Obama 7 - now what?

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

The right to marry has always been a common law right, dating back to the law we brought over from England. The legal issue presently is "does the right to marry include the right to marry a person of the same gender?" - because the common law did not address that issue.

And frankly, the GOP would be better off focusing their efforts elsewhere, because they are going to lose on this one in the end (though, if their sole objective is to delay to force the Dems to waste money on it in the meantime, I guess that's a somewhat logical strategy).

One of three things will happen: 1)SCOTUS upholds an equal protection arguement, immediately making the recognition of gay marriage mandatory in all in states via the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment; 2) SCOTUS punts on the equal protection argument, but validates a full faith and credit clause argument. Thus, gay people just travel to a state that allows it, get married, and then return home where they will receive the benefits of their marriage; or 3) the old people die off, and as the electorate naturally changes, gay marriage gets approved in more and more states .

My guess is 1 or 2 happens before 3. And indeed, the GOP probably prefers as much, because it'll give them a rallying issue for the next few cycles (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade)

I imagine it will follow the interracial marriage pattern. Three will be the norm in a certain number of states, but with a significant group of holdouts. Once we reach a critical mass of states that have legalized gay marriage, SCOTUS will step in and issue the gay marriage version of Loving and complete the process.

And if I was a young GOP hopeful, I'd just keep my head down on this gay marriage issue for 2020/24. No need to put out any statements/policy papers that could crater your chance at office in the years to come.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Very good summary. I too wonder what would happen if this went before the Supreme Court. If interracial marriage can't be legally banned, how could gay marriage in the eyes of the law?

Because the 14th amendment says that people in similar circumstances must be treated the same way. In this case, a gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex therefore they are treated the same.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Because the 14th amendment says that people in similar circumstances must be treated the same way. In this case, a gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex therefore they are treated the same.

Quoted for posterity.

Oh, and dtp, no hate here I just find the post beyond comedy.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Very good summary. I too wonder what would happen if this went before the Supreme Court. If interracial marriage can't be legally banned, how could gay marriage in the eyes of the law?

I believe if you put the Court's decision in Loving together with its more recent decision in Lawrence, you'd have a pretty good argument that the fundamental right to marry should extend to two consenting adults of whatever orientation (although O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence really really tried to emphasize the decision had nothing to do with recognizing a right to gay marriage).

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Quoted for posterity.

Oh, and dtp, no hate here I just find the post beyond comedy.

If what I said isn't true, then how do you say no to poligimists, incest, etc?

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Because the 14th amendment says that people in similar circumstances must be treated the same way. In this case, a gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex therefore they are treated the same.

I think using the example of interracial marriage to make a case for gay marriage is a straw man.

The long and short is that throughout time, "marriage", "union", etc. has been defined as a man and woman who have the potential to produce offspring and propogate. Male/male, female/female just don't cut it until thousands of years of relative "defining" is undone. IOW, things don't just change overnight because Webster's changes the definition.

 

[rufus]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

The bigot vote is winning in Maine.

But marijuana is passing in a landslide.

Well, baby steps.

C'mon, even bigotted backwoods rednecks like to get stoned.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

The righties can just blame science for all of this. All these rich upper middle class families who couldn't have children couldn't leave well enough alone and thus science devised a way for them to have them.

Now, you don't even need the act to have them. At all. So, being gay doesn't prevent you from having kids. The main reason marriage ever existed in the first place.

So, what really is the point of excluding gays from marriage? There isn't one. And the MinnFan argument is the utopia of comedy on the issue.

Gene Simmons has been right all along. He never got married, yet he has a playboy playmate as a partner. Co-Habitation Agreement, that's what they have. Under the law it's stronger than marriage (you can bust a prenup, you can't bust a co-hab), and yet you're not married.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I think using the example of interracial marriage to make a case for gay marriage is a straw man.

The long and short is that throughout time, "marriage", "union", etc. has been defined as a man and woman who have the potential to produce offspring and propogate. Male/male, female/female just don't cut it until thousands of years of relative "defining" is undone. IOW, things don't just change overnight because Webster's changes the definition.

Nothing prevents gays from having children. Blame science. And it's married folks who couldn't have kids for whatever reason that really was the impetus for science solving that problem.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Oh, and dtp, no hate here I just find the post beyond comedy.

Didn't say you have any "hate"....and all I did was point out Bassale's hateful post.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

If what I said isn't true, then how do you say no to poligimists, incest, etc?

There are a number of public policy reasons why those would still be outlawed. Incest for one presents all sorts of messy issues of consent if its between any members in different generations or even immediate family members of the same age cohort. You can come up with crazy hypos (and there is at least one instance I know of where this happened), where half siblings separated at birth/childhood meet again as adults and fall in love. But this is so rare and such a miniscule number of cases, a bright line prohibition doesn't effect society in the same way barring 5-10% of the population from marrying the partner of their choice does.

Polygamy would just be horrendous to administer when one looks at basic family law. I wouldn't criminalize it (providing we don't have the pseudo mormon cult dynamics at work), but attempting to track, monitor, and apportion benefits/costs on divorce would be next to impossivle

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Quoted for posterity.

MinnFan's basically correct so far as that is basically what SCOTUS will have to say if it denies the equal protection argument; they'll say the common law right to marry does not include the right to marry a person of the same gender.

That said, I really don't see SCOTUS saying that.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Nothing prevents gays from having children. Blame science. And it's married folks who couldn't have kids for whatever reason that really was the impetus for science solving that problem.

Nice job missing the point....or partially making it for me. "Science", as you point out, in this area is relatively new in the history of the human race.

 

[SPIN CONTROL]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Except that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th, if SCOTUS upholds such an argument in this case.

I agree. I am just pointing out that the federal government has no role whatsoever in passing laws regarding marriage.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

If what I said isn't true, then how do you say no to poligimists, incest, etc?

Incest is easy, there's the health and welfare of the public involved in that one. (Arizona, and I'm sure some other states, allow 1st cousins to marry provided they medically can no longer procreate - usually an age based test).

Polygamy's a bit trickier logically, but there are still ways.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Nice job missing the point....or partially making it for me. "Science", as you point out, in this area is relatively new in the history of the human race.

What does "new" have to do with anything? If the reason for something existing has become obsolete, then it has become obsolete. Sure, people hate change but change happens regardless.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

The right to marry has always been a common law right, dating back to the law we brought over from England. The legal issue presently is "does the right to marry include the right to marry a person of the same gender?" - because the common law did not address that issue.

And frankly, the GOP would be better off focusing their efforts elsewhere, because they are going to lose on this one in the end (though, if their sole objective is to delay to force the Dems to waste money on it in the meantime, I guess that's a somewhat logical strategy).

One of three things will happen: 1)SCOTUS upholds an equal protection arguement, immediately making the recognition of gay marriage mandatory in all in states via the incorporation clause of the 14th amendment; 2) SCOTUS punts on the equal protection argument, but validates a full faith and credit clause argument. Thus, gay people just travel to a state that allows it, get married, and then return home where they will receive the benefits of their marriage; or 3) the old people die off, and as the electorate naturally changes, gay marriage gets approved in more and more states .

My guess is 1 or 2 happens before 3. And indeed, the GOP probably prefers as much, because it'll give them a rallying issue for the next few cycles (see, e.g., Roe v. Wade)

Nicely put.

As I said, opponents are on the wrong side of history.

 

[dropthatpuck]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Polygamy would just be horrendous to administer when one looks at basic family law. I wouldn't criminalize it (providing we don't have the pseudo mormon cult dynamics at work), but attempting to track, monitor, and apportion benefits/costs on divorce would be next to impossivle

Really? How about two gay couples that have a child when both split up - then the kid has 4 parents. I'm close to a couple of these situations. Very messy.

Don't take it personally, but this is *sort of* the hypocrisy I love pointing out. Free will....only my way. You're OK with unconditional "gay marriage" vis-a-vis freedom, yet want to regulate polygamy which as old as the former.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

Really? How about two gay couples that have a child when both split up - then the kid has 4 parents. I'm close to a couple of these situations. Very messy.

Don't take it personally, but this is *sort of* the hypocrisy I love pointing out. Free will....only my way. You're OK with unconditional "gay marriage" vis-a-vis freedom, yet want to regulate polygamy which as old as the former.

Eh, note I don't want to regulate consensual polygamy between adults, they're not breaking my leg or picking my pocket. They should be free to be married in a church/temple/wiccan ceremony and hold themselves out to society as husband-husband-wife.

There are just too many problems trying to track property and benefits given by the government in polygamous marriages that would tie up courts, private sector employers, and administrative agencies. The issue of fraud in polygamy is also more problematic. By only being able to commit to one person for your bundle of rights, you've got a decent hedge against people cyncially trying to acquire the advantages marriage confers.

And I guess I'm not following your gay couple example? Lesbian couple has the child via insemination from the gay couple? The same situation could arise between infertile straight couples.

 

[BassAle]

Re: Obama 7 - now what?

I truly don't care either way - the point is how some of our resident/non-resident lefties act like they're a bunch of peace-loving, accepting, goody-two-shoes until things don't go their way - then they show their true colors and a level of hate that even the so-called "bigots" don't have.

I do hate bigots. Big deal. Would you call me a hypocrite if I said I hated the KKK?