to be stuck in the past when it's convenient for them to look good PC-wise.
my men's rights activist friend's reply when I linked him to the ruling: "I wonder if a lesbian couple get a divorce, will they both get alimony from the state?"
Ring Ring Bing!Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I think I pissed off one of my girlfriend's friends over this gay marriage thing.
I told her gays could have gotten married anywhere in the United States before that ruling, and she argued that they couldn't.
We bet $10 on it, and then I told her that a gay man could marry a gay woman anywhere, so gays could get married.
I figure the $10 she refuses to pay me is a cheap price to find out what kind of person she was.
Consider it the cost of playing tricks.
This is such a sick angle. You don't know how happy this makes me. I'm totally going to troll people with this all week.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I wonder what the next great civil rights angle is. Transracial? lol
I'm a supporter of legalized polygamy.
It's almost like people love being douchebags.
Rachel Dolezal is the highest profile transracial case of late.
I was once tricked in a play on words bet. 14 years old and lost $40. The guy who tricked me said he was surprised I paid. I wish I was quick enough to say I'm surprised he doesn't know the difference between a douchebag and a non-douchebag.
Granted, I probably learned a valuable lesson there.
Got a snide chuckleQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Got a heartwarming smileQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That is a pretty slick play, spoon.
You're the second person to ask this, and I worry that people will toss gay rights aside as soon as something else comes up. This victory was huge, but we still aren't equals.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
What do you think would make gays equals?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
This ruling makes me want to give Antonin Scalia a rimjob.
http://i.minus.com/iqilkfeDdRcDs.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by kingnat
Most of it gets solved if we become a protected and suspect class. That would stop discrimination in housing, employment, adoption, giving blood, and a horde of other areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Although, there is an issue with protected classes as a whole. I find laws which prevent people from doing what they want, or which police their thoughts, concerning. However, regardless of whether that should change, the State itself should be controlled in this manner. At the very least, the State should not be permitted to make laws which harm a specific group of people without cause.
---
I personally dont much care for becoming a protected class. Just a suspect class is enough. If an employer doesnt want me, I wouldnt want to work for them either. I dont see value in forcing them to keep me, or forcing them to create a fake reason for firing me. But there is immense value in stopping the State from limiting freedom for fun.
Sorry, nope. I could point you to some specific ones to look at if you wanted though. I personally liked reading those that selectively incorporated the bill of rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
What is protected and suspect class? Are there laws that protect certain groups that do not protect gays? Like, is there is a law that says "Yo, son, holmes can't discriminate against black peeps in da job space, sucka! But y'alls can do whatevs to da homosecktials, playa!"
Actually, yes.
A suspect class is one which the SC thinks there is a high likelihood that the 14th amendment is gonna be violated. Ie, that the State itself is depriving people of equal protection. Suspect classes are Like race, aliens, and national orign. Then there are quasi suspect classes like gender. But everything else is non suspect (age, disability, sexual orientation). For suspect classes, the state needs a damp good reason to discriminate. For quasi, they need a pretty good reason. But for nonsuspect? They just need a reason.
Protected classes are different. They get protection under the civil rights act, which means people get into shit if they discriminate in places like employment. Disability and race are both protected classes, so you can't be fired on account of either one anywhere in the nation.
Being gay is neither a protected, nor a suspect, class. So states and businesses alike can fuck around as they please. (Except in certain areas, like marriage, religion, education, and other fundamental rights)
holy fuck not only did i know that, but i recall arguing exactly that before on this forum. i went into the specifics for each suspect classes. i even went into my fucking textbook to make sure i got it right.
apparently i completely forgot about it. probably because i havent thought about it since.
so i guess my question is: why do you think the non-suspect groups should be suspect?
More on fundamental rights.
The state cannot deprive someone of a high school public education except in very specific circumstances. This is because there is a fundamental rigbt to education. Thus, they can't deprive a gay guy of a public education. But that has nothing to do with being gay, and everything to do with the fundamental right to a public education.
Because, and I think you'd appreciate this, I don't think the State should be able to limit the rights of any group of persons without really good causeQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.somegif.com/gifs/1363863597925139587.GIFQuote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Man, I think this suggests the heart of why the state is a problem. You're right that I don't think the state should limit any groups. But I also don't think the state should benefit any groups. But I think that if the state exists, it has to treat all groups equally. Therefore it has some weird job of benefiting and detracting groups by some arbitrary measure. And that's not a desired circumstance.
To me, it's a slippery slope, because I can't figure out a way it's okay to say it's wrong to discriminate based on color but right to discriminate on age. But if we can't discriminate on age, aren't we opening the doors to a whole mess of problems?
I'm not declaring that I have a position on this so much as I just don't get what the right position would be.
I agree that no limits OR benefits should be given. And that is how it is for suspect classes. (You won't see a law giving Asians a pass on traffic laws, for example. The reason being is that the law really says that caucasians, blacks, etc are limited.)
But, I'm OK with limits based on age, and those effecting businesses, and even those effecting wealth. Ultimately, I like it because it's about choice while maintaining equality. ALL people are effected by the same business laws, and the same age laws. You could decide to go into business, and know that you have no legal advantage or disadvantage (though you may have an economic one). Age operates the same. While you can't "choose to be 17", you still know that everyone suffered, or will suffer, the same restrictions you did.
That equality doesn't exist for race. For that, you would forever be limited by a law while others aren't so limited. In essence, you are less than they are because you have fewer rights...simply for being the wrong race. And...there is nothing you can do about it.
Being gay is the same. So is being a female, or being disabled. (Though I'm ok with giving benefits to the disabled and poor...because I know I'll be treated the same if I fell into that class. I also could enter it voluntarily if I wanted too. Limiting their rights is different though, because it's not as easy to escape that class)
I strongly believe the state should exist. (I'm gonna oath to upholding the constitution soon, afterall). But if I were a justice, I'd be causing all sorts of havoc over these silly laws made by people who are too selfish to be part of politics.
Updated for 2015.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
You men's rights wingnuts.
Saddle up and bear witnessQuote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaC-2lj6HNg
Never heard of any of this. What dictates a suspect/protected class? Some back corner of some amendment to the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
So you gonna write this book?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
So men shouldn't have their rights protected? Or is that only if they're gay?Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
What rights of yours do you feel are not protected?
So you didn't watch the video at all then?
Well, it's clear to me that alimony and/or child support are things that should be able to flow in either direction.
I haven't completely drunk the MRA movement's kool aid, but I think they make a lot of really good points.
Not to hijack the thread, but state-endorsed genital mutilation, laws that protect women (and not men) from violence and conscription are three quick and easy examples. These affect gay men just as much as straight men.Quote:
Originally Posted by eugmac
In the United States specifically, men pay a lot more into Social Security than women do, and women get a lot more out of it than men do.
I saw the Rogan episode when it aired... or a while ago, at least.
Wasn't that divorce Canadian? I'm sure there are equivalent examples in America, but not all 50 states have these types of things happen.
Colorado is a "no fault" state, which I barely understand. I know that your credit rating inside Colorado is independent from any transactions which would affect your credit outside the state. However, other states do take info from Colorado. I.e. when I moved to Colorado, my out-of-state credit rating was very high (like 900 or something), but my in-state credit was non-existent. The only way to establish in-state credit was to get some utility bills in my name and start paying them w/o incurring late fees.
Another part of that "no fault" thing was, as I understand, a lack of alimony in any divorces. In effect, the rule was, "You both made the mistake equally. Neither one of you is MORE to blame for the bad situation."
I'm no legal expert, and I only have firsthand experience with the credit thing.
Just to assist with information: Alimony isn't determined by fault in most states. Many states award alimony in no fault divorces. Moreover, some states do not account for fault in divorce, and this means all divorces are treated as no fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Suspect classes are all Judge-Made law. The 14th Amendment says States can't deprive people of equal protection of the law; yet States love doing just that. They do it so often with race, nationality, and illegals, that the Courts have started treating those groups as "suspect classes", and laws talking about them as being " suspect". Some classes are more suspect than others though, like there is almost never going to be a good reason to treat someone different due to race...but there sometimes is for gender and there's lots of reason for age.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Protected classes come from congress. They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is a beast of legislation. Within it though, are rules that employers have to follow. If youve ever been employed, you very likely had training on this, because employers can get in serious legal shit for violating it. I don't remember what congressional power allowed them to pass this thing, but I'm guessing it was the commerce clause of the Constitution.
So this exists...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PPk2NOQXs
I still maintain deep down shitty people know they are shitty people...but this is the worst. Insert Hitler had opinions too joke here
Both sides have done wrong by vilifying the other side. Difference of opinion happens all the time in professional and academic discourse. The more robust opinions win out because merit is used for argument instead of emotion. It might be satisfying to call somebody who believes gay marriage is wrong a bigot, but that doesn't help convince them of a better way.
The merits of anything have been out the window for quite a while. If enough of the right people (primarily upper-middle class white women) bitch that they want something, they'll get it regardless of the pros and cons.
What do you think of these people? What makes a person shitty? What do you think they experience in knowing their core is rotten yet they can still carry genuine faces?Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
PS, to that one guy that says "I don't fear them," don't play on their field bro.