Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[Katganistan]

I beg pardon? What are you talking about?

It seemed you were responding in a vague manner to both of us. I mean what else could "who gives a fuck?" stand for?

The idea of species productivity. You know, the thing I quoted.

Because same sex couples can and do have children, if and when they choose. They can choose a surrogate parent. They can get inseminated, or inseminate someone else, artificially or otherwise. They can have children from previous relationships. They can *gasp* adopt.

"Teh gheys shouldn't marry cos no children" is a dumb argument. They can have as many kids as anyone else: none, one or some.

[Novorobo]

I do hope they vote on the side of SS marriage. I'd like to live in a nation where LGBT individuals' rights are respected as anyone else's.

"SS" marriage? Sounds like a premise for a Nazi-themed anime.

[Christian Democrats]

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

The Fourteenth Amendment can't possibly apply to gay individuals?

It applies to gays on rational basis review.

Being in a heterosexual relationship and having children are significantly correlated, thus a rational connection.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I do hope they vote on the side of SS marriage. I'd like to live in a nation where LGBT individuals' rights are respected as anyone else's.

"SS" marriage? Sounds like a premise for a Nazi-themed anime.

SS marriage would be a pretty niche historical reenactment business idea.

[Alcase]

I hope this will be an unanimous decision for same-sex marriages.

[Lost heros]

I do hope they vote on the side of SS marriage. I'd like to live in a nation where LGBT individuals' rights are respected as anyone else's.

"SS" marriage? Sounds like a premise for a Nazi-themed anime.

Sounds like a love cruise to me.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

I do hope they vote on the side of SS marriage. I'd like to live in a nation where LGBT individuals' rights are respected as anyone else's.

I'm very optimistic that they'll vote yes. They repealed DOMA, and I expect them to legalize same sex marriage. If same sex marriage isn't legal nationwide by the end of 2015, I'll be truly shocked.

[Mavorpen]

So am I just never going to get an answer to the question of whether interracial marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So am I just never going to get an answer to the question of whether interracial marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

Oh. It is. Its just not for the survival of the human race.

[Arcturus Novus]

I do hope they vote on the side of SS marriage. I'd like to live in a nation where LGBT individuals' rights are respected as anyone else's.

"SS" marriage? Sounds like a premise for a Nazi-themed anime.

Isn't Hetalia already a Nazi-themed anime?

[Alien Space Bats]

Funny how it not being a choice used to be justification for why it wasn't wrong ,now that its mainstream people conveniatly drop that lie.
Homosexual sex is wrong and those who choose to engage it it are wrong.

Who we love defines us (I'm speaking here of all human beings, rather than just gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc.) as thoroughly as our religious beliefs. So if religion is a protected choice, why not homosexuality? Who, precisely, is being hurt by such a choice? And if such a decision is so central to our self-identity (as our choice of lovers always is), why would human dignity and the need for us to be free to think, feel, express ourselves, and live in accordance with our core beliefs and values be something that anyone should be allowed to ban, so long as no one is hurt by such choices?

I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice; if saying that even if it were, human decency and a respect for fundamental human rights would demand that it be as protected as thought, speech, faith, and political expression.

Based on what? Obviously the founding fathers, the ones that wrote the constitution didn't think so, Thomas Jefferson thought that Homosexuals should be castrated.

I am so fucking tired of what Thomas Jefferson thought. He didn't write a single word of our Constitution or any of its 27 Amendments, so who in the fuck is he to say anything about the whole thing? Just another uninvolved observer, that's who...

And as for where it found its way into our Constitution, you show your absolute ignorance of history by failing to realize that our rights REALLY come to us from the 14th Amendment, which was enacted by Congress in 1868. Look there, and to the phrases "life, liberty, or property", "equal protection", and "due process of law" if you want to understand where such rights come from.

The Bill of Rights protected us from Federal overreach into our lives, but only in a few very limited ways; and they did nothing to keep the States from robbing us of liberty if they so chose. It was the 14th Amendment that made us truly free, and it was John Bingham and the 39th U.S. Congress that we can thank for that freedom, not the "Founding Fathers".

Or didn't you notice the role the 14th Amendment is playing in this case?

So in that link, it says the first two questions the Supreme Court set up for itself (which it says is uncommon):

[i]"The court’s first question: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?”

The second: “Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”"

It's right there in black and white: "Does the 14th Amendment require..."

Read those words and weep, Citizen.

Civil rights for all except those who disagree, that the point of this law right? Overturning what the people decided should be the law in their own states?

In case you haven't noticed, this is a bedrock principle of American politics: That (at least since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868), electoral majorities cannot vote away the fundamental rights of the individual.

Marriage is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has recognized this for decades, based on a long line of legal reasoning that goes back to English common law (and was formally introduced into our system by the 14th Amendment's use of the phrase "life, liberty, or property", which was a long-standing term of legal art for those common law rights long accepted to be every man and woman's birthright, but never fully enunciated).

Privacy is also a fundamental right. Again, the Supreme Court recognizes this, and again its reasoning goes back to the 14th Amendment and English common law, through the same legal mechanism described above.

Since then the Court has been slowly inching towards the realization that these fundamental rights protect our sexual behavior from unwarranted governmental regulation. If it doesn't hurt anyone, who cares what we do in the privacy of our own homes, or to whom we choose to do it (Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 [2003])? And if homosexuality is thus permitted, how can we deny people who love others of the same sex the fundamental right to marry?

It doesn't matter how many people think that it's wrong. My religion isn't subject to your approval, and neither are my love affairs; on that basis, why in the fuck should my right to marry be, either?

But these were the same people arguing that interracial marriage would lead to the breakdown of American society, yet here we are 50 years later....our country lead by the product of interracial relations.

Yes look at our rising economy, racial harmony, adequate employment and infastructure.
I bet you live in nice mostly white community don't you?

Surely you're not going to argue that our present economic woes are due to the overthrow of Jim Crow segregation, or that we would be a more harmonious society if we still denied blacks their fundamental human rights...

I believe that if the court rules in favor of Same-Sex Marriage, the LGBT community will be making it's first real inroads to equality. Because marriage isn't the real issue, it's just emblematic of a larger problem. The problem being that it's still an acceptable position to hold that gay people shouldn't be allowed in some businesses, shouldn't be hired by some companies, and shouldn't be treated equally under the law.

So it's NOT actually about marriage?

No, it's about marriage, all right. But marriage is not the end of the line, any more than it was with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
Didn't the first Gay married couple actually get divorced recently?

Should Same-Sex Marriages be legalized Nationwide, why or why not?

No, because their no point and this will end with more priests being force to perform ceremonies they find immoral or face legal reprocussions, how's that for civil rights

That hasn't happened with interracial marriages. There are STILL all-white churches in America (as well as congregations comprised entirely of members of a SINGLE faith — imagine THAT!!!), and ministers can still refuse to marry people of different races or faiths if they please (not having ever been baptized, I wasn't allowed to marry my second wife in the Greek Orthodox Church, as we had hoped; instead, we had to settle for a civil ceremony in the Ypsilanti Town Hall [at least that allowed us to have Greek flags in the background...]). Nobody is going to force your congregation to allow gays among your ranks, or force your priest/minister to preside over same-sex marriages. That fear is bullshit, nothing more.

[Novorobo]

"SS" marriage? Sounds like a premise for a Nazi-themed anime.

Isn't Hetalia already a Nazi-themed anime?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk

[Arcturus Novus]

So am I just never going to get an answer to the question of whether interracial marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

Oh. It is. Its just not for the survival of the human race.

Honestly, if straight couples existed just to have children, then we'd probably overpopulate very soon.

[Benuty]

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

No, that is the legal definition.
Face it: you CANNOT get religiously married in the US without a STATE license.

Guess which takes precedence? Because if you have no state license, you do NOT get the tax benefits and all the rest.

Please, PLEASE learn a little about what you're talking about.

Now in response to the eerily close red mod text which raped my eyes and took certain peoples virginity away. You can get a religious marriage without state recognition. It just wont be an actual "marriage" now if you excuse me I need to repair my glasses since you broke them.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

It seems that multiple people noticed that CD has a habit of ignoring posts. Color me surprised.

[Talvezout]

That hasn't happened with interracial marriages. There are STILL all-white churches in America (as well as congregations comprised entirely of members of a SINGLE faith — imagine THAT!!!), and ministers can still refuse to marry people of different races or faiths if they please (not having ever been baptized, I wasn't allowed to marry my second wife in the Greek Orthodox Church, as we had hoped; instead, we had to settle for a civil ceremony in the Ypsilanti Town Hall [at least that allowed us to have Greek flags in the background...]). [b Nobody is going to force your congregation to allow gays among your ranks, or force your priest/minister to preside over same-sex marriages. That fear is bullshit, nothing more.[/b]

This has been said several times before, but isn't this about legal/civil marriages/unions, and not religious ones? So why do people have to get their panties all tied up if this legal marriage and not religious? And even then, there are churches that support same-sex marriages, so there's that.

[Katganistan]

You're applying a religious meaning to the word in a secular society, that has BEEN a secular society since its creation.

It's not a religious definition of marriage; it's a valid definition of marriage. One of the most atheist countries in the developed world, Japan, has a constitution that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

You may be shocked to learn that the laws in Japan do not apply in the US.

Try harder.

[Katganistan]

I'll ask a third time. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Damn, you're hard-headed. The Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to marry encompassed all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Any potentially procreative relationship falls under that heading.

And the infertile?
And the post menopausal? Are they prevented from marrying, or are their marriages annulled upon reaching menopause?

Yes, or no?

[Alien Space Bats]

If the Supreme Court takes the path you suggest, the government must allow gays and lesbians to act on their sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas), but it has no obligation to endorse homosexuality in the form of civil marriage and its accompanying benefits.

You're ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court has also held that the right to marry is universal. Denying it to same-sex couples therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause, just as Virginia's ban on interracial marriage was deemed to in Loving.

In addition, the abortion case law holds "that the State has a legitimate interest in promoting the life or potential life of the unborn." Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 870 (1992). Given that the Supreme Court applies rational basis review to sexual orientation cases, all the state has to do is prove that it has a legitimate interest in promoting heterosexual monogamy. In other words, if the Court treats abortion and homosexuality the same, then it will uphold traditional marriage laws as legitimate.

Again, the Equal Protection Clause says no, because States don't bar marriage by infertile heterosexual couples (i.e., men who've had a vasectomy, women who've had a hysterectomy, or post-menopausal women in general). The plaintiffs don't have to limit themselves to a comparison of same-sex marriage to FERTILE heterosexual marriages; all they have to do is note that no State anywhere bans INFERTILE heterosexual marriages, and it's game over for the opponents of same-sex marriage.

Their relationships might be subjectively valuable to them, but they do not offer society the same objective benefits as marriages.

Bullshit. No straight married couple is obligated to have children, and your stance ignores the fact that many same sex couples DO have kids.

Your post ignores the legal test. The state does not have to offer a compelling or even a substantial justification for its position. All it has to prove is a rational connection. Being heterosexual and having children are significantly correlated. The connection is rational.

What is the state's rational basis for allowing infertile heterosexual unions, while banning same-sex unions?

ANSWER: Barring religious offense, it doesn't have one.

[Christian Democrats]

So am I just never going to get an answer to the question of whether interracial marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

The proper application of Loving:

1. Does this relationship fall within the range of relationships that are "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
2. If so, apply strict scrutiny. If not, apply rational basis review.

It's not a religious definition of marriage; it's a valid definition of marriage. One of the most atheist countries in the developed world, Japan, has a constitution that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

You may be shocked to learn that the laws in Japan do not apply in the US.

Try harder.

You might have been shocked to learn that there are non-religious societies that define marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

Try harder.

[The balkens]

Good god, hopefully its a yes.

[Katganistan]

your definition isn't the only definition

Right! That's why issues like this one ought to be settled via the normal democratic process.

Which shockingly enough, this is.

Or do you not understand how the Supreme Court and the judiciary branch works?

[Geilinor]

So am I just never going to get an answer to the question of whether interracial marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

The proper application of Loving:

1. Does this relationship fall within the range of relationships that are "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?
2. If so, apply strict scrutiny. If not, apply rational basis review.

You may be shocked to learn that the laws in Japan do not apply in the US.

Try harder.

You might have been shocked to learn that there are non-religious societies that define marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

Try harder.

1.) Neither do relationships between the infertile.
2.) There are majority-religious states that recognize same-sex relationships.

[Mavorpen]

1. Does this relationship fall within the range of relationships that are "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

For fuck's sake dude, this is no longer mental gymnastics, it's mental contortion. You've been repeating this over and fucking over, but you've YET to actually substantiate it. It's nothing more than painfully lazy circular logic. "It's fundamental to our very existence and survival because it is" isn't an argument. So I'll ask AGAIN, is interracial marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival"?

Oh, and stop dodging my posts:

Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has been held to forbid racial discrimination.

And it's also been held to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation, TWICE, in fact.

Please don't ignore my posts.

Oh, and he also conveniently ignores that they said this right before the "fundamental to our very existence and survival" part:



So it cites the Due Process Clause and states that the freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Funnily enough, we have the precedent set by SCOTUS when it comes to Due Process and homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
So yeah, not seeing ANY legitimate basis for Loving being a serious argument against gay marriage.

Yes, I get stubborn when I see stupidity of the highest order being backed up by blatant intellectual gymnastics.

Yes.

Bullshit. The amount of cognitive dissonance to seriously argue such drivel baffles me. Food is "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Does that make EVERY type of food "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species? Yes or no?

And for the fourth time, are interracial marriages necessary to "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

[Katganistan]

Did he? Good for him! He and his partner have been together for a decade as far as I recall. May they remain very happy together.

Couldn't be, he married a 26 year old.

Did he? I'd better go read up.

[Edit] I'd assumed (bad Kat!) it was to his longtime partner, but I see I was wrong. Still -- may they both be very happy together!