Supreme Court Ruling Supports Same-Sex Marriage 1083
The U.S. Supreme Court issued Friday a landmark decision, ruling that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. The New York Times notes that last year, by refusing to hear appeals to decisions favoring same-sex marriage in five states, the court "delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19." (In the time since, several more states have expanded marriage to include gay couples.) Reuters expains a bit of the legal and political history of the movement which led to today's decision, and points out some of the countries around the world which have made similar moves already.
Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Its nice to see that there is some social progression being made in a country that has had such rocky times lately. Good luck to all the gay couples that can now be 'equals under the law'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Insightful)
If they get that going beyond the talking stage, I demand that they include a clause banning divorce in that proposed amendment. Vows that include the phrase "as long as we both shall live" should mean something, dammit!
Re: (Score:3)
A constitutional amendment just isn't going to happen and they are just blowing air (the same thing they've been doing for the past few years fighting Obamacare when they know nothing they pass stands a chance of making it into law). They simply don't have enough public support; MAYBE they did 20 years ago but the public is now in favor of equal rights for gay people. It would be easier to elect a Republican president who could appoint a more conservative judge when one of the current liberal judges dies/retires and then get the Supreme Court to reverse its narrow 5-4 decision.
I agree that a constitutional amendment is probably not going to happen as I don't think they can get a 2/3 vote but there is still plenty of public support for a ban of gay marriage. Almost every time that there has been a public vote to legalize gay marriage in the general election, it has failed. Even in CA, when it was last voted on in 2008, a majority of people voted FOR banning gay marriage. If less than 7 years ago the majority of people in CA (a state generally considered more liberal) didn't eve
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Informative)
The percentage of Americans supporting same sex marriage has been above 50% for a while now.
Re:Welcome! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still hoping the Republican party will tear itself in two. The kooks will become the "Tea Party GOP" and will slowly spiral into oblivion as we all laugh while munching popcorn. The actual sane Republicans (yes, there are some of those left) will form the "We're Sane Again GOP" and will field actually viable candidates that don't see their primary demographic as ultra-religious, old white guys.
Re: (Score:3)
The Republicans will put it back on the table because they believe their echo-chamber IS the American people. It will take a rout to disabuse them of that notion, and still the Conservative wing will claim they haven't had a fair hearing due to the liberal news media, illegal aliens, etc., any excuse will do so they don't have to rethink their views.
Re: (Score:3)
I have read the book. What are you trying to imply? Because if it's a dig against one group or another, I don't understand it.
Of all the futures in all the dystopian novels I've read, Brave New World would be the one I would want to live in most. Unless you consider the Shrodinger's Cat Trilogy to be dystopian, because then I choose the one where John Wayne is president of Hell (Alabama).
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, no need to imagine spite when the power vacuum is as plain as day.
European colonialism is on the decline across Africa and the middle east. As a result, the spores of the previous colonial powers, dormant for hundreds of years, are waking up and reasserting themselves.
The slave trade, for example, ran for hundreds of years across those parts of the world under Islamic control, until Europe came within a hair's breadth of eradicating the practice from the world. Now it is back.
Re:Welcome! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it is the previous colonial powers if by that you mean Turkey. I think it is more the little jerks calling themselves mullahs and imams that are fearful that the West will finally triumph over Islam via the intertubes which brings in all sorts of radical ideas they cannot stomach.
The interpipes reduce friction. It used to be the mullahs and imams could hide behind Islam and control their societies. Now they can no longer do that and they have unleashed the worst of their kind in Daesh. Daesh has been able to combine Islamic hate for everything not Islamic and Sunni with tribal insecurities of losing the tribes' control of their people.
The muscle behind Daesh is the old Saddam Hussein hacks, at least the Daesh fighters who have run away report this. They run the security apparatus behind Daesh. One doesn't just join Daesh, you have to be vetted by these clowns first.
I don't think Daesh's run is going to be that long. They have the ancient idea that if they scare enough people, they'll be able to impose their will. But with the internet, it is too easy for those who have lost a brother, father, etc. to Daesh to communicate and plot revenge. The same tribal sensitivities they think they are taking advantage of will come back to stab them in the back when they least expect it. If it is one thing the fellows in the mid-east know how to do, it is to carry a grudge for a long, long time.
Poor Scalia (Score:5, Funny)
Second, to Justice Scalia, in Nelson Munt's voice - HAW HAW. Your dissent was entertainingly shrill and dubious.
Re:Poor Scalia (Score:5, Interesting)
Your dissent was entertainingly shrill and dubious.
Seriously! Some of the things he said makes me question whether or not he understands how our government works... and the purpose of the supreme court. A quote from his dissenting opinion:
A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
I'm all fine with someone disagreeing with how the supreme court works and how our government is set up, even politicians, but a supreme court justice? Seriously? It's his JOB to sit on that panel of nine people and decide the things that are not otherwise decidable. If he had such an issue with it, why did he decide to be a part of it? He seems happy enough to decide things when they go in his favor...
I'm sure there are plenty of other highly qualified folks that would sit on that panel and spend more time deciding and less time complaining about the system when the decision doesn't go the way they want.
Re:Poor Scalia (Score:5, Insightful)
A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.
I'm all fine with someone disagreeing with how the supreme court works and how our government is set up, even politicians, but a supreme court justice? Seriously? It's his JOB to sit on that panel of nine people and decide the things that are not otherwise decidable. If he had such an issue with it, why did he decide to be a part of it?
I think you're missing some nuance here. SCOTUS's "job" is NOT to "decide the things that are not otherwise decidable." It's to interpret law.
In some cases, the law is clear. The judge interprets it. In other cases, the law is murky and needs a lot of "prodding" to produce a meaning relevant to a case.
This is such a case. I think there are good reasons to disagree with many of the dissents today, but one thing they are right about is that 150 years worth of very smart legal jurists stared at the Constitution and didn't find a right to gay marriage. The court today did -- and there is good reason to rejoice for equality for many.
Anyhow -- Scalia's contention here is if the law really doesn't have anything specific to say, and other courts and legislatures have all interpreted things differently, is it necessarily the business of the Supreme Court to intervene and override the democratic process?
I absolutely agree that he's pandering here, and that obviously he wouldn't make this claim in other cases where he basically can be accused of what the majority is doing.
But that doesn't mean the idea he asserts has absolutely no merit in any circumstance, i.e., that unless the legislature (elected by the people) has enacted a clear law about something, then 9 guys in robes don't necessarily have the right to "make the people subordinate" to them. That is a good, valid democratic principle.
Depending on your perspective, you may or may not think Scalia's argument is appropriate to the case today. But it's still a valid principle of democracy that unelected folks don't get to unilaterally decide law without precedent.
Re:Poor Scalia (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be too harsh on him. As The Onion says, he realizes that one day he will be portrayed as the villain in an Oscar-winning movie.
http://www.theonion.com/article/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they--32972 [theonion.com]
But, But, ... (Score:5, Funny)
But I'm already married to my job!
Another great Scalia line (Score:4, Insightful)
A system of government that makes the people to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy
Being as he was one of the unelected lawyers who selected our president in 2000, he apparently has no sense of irony.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are completely wrong on the 2000 election. They told the State of Florida that they could not selectively recount the ballots. There was an attempt to recount only in areas that were run by Democrats and therefore through some of the outrageous rules of the recount such as if a ballot counter thought that the Gore chad had been touched by the punching pen when neither chad was punched then the vote was to be counted for Gore. That is Democrat voting; yes, Lyndon Johnson's people fixed the ballot in T
Re: (Score:3)
Prop 8 was of the people, as are all the constitutional amendments passed in many states explicitly defining what marriage is or isn't. Isn't that independence of the people? Who is it that's against independence now?
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with this is that SCOTUS has basically said "this isn't a set of rights which is up to be decided by a vote".
So, like you can't have a state which says "woo hoo, slavery is legal, bitches", you also can't have a state which says "we deny you this right to do the same thing we do even if you feel self entitled and special".
The religious argument is irrelevant here, because marriage has legal rights and protections which have nothing at all to do with any church.
What next, pass a law which says any Christian may rape the wives of non-Christians if they deem it appropriate? Because that's about the same level of lies and bullshit.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowhere does it say "as defined by a bigoted interpretation of a specific god".
It sure as fuck doesn't say "unalienable rights except as overruled by a ratified vote".
There exists in the modern world a legal classification of "married", which conveys upon you certain legal rights and privileges. What SCOTUS has done is say "the 14h ammendment says"
.
There is no religious exemption.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet the "three great religions" practiced by the vast majority of the people who inhabit your biosphere have for their entire collective history said that this same creator says that such a marriage is not a marriage.
Please explain how that constitutes a legal issue.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:4, Informative)
No, we're Americans, but that fact was established by the Treaty of Paris [wikipedia.org] instead.
The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Prop 8 was of the people, as are all the constitutional amendments passed in many states explicitly defining what marriage is or isn't. Isn't that independence of the people? Who is it that's against independence now?
The 14th Amendment reads in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note that the only two descriptors of people are "persons" and "citizens." It doesn't talk about white, black, native, asian, gay, straight, or anything else. The only thing that counts is "citizen." So even if your state passed an amendment to its constitution that said black people couldn't drive on Sunday, it would be unconstitutional. This is the same reason the court invalidated laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages in Loving v. Virginia in 1968, a point which seems to have been lost on Justice Thomas.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's start at the beginning. The declaration of independence says that among our rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The 14th amendment says that a state shall not deprive anyone of "life, liberty or property"....essentially their rights.
And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?
If they come from God, well, the religions practiced by virtually all people worldwide have consistently said throughout their history that such a marriage is not a marriage.
If th
Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
If they [rights] do not come from God, then they are simply a social construct...
This is where you are wrong. There are formulations of rights which are neither mere social constructs nor based on religion—which is, in the end, just another variety of social construct. My preference is the one based on the legal concept of estoppel, which can be summarized as the logical principle that one cannot rely on incompatible claims within the same argument. For example, one cannot consistently argue that one has the right to act in a certain way toward others while simultaneously claiming that those affected lack the right to reciprocate. Either everyone has the right or no one does. If the right exists then the first party infringed on it and deserves the punishment; if not, then neither the original action nor the response infringes on anyone's rights.
In this case there is the additional complication that "the right to marry" is really referring to a number of different aspects of the law, not simply the right to hold a marriage ceremony and consider oneself married but also power of attorney, visitation rights, joint taxation, common ownership of property, etc. However, the gender of the two parties is irrelevant to all of these legal considerations; there is no reason whatsoever that the law should permit e.g. visitation rights to a couple composed of a male and a female, but deny them to a couple composed of two males or two females.
If certain individuals of a religious persuasion wish to consider homosexuality a sin, fine. They don't have to practice it themselves, or even associate with those who do. But there is certainly nothing in the Bible which would require anyone to deny that the relationship exists, or to refuse such couples equal rights under the law. This ruling is about the law, not religion.
Re:The Majority Still Has Follow the Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
And again, I reiterate what I said earlier. Where do rights come from?
You're missing the whole point of what the founding fathers and the US constitution was attempting to create.
These inalienable rights "come from" nowhere. They exist innately and the constitution was written largely to express this, and to prevent laws from being created which would stifle or try to remove them. The social construct aspect applies insofar as to how to balance things when the desires or actions of one person impact the rights of another person. They certainly don't come from a god.
Even the creation of the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was criticized by several high-profile people of the time because they were concerned that it would be interpreted as a "list of rights", and if a specific right wasn't in that list, then the People didn't have that right. A concession was the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
One of the dissenters of the Bill of Rights was Hamilton, who said, among other things:
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. [...] Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.
One of the biggest differences between the newly created United States versus other old-world countries was this very thing. The recognition that all people have innate and inalienable rights, not bestowed by society or god or privilege or bloodline, but simply because they are a living, thinking human being.
High ideals, perhaps, and we slipped badly sometimes (slavery probably being the biggest), but every time I see people say things "gay marriage isn't listed in the Constitution" I cringe because they have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the country they live in.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:4, Insightful)
In both cases he ruled that the laws made by legislatures should be respected; specifically the US is a federation of states and the states have wide autonomy to govern themselves.
And please, get over the fact that Gore lost. He was out in California and New York giving speeches in front of friendly crowds that ran up his popular vote while Bush was in the swing states trying to win the electoral count If presidents were elected by popular vote the campaign would have tried to maximize the popular vote, but presidents are elected by those autonomous states, not popular vote..
.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, every single effort to recount the votes in Florida showed that Bush had an even larger margin of victory than at the time of the first count.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. [factcheck.org] Next time, do some research rather than just being a parrot.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:4, Insightful)
From your own link:
None of these findings are certain.
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:4, Informative)
Whether grimmjeeper understands the difference is irrelevant. He doesn't care. He's being disingenuous. He pulled the phrase "None of these findings are certain" out of context, so as to imply the study should not be trusted.
If one examines the context (per my other post in this thread) one will see that the researchers came to two probable, but not certain conclusions: that Bush would have prevailed in a limited recount, and that Gore would have prevailed in a state-wide one.
While I'd like to agree with you... (Score:4, Interesting)
While it had its place in the 18th and 19th century, the Electoral college has long outlived its usefulness. The entire concept of winner-take-all in most states means that only a few key states actually decide our election every time it comes around....until the rules change, that's how the system works whether you like it or not.
I'd like to agree with you, but it depends on the proposed method of election. Given the population distribution and unique division of powers between state and national governments within our nation, I'm not a fan of a direct popular vote for the presidency. I just don't believe it best encapsulates the spirit of our nation. While I would generally support a change over to the Congressional District Method [wikipedia.org], I am greatly concerned about gerrymandering and its affect on such a proposed alternative solution.
In fact, check out the statistics at the Daily Kos [dailykos.com], then do the math. If every state followed the Congressional District Method, Romney would have won the 2012 election...by one electoral vote! Interestingly, Obama would have still won the 2008 election. I wonder what happened between 2008 and 2012 [nytimes.com] that would have made such a difference...
Re:Another great Scalia line (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, every single effort to recount the votes in Florida showed that Bush had an even larger margin of victory than at the time of the first count. This conclusively proved that he should have gotten Florida's electoral votes and therefore win the election.
That's absolutely FALSE. [wikipedia.org]
Read through that link for a number of different methods. The problem with the recount is that you need to decide what your standards were -- which was part of the problem in 2000. Where do you count? All counties in Florida, or just the ones that were actually disputed in 2000? Do you count undervotes, overvotes, or neither? How do you handle the "hanging chad" issues?
All of these standards produce different results -- in some cases Bush wins, in others Gore wins. The only reasonable conclusion is that the vote count of the 2000 Florida Presidential election fell below the margin of error and is thus INDETERMINATE. There are no clear legal guidelines that allow you to choose which result is "more correct." It's true that Bush would have prevailed according to the actual recounts Gore had requested, using Gore's standards. So, from a practical standpoint, had the existing recounts continued, Gore would still likely have lost. Some would argue that complete state recounts appear to show (according to some standards) that Gore would have won, but since such recounts were never actually suggested as feasible in 2000, those results are pretty meaningless.
The Supreme Court didn't take anything from Gore and give it to Bush.
Contrary to popular belief, SCOTUS didn't even "decide the election."
More accurately, what 7 of the 9 justices on the Court said (contrary to belief, part of the ruling was 7-2) was -- the current recounts were unconstitutional. 2 of those 7 thought the appropriate recourse would be to send that ruling back to the Florida Supreme Court to let Florida figure out what to do. 5 of the 7 agreed that the Florida Supreme Court (led by liberal justices, by the way) had actually already said what should be done, because it set a final date for completing recounts that had already passed. So, following the Florida Court's own ruling, the counts must stop.
Nevertheless -- and this is the important part -- the Supreme Court did NOT "end the election," nor did it say "the buck stops here." It REMANDED the case BACK to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Court could have said, "Uh, no, you didn't understand what we said -- we didn't mean that date." Gore's lawyers could have made that argument before the Florida court -- but they chose not to.
Instead, the Florida Supreme Court (again, composed mostly of liberals, not that it should matter, except everyone keeps quoting a 5-4 Supreme Court split along supposed ideological lines, when most of this stuff went on in Florida with a liberal court) chose to take no further action and dismissed the case a few days later. Only one justice dissented from that dismissal because he disagreed with SCOTUS. The rest implicitly agreed with SCOTUS's logic, since they didn't argue that further action was necessary [wikipedia.org]:
The per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore did not technically dismiss the case, and instead "remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Gore's attorneys therefore understood that they could fight on, and could petition the Florida Supreme Court to repudiate the notion that December 12 was final under Florida law. However, Gore dropped the case, because he was not optimistic about how the Florida justices would react to further arguments and, as one of his advisers put it, "the best Gore could hope for was a slate of disputed electors". On remand, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion on December 22, 2000 that did not dispute whether December 12 was the deadline for recounts under state law, although this was disputed in a concurring opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw.
Re: (Score:3)
According to every count that followed the rules of voting that were in place in Forida at the time.
I don't disagree that the ballots they used were terrible and the rules were bad. But you can't change the rules after the fact. Both sides agreed to use the ballots as they were designed before the election took place, knowing there were problems with the design. And they were counted according to the rules. There is nothing you can do to change the outcome that doesn't involve breaking the rules that we
Next! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is great, however, (Score:4, Interesting)
I am worried about what this will do to domestic partnerships. There are a lot of people under the insurance and other things of their domestic partners. Does this mean forced marriage?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Very Disturbing Trend (Score:5, Interesting)
The 14th amendment does talk about equality for all but it doesn't express a fundamental right to marry, even for heterosexuals. In other words, since the states have been handing out marriage certificates, it has never had a legal right to do nor a fundamental religious or natural reason to do so but the states chose to do so to help solidify a taxpayer base that was grounded in strong family units - (i.e. families that stay in the state that shop, live, eat and contribute overall to their communities) and the states recognized that a stable family unit was beneficial (whether you agree or question the motives).
What's to stop three people from wanting to marry? I don't mean to be a conspirator but according to the language that I see there is nothing that can stop it. What about four? How in this world now are we supposed to both protect same sex marriage AND protect the freedom of religion and the ability to practice and act upon our beliefs without being sued? I am waiting now for the first lawsuit to appear about a pastor at a church won't marry Jane and Sally because of the pastors firmly held beliefs and the core doctrine and tenants of the church's faith. I see there is language talking about this balance in the ruling - but that's not going to stop people from getting targeted and sued.
This is the beginning of mish mash of lawsuits that the SCOTUS has brought on all of us. If they can make up rights out of thin air then there's nothing stopping them from doing it again...and again..and scalia calls the court egotistical..with an overreaching hubris...
Today and yesterday really and truly make me afraid of our freedoms moving forward.
Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score:5, Insightful)
"a right out of thin air"?
The only reason it's an issue at all, is that the religious right lobbied to get anti-gay marriage laws passed. Just like in the South, where there were anti-mixed-race marriage laws.
There was no legal justification for those discriminatory laws, then, or now. So the Supremes had to step in and make it clear - if you're going to make marriage a legal thing, it needs to be for every couple, not just straight couples, not just white couples, every couple. Just like the Constitution says in the 14th ammendment.
Re: (Score:3)
The 14th amendment doesn't say that we as a people have a right to marry. How can it? The federal government didn't create or conceive it and therefore it should
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious about this argument - would this argument not apply equally well to individual states prohibiting black people from marrying?
Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score:5, Insightful)
A very similar Supreme Court decision was made decades ago striking down bans on interracial marriage. At the time, very similar arguments were being made in favor of the interracial marriage bans (it's not God's way, states should decide, etc). In both instances, the reason the bans are struck down are the same. States don't get to say "We declare discrimination against Group X legal because Bigger Group Y says so."
Re:Very Disturbing Trend (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, it's the very same argument they did use against interracial marriage.
Was also used to defend jim crow and segregation, as well as used against women's suffrage.
in fact, half the country once went to war with the other half, using a variation of the argument as the basis of their defense of slavery.
it's basically been used every time someone has resisted accepting the equality of a as yet unequal group of people.
Re: (Score:3)
So do you support the right of states to decree that slavery is legal? Or that blacks can't enter a business?
Can you explain why you feel those two things are different?
Because one group of people voting to deny rights from another group of people has pretty much already been shot down in US law.
Why do I get the sense that people who would be screeching about how they're having Sharia law forced on them are completely willing to do the same thing?
What you're saying is "I am in favor of my religion imposing
Re: (Score:3)
The government got into the act when they defined laws that treat married people differently. I don't recall those laws being in the constitution but there they are. As long as there are civil constructs like that defined by Congress, then the government is into the act with both feet.
Re: (Score:3)
it is clear that people of faith and their beliefs should not be hindered in the public square.
Exactly, if religious extremists want to use our public squares to behead the infidels, we should not be allowed to stop them
Re:Assuming you're not a troll (Score:5, Interesting)
So, if a majority of say, non-white people voted for a law which said "white folks can now have their property seized", you'd be OK with that? Because it's the will of the people here?
Or are you specifically thinking that the right to pass laws which treat people unequally should entirely be a right reserved for Christians?
What is your specific set of legal criteria in which one group gets to vote on the rights of another? Is it limited purely to sexuality, or will it include race, religion, or gender?
So, the whites could vote to enact slavery again?
You're not arguing for anything other than "it should be my right to vote to deny you a right, but nobody else can do it to me".
If you really think that, then you're missing the whole point. You're not making a principled argument, you're making one based on how special you deem yourself.
Re:Assuming you're not a troll (Score:4, Insightful)
You might want to read some history.
The states have a poor record on the subject of minority rights. Such as slavery. And segregation. And so forth.
You need to read about Westboro Baptist Church. They've already proven the you are wrong. And they did it at the Supreme Court.
Why should the government write these contracts? (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts. And why should being in a private contract give one special rights?
Special rights to special groups is how the government divides the people and enslaves us.
I think anyone that wants to bind themselves with such a contract should be free to. I don't see scrapping the rule of law (this is a state issue at best) as being a good idea. - the ends don't justify the means.
I celebrate freedom - not the end of the rule-of-law.
Re: (Score:3)
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts.
Yes that is exactly what is happening here. The government is no longer allowed to step in and stop two people from signing a marriage contract based on their sex.
If "get the government out of the business of regulating contracts" is your goal then you should be celebrating today's ruling.
Re:Why should the government write these contracts (Score:5, Informative)
Time to un-ask the question - instead: Why do we let the government write these social contracts in the first place? The only roll the government should be to adjudicate the contracts in case of a conflict. People should write their own contracts. And why should being in a private contract give one special rights?
Well, contracts exist only between the parties, right? They're not binding on anyone else. For example, if I sign a contract with my buddy buying your car for a dollar, you don't have to turn it over to me, just because I have a contract, right?
So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.
Why? Because it's valuable to society. Having two people look out for each other drastically reduces expenses.
Re:Why should the government write these contracts (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.
If this is the only thing that legal "marriage" is all about, then why restrict it in the ways we restrict it? Why can't a sister and a brother get all of these benefits, if they wanted? Why can't they have access to all of these wonderful legal benefits of "marriage"? Even if they don't have an incestuous relationship, but just are otherwise unmarried and love each other (even not "in that way")?
Oh, that's right... marriage is actually about something else. That "something" is really hard to define, and conservatives and liberals seem to disagree on exactly what it is, which leads to the gay marriage dispute.
The question I take away from GP's point, though is -- why can't you just have a bundled contract that grants all those rights? Why couldn't two sisters sign up for it together, instead of just an unrelated man and woman, or (as of today in the U.S.) two unrelated lesbians? Or how about three unrelated lesbians or a group of three gay guys or whatever -- couldn't they be eligible for most of those bundled contract rights?
If we're really going to divorce (no pun intended) the word "marriage" from its traditional definition, it's fine by me. But if it's mostly about the legal contract rights, we should have actual contracts that any group of consenting adults can sign onto. Perhaps we should group some of the rights separately, since a lot of marriage law once had to do with dependency (of the wife, in previous generations, as well as the kids) and how to handle children and estates. In an era of DINKs and no-fault divorce and now gay marriages, most of those centuries of accumulated archaic marriage law should be deprecated or rewritten.
Perhaps you can sign up for the "dependency" package of contract rights only when you can prove it -- thus a four-some of polyamorists only get tax benefits if they can prove dependency according to the laws we already have. If you want to sign up for the "procreation" package, then all the marital rights involving children apply. We can have the "cohabitation package" and the "estate-planning" package, etc.
And while we're at it, it's probably high time to institute a "temporary" version of many of these packages, with built-in prenuptial safeguards for unwitting spouses. You want to get married "till death do us part"? Fine -- sign up for the "permanency package," but it's harder to get out, and fault usually must be determined, with dire legal and financial consequences. You just want to get married "for as long as we both give a crap," then the "temporary" package is just for you -- let's be more honest about it, but also let's protect you from your own idiocy and build-in a reasonable pre-nup.
Oh, and the relationship between the "temporary" contract bundle and the "procreation" bundle is complex -- basically, you want to have kids, you should be able to commit to dealing with them until they reach maturity.
If it's really about contract law -- this is what is SHOULD look like. Instead, we have a mess of a contradictory set of wacky laws involving old assumptions about marriage structure, child-rearing, wife dependency, etc., along with a mishmash of sometimes arbitrary restrictions having to do with gay marriage (until today?), polygamy, incest, etc. If free association and self-determination are what everything is about, should we make the appropriate types of contract bundles available to any consenting adults who want them?
The Right should be happy (Score:4, Interesting)
The GOP should be happy that the supreme court ruled this way. The right's opposition to gay marriage has been one of their biggest obstacles to attracting young voters, but the supreme court has now made sure it's no longer a campaign issue. The more clever candidates on the right will figure out quickly that it's now in their best interest to just shut up about gay marriage and to focus on a part of their platform that's less toxic to young voters.
Zero respect for SCOTUS (Score:3, Interesting)
In their opinion on gay marriage, [supremecourt.gov] Roberts issues a dissenting opinion with the following quote:
The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.
Re: (Score:3)
In their opinion on gay marriage, Roberts issues a dissenting opinion with the following quote:
Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.
The internal inconsistencies of the SCOTUS are appalling.
The only power the SCOTUS should have is to determine if a law violates the Constitution. If it does, it should be struck down, if it doesn't, it should stand.
Re: (Score:3)
I now believe that it is the most important one ever
if "lord of the flies" is your philosophy, then sure
Re: (Score:3)
Mine would. Constitutional amendments are part of the Constitution. It's not possible for a Constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.
now the hypocritical "religious liberty" whines (Score:4, Interesting)
as if someone's religious liberties are being trampled on because they can no longer trample on the actual real liberties of others
religious liberty dimwits: an actual denial of religious liberty by the government would be the government saying you can't go to church
meanwhile, you being unable to decide how other people who are not in your religion live their lives does not mean you have been denied religious liberty
at all, in any way
all the demagogues on the right now whining about religious liberty are either:
1. lying to you and laughing at you to get your support for another agenda
2. proving they are as fucking stupid as you by proving they don't know what the concept means
to believe religious liberty means you have a "right" to deny liberties to others so simply means you don't have a fucking clue what liberty and freedom really means
your "freedom" to oppress others never existed, was never promised by the founding fathers (the establishment clause: separation of state and church pretty much explicitly states that), and has absolutely nothing to do with freedom, except as an example of how fucking stupid people can be in their conception of what actual freedom really is
all that happened today is the government stepped in and *preserved* freedom by denying the "right" of literally oppressive bigots and blind stupid assholes from trampling the freedom and liberty of real americans
FauxNoise (Score:4, Funny)
Progress (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Similarly, the odds that in the vastness of space, an asteroid could just happen to strike our moon seems so incredibly remote that one could safely conclude that there are no craters on the moon.
Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nerds can be gay too? This is a pretty critical piece of legislature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Legislature would mean from the congress of the people. That isn't this, this is the courts engaging in a judicial decision. Some may consider that judicial activism.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And some may consider it judicial correction for failing to follow the legislative action taken on July 9, 1868.
Or, some may consider it judicial activism since the majority opinion talks about marriage being about love and commitment, and two people becoming more than they were before, etc. To many, regardless of one's views or same-sex marriage, it seems that the majority opinion went beyond equal protection under the law.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4)
No, they should expand constitutional rights, like the right to drugs. Reagan was wrong. Drugs are a civil rights issue. The government used to think drugs was a constitutional amendment issue. The court should bring them back to that position. How did they slip out of that one again?
Re: How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be under the impression that there's something morally wrong with possessing drugs.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
From the decision:
"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." - Justice Kennedy
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm. No.
Regardless of whether the State -should- be involved in marriage....it already -IS-.
Specifically there are certain legal statuses and protections as well as financial benefits granted to married couples.
As long as those benefits are granted one class of married couples (heterosexuals) they must be granted to -ALL- married couples, and to not do so is an explicitly clear violation of the 14th Amendment.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Explain the continued ban on polygamous marriage.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
How is that any different? We've moved away from biological reproduction and/or religion as a basis for the definition of marriage, so surely any combination must now be accepted, right? Single people shouldn't be left out, told they can't have what others have. Polys as well.
The interesting thing here is that the LGBT crowd now joins traditionalists as being the new majority on this issue and will continue to discriminate against singles and polys just as was done to LGBT for so long. The new minority group doesn't have sufficient numbers to make enough noise for anyone to think they matter and everyone turns a blind eye. Sound familiar?
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that any different?
How is "more than 2" different from "2"? Are you sure Slashdot is at your speed?
We've moved away from biological reproduction and/or religion as a basis for the definition of marriage, so surely any combination must now be accepted, right? Single people shouldn't be left out, told they can't have what others have. Polys as well.
No, marriage is about property and inheritance rights. It's irrelevant for singles, and it's different for polys since you would need some sort of proportional probate system. Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are as obsessed with the number two as traditionalists were with the words man and woman. Can't you see that?
Marriage is not exclusively about property and inheritance. I can sign a property deed along with someone I'm not married to and I can do the same in my will for inheritance. Man and woman, only two, it's the same type of argument.
"Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours."
Exactly what the LGBT crowd was always told until the courts said no. How does it feel to be
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are as obsessed with the number two as traditionalists were with the words man and woman. Can't you see that?
Nope. If you change "husband and wife" to "spouse and spouse" in existing statutes, nothing else changes. Taxes are still the same, marital privilege is still the same, immigration is still the same, etc. In fact, if any existing statute treated husbands and wives differently, it would already be unconstitutional due to discrimination on gender.
But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?
Or what about medical proxy? You go into a coma, your first spouse says 'pull the plug', your second spouse says 'keep him alive at all costs'. Does the doctor get to decide? Because they can't. Under existing law, no matter what decision they make, the other spouse sues and wins.
In both cases - and in many others - the laws have to change. That's not true for gay marriage, where literally nothing but the label on a line on a form changes.
Marriage is not exclusively about property and inheritance. I can sign a property deed along with someone I'm not married to and I can do the same in my will for inheritance. Man and woman, only two, it's the same type of argument.
You've got it backwards - property and inheritance are not exclusively about marriage. That's why you can also sell deeds and leave things to your children. But yes, marriage is about property and inheritance, which is why when you're married, not only do you not need a will to leave things to your spouse, any such will is irrelevant because you won't even go to a probate court.
"Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours."
Exactly what the LGBT crowd was always told until the courts said no.
And what law would the LGBT crowd need to write? None, as noted above. Literally nothing changes in existing laws when there are two spouses, regardless of their genders. Not one single law is different. If you don't believe me, then go find one that has to be changed. I'll wait.
How does it feel to be on the other side?
The side of law and logic? Feels great, just as it always has.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's a pretty radical decision to state that the equal protection clause should actually provide for equal protection under the law.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know you're not projecting? Homosexuals existed in the Founding Fathers' times, in their circles of friends. The writers of the constitution understood that times change and that compromises such as the sanctioning of slavery would eventually be corrected. That they didn't mention homosexual rights as protected does not mean they didn't expect future generations to include homosexuality as a protected right.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Banning slavery would have mortified a large segment of the people who wrote it too.
Good thing intelligent people can remember that the Founder's were fallible men, and they knew it too, which is why they gave us a living document able to change with society.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's judicial activism to say that "your discriminatory law is discriminatory and therefore bullshit"?
Because what they've basically said is the religious right doesn't get to define what rights other people have, and that marriage has a civil definition which provides rights and protections which can't be taken away.
So, they can't decide women no longer have the vote. They can't decide black people can be property.
The argument that "we got together and had a vote and you don't get this right" is pretty much garbage.
Honestly, given that everybody is saying "yarg, teh terrorists hate our freedom", to say that it is your religious right to demand someone else doesn't get a right is pure hypocrisy.
If you're going to swap one theocracy for another ... just give up now.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
A determination of "Water is wet" would be an 8-1 decision by the court with Scalia writing a scathing dissent that forcing the ruling on americans destroys democracy.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would be 7-2. Thomas just goes along with whatever Scalia wants.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a thing that matters to everyone (yes, even straight people) matters to nerds.
Here's why this is a big deal for everyone: because excluding people from getting married based on sexual orientation means that the Government, at its own discretion, can create arbitrary groups that it can discriminate against based on any number of grounds, for any reason, so long as enough people or deep enough pockets can lobby for it.
For the Supreme Court to come out and say something is a constitutional right and therefore protected under the law for all people is their way of saying that all individuals deserve an equal amount of dignity. And if something was once denied a person based on social mores, it can be corrected.
This has far-reaching implications, not just for homosexuals, but for the population as a whole.
I'm straight, and I'm breathing a sigh of relief over this.
Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly this. Let's say we allowed the gay marriage bans which are primarily based on "Christian values" (as expressed by some Christians). What's to stop those same people from saying "the only legal marriage is a Christian marriage"? So if you want to get married in the Jewish tradition, or Muslim, or even without any clergy but just a Justice of the Peace, that's not valid. After all, if you're not accepting Jesus (where Jesus = their particular interpretation of Jesus) then your marriage isn't approved. You can't legislate based on "my holy book says X is wrong so X should be illegal for everyone whether or not other people follow my holy book."
Re:Glad to hear it but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This affects me about as much as just about all the other cases decided this year, which is to say not in the least.
Why don't you just say "I really don't care about anyone besides myself" instead of beating around the bush?
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes.
The reality is that for thousands of years, most known cultures didn't have the word "marriage". They had some other word which may or may not have had precisely the same connotations. Now go forth and read Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe before you climb up on that horse again.
Re:How do you define anything? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes. The fact that a majority of a minority culture in the world has chosen to call a cat a dog doesn't make it a dog.
The same reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures slavery has been accepted as the normal way of doing things. Are you REALLY going to go for the "heritage and history and tradition" angle?
Re:How do you define anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
All known cultures? No. For example, right here in America, the original Americans -- specifically, the Native Americans of the Great Plains -- had what you would define as homosexual marriage. From http://plainshumanities.unl.ed... [unl.edu]:
See also http://www.sinclair.edu/academ... [sinclair.edu] , which notes that those relationships ranged from promiscuity to stable marriages, depending on the tribe. Among the Crow, for example, physiologically-female berdaches generally married women.
So you see, both acceptance of transgendered individuals and homosexual marriage is a long-standing American tradition.
Re:Where's the Nerd / tech angle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Anti sodomy laws were already struck down as unconstitutional in Lawrence vs Texas [wikipedia.org].
Though several states or municipalities voted to keep them on the books, they are unenforceable due to the ruling.
Stuff like that scares the piss outa me (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Now burn a Confederate flag to celebrate and let's move on.
Please ... no flag-burning of any kind. It's just needlessly aggressive, even if it is protected speech.
Just take the Confederate flag off public flagpoles and put it in a museum, where it belongs. Individuals can still display it, but I won't be calling any of them my friends.
Re:Why post this? (Score:5, Funny)
I know I won't marry anyone soon. My wife won't let me.