I still don't understand the argument that the right to Gay Marriage should be constitutionally protected, so I will be interested to see how SCOTUS rules and what their rationale is.
My view is that if everyone has a right to be married to who ever they want. How can states stop siblings from getting married? How can they stop polygamy and polyandry?
CNN Coverage
NYT Coverage
WP Coverage
DB Coverage
MinnPost Scalia's comment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
about - if everyone has a right to be married to who ever they want. How can states stop siblings from getting married?
you have some very strange leaps of logic.
I haven't followed it closely, but it seems there will likely be a 4-4 split with Kennedy deciding it. Based on the tiny bit I saw yesterday I am going to predcit that he will reach the right decision and side with the liberals.
Seems like a pretty straight forward logical step to me.
If the Justices rule that the people of each State can not define and limit marriage based on the beliefs of the citizens of that State, what grounds will a State be able to use to deny marriage to other groups of people who want to pursue a certain life style.
I mean a yes ruling is in essence saying that marriage is a right for all citizens, no matter who they want to marry. That the local society's moral compass is irrelevant. Right?
Are you saying that it is okay to deny polygamists, polyandryists, brother/sisters, etc their behaviorial choice and their right to have their chosen lifestyle validated by the state. If so, why?
I mean they are just people in Love who want to have others show them the respect they deserve as humans. How dare other citizens judge their behaviors, beliefs, actions, etc as immoral and unacceptable?
This sure is interesting. I always enjoy it when LGBT supporters yell at Conservatives for being too moral, cold and judging, while still looking down on the other atypical relationships that occur between consenting adults.
If someone wants to go to court to try to gain the right to marry his sister he should do it. I don't think he will win. That is unless you were the presiding judge and wanted to be true to your logic. Maybe you should do a midlife career change to become a lawyer, so you could argue some of these cases which you see as similar.
So you are saying that it is okay for you to judge one couple's love as socially acceptable and another's as socially unacceptable.
You are sounding very sounding very Religious Right this evening. :-)
I am not at all judgemental, I just make observations and predictions about society. I am not aware of any movement (or single case) to grant marriage rights to siblings. If one develops I will have little to say about it as I am not a legislator, judge, or lawyer.
I don't know why I am even taking time to make another response to your absurd arguements, other than the news of the day bores me, especially reading about the Clinton's complex financial dealings.
Ilya and I are getting some pretty good answers over at the MinnPost link.
"I mean a yes ruling is in essence saying that marriage is a right for all citizens, no matter who they want to marry. That the local society's moral compass is irrelevant. Right?"
No, all it does it say is that the institution of marriage from a civil perspective (between two consenting non-closely related adults) can not be limited to one man, one woman.
Polygamy or incestuous relationships are different in their nature by other facts.
"Polygamy or incestuous relationships are different in their nature by other facts."
I guess I disagree. It seems to me that all of these discussions are morals based, not facts based. They are judgements as to what is an acceptable "marriage" within our society.
As discussed on the other site.
Multiple spouses could lead to welfare abuse. Give me a break, there are laws against welfare abuse and it abounds in our current society. Liberals don't seem to mind.
Sibling love may lead to genetic flaws. We have no other laws to prevent people with genetic flaws from having kids. And we as a society seem supportive of Mothers who delay having kids, even though it greatly increases the likelihood of birth defects.
Incest equals child abuse... Really? There are laws to protect minors from improper behaviors by all adults.
It is an interesting study of how people view the behaviors and choices of others.
"It seems to me that all of these discussions are morals based, not facts based. "
I don't believe that is true. Polygamy, as an institution, has always been one that subjugates the rights of one sex (almost always women). You can use that history as a factual basis to suggest that there is real harm caused by that form of marriage.
"subjugates the rights of one sex"
Now that is a judgemental moral based statement if I have ever heard one. These are adult women and men we are talking about here. And this is America, not some religious state where women are second class citizens with few freedoms.
Historically men have dominated and subjugated women in traditional marriages all over the world throughout history, that certainly is not a "relevant fact" at this time. Or do you think we should stop allowing traditional marriages to protect the rights of women?
"And this is America, not some religious state where women are second class citizens with few freedoms."
So you would argue that the Mormon fundamentalist sects in the West serve as bastions of women's rights?
The women in that State have similar rights to those in other US States. It is their choice if they make use of them or not.
Now are you saying that we should pass laws to prevent people from joining Religions that we disagree with? Because we disagree with how they assign roles and responsibilities.
As long as we're giving the State a role in marriage, then the State has an interest in not allowing types of marriage that cause societal harm. I think the evidence on polygamy demonstrates that there is societal harm there.
If you want to say that we should get the State out of the marriage business, I'm fine with that.
My view is that if everyone has a right to be married to who ever they want. How can states stop siblings from getting married?
You seem to be arguing against the idea that everyone has the right to be married to anyone they want. Is that the issue before the Supreme Court?
--Hiram
I am not sure, but it seems pretty close.
Meaning that people of all States must allow same sex couples to marry even if they truly believe that there is societal harm there.
Here was a great MinnPost comment from James Hamilton.
"If, as I believe science has demonstrated, sexual orientation is an innate human trait (likely governed by epigenetics), then recognizing a constitutional protection for that trait (like color and gender) does not grease the slippery slope you describe.
If, on the other hand, the court were to recognize a due process argument based solely on a right to choose one's partner and obtain the legal and social benefits that flow from marriage, it would open the door to similar arguments on behalf of other non-traditional marriages. Frankly, I have no problem with that as a legal matter. Nor do I on a personal level, provided that the offspring of such marriages have the same legal protections afforded children of traditional marriages. Yes, that might result in the need for changes in a great many of our laws (e.g., inheritance, eligibility for benefits based on marital status, etc.) but change always has its cost.
One last comment on familial relationships: I assume you're referring to incestuous relationships between adult relatives. If not, I think constitutional law is very clear on the government's power to protect children. With respect to adult relatives, the risks of inbreeding can be addressed by genetic counseling. Beyond that, and assuring that such relationships are consensual, I don't believe government has any interest in preventing it. Moreover, the lack of a marriage license will do nothing to prevent pregnancies in adult relative relationships."
As is often the case, the MinnPost moderators are making it hard for me to reply to the comment. I was trying to ask him to provide sources for this comment. Since we have not been able to.
"I believe science has demonstrated, sexual orientation is an innate human trait (likely governed by epigenetics)"
Meaning that people of all States must allow same sex couples to marry even if they truly believe that there is societal harm there.
That's narrower. Of course, not all marriages are alike. Some work out well, others work out badly. I suppose it's arguable at least that some harm society. But I can't think of any unique factor to gay marriage that might harm society, that isn't present in heterosexual marriage also.
Can you?
--Hiram
"If, on the other hand, the court were to recognize a due process argument based solely on a right to choose one's partner and obtain the legal and social benefits that flow from marriage, it would open the door to similar arguments on behalf of other non-traditional marriages."
I certainly don't fear opening doors to arguments, and neither, it seems do critics of gay marriage, who seem eager to discuss just about anything else, which is why serious discussions about the relationships between people so often veer into a discussion about marital relationships with hamsters.
--Hiram
I can't see any direct harm to society in letting any legal adult enter of their own free will into a binding contract with any other adult or group of adults. However is that all marriage is within our society?
The question is who gets to decide precisely what marriage is? The citizens of the States or the Court?
To finish my thought for James.
If there is no conclusive scientific eveidence whether LGBT is innate or behavior and the citizens are split almost 50/50 on the topic. Should the SCOTUS treat it as innate or behavior?
How will this impact their decision?
However is that all marriage is within our society?
I think on the whole, marriage is a good thing for society. That being the case, why should we deny it to gay couples?
"The question is who gets to decide precisely what marriage is?"
the questions seems to be something of a moving target. A moment ago, it was whether we should allow marriage to hamsters. Who decides rights issues under our system of government? Legally and historically, the courts have played a huge role, often because the legislative branch has proven itself incapable of effectively addressing these issues. It was the legislatures, after all, who passed laws providing for segregation in our society. It was the legislatures that passed laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Where rights are concerned, the issues have always been considered too important to be left to the legislatures.
--Hiram
Why or why not... We still do not have any scientific proof that they are a "Gay Couple". They may be a couple of people who want to choose to pursue the "Gay Lifestyle". It seems that this should be important in making this ruling.
As for Hamsters, I think you are the only here comparing Gay Couples or People who Choose Gay behavior to cute little furry rodents. I think they may find that demeaning.
"Should the SCOTUS treat it as innate or behavior?"
Equal protection claims are not reliant on innate traits. It's an irrelevant question from a SCOTUS perspective.
Other than religion, please tell me another chosen ongoing behavior that is protected in such a way.
As you have mentioned before, some historical / physical states are protected. Was the person in the military? Is the woman pregnant?
But I can not think of any other ongoing behaviors that are protected.
We still do not have any scientific proof that they are a "Gay Couple".
I am not sure why science enters into any discussion. I have gone to many weddings where I don't recall seeing a scientist present. A cousin of mine, in fact, married a scientist and it turned out to be a disaster, one of those marriages that might very well have harmed the country.
--Hiram
please tell me another chosen ongoing behavior that is protected in such a way.
Lots of behaviors are protected. Free speech. Freedom of religion. Is one's religion a matter of choice or are people genetically predisposed to be religious or to choose one religion over another? Should the question of whether religion is based on nature or nurture matter in a discussion of the constitutional issues?
For whatever it's worth, in legal terms, marriage is much more about status than behavior.
--Hiram
"As you have mentioned before, some historical / physical states are protected. Was the person in the military? Is the woman pregnant?"
Sure, and we discussed these in relation to a different portion of the law (discrimination statutes in housing, employment, etc.).
Equal protection cases are different and don't rely on the concept of protected classes.
For instance, Bush v. Gore was decided on equal protection grounds, as the justices ruled that the differing standards in counting ballots did not equally protect the rights of all voters under the law.
Hiram,
As I have mentioned before... Religion, Speech and Bear Arms are very special belief /behavioral freedoms that are clearly protected in our country, others not so much so. Maybe we need to get a Right to Marry Anyone ammendment passed.
Freedom of Religion
Wiki Freedom of Speech
Wiki Right to Bear Arms
Sean,
The Bush vs Gore rational still seems different to me. It had to do with a process and it's impact on if the citizen's vote was counted correctly.
Sure, I just used to point out that equal protection claims are broader than the previous examples you mentioned.
Religion, Speech and Bear Arms are very special belief /behavioral freedoms that are clearly protected in our country, others not so much so
It seems to me that I have heard somewhere that marriage and the family are central institutions in our society. I really, really, don't understand why anyone who believes that would deny access to the institution of marriage to gay people. There is literally, and by literally, I mean literally, no reason for it.
--Hiram
The Bush vs Gore rational still seems different to me. It had to do with a process and it's impact on if the citizen's vote was counted correctly.
What Bush v. Gore stands for is the proposition that we don't have a right to have our votes counted correctly, or even counted at all. Obviously, this is a very troubling idea, one big reason why the court held that Gore v. Bush would not have future precendential value.
--Hiram
"I think our LGBT friends do not want to be treated as....a separate "class" subject to distinct treatment and status under the law - and then perhaps being compelled to carve out exceptions to our laws based upon their status as a distinct class or group, and furthermore, defend themselves against NEW laws written on the basis of their distinct class.
I think - very basically, this is not a sophisticated argument, and I'm no attorney - they want to be treated just like everyone else.
If someone with more knowledge of the LGBT position can correct me here where I'm wrong-headed, I'd appreciate it." Steve
"Since no on has tried, here is how I perceive the issue. Supporters have been working pretty hard to make LGBT a common acronym that describes people that have "certain innate characteristics or behave" in a common way. And they have lobbied very hard to put LGBT in all laws that define a protected class. Remember the "anti-bullying law", the religious freedom laws, etc.
Even this SCOTUS ruling revolves around this concept. No one writes special laws to protect people who behave and look like nerds, or people who choose to wear glasses, etc. Yet in this case the LGBT community wants the court to force the citizens in states to legally sanction LGBT behavior.
That is why I think the innate vs behavior issue is so important. The USA has been protecting people by race, age, sex, handicaps, pregnant, etc for 50+ years. Usually we don't protect certain life choices at the expense of other people's life choices." G2A
Usually we don't protect certain life choices at the expense of other people's life choices." G2A
Looking at the constitution I have in front of me, under the first amendment, we protect the following:
1. Religion
2. Speech
3. The press
4. Assembly
5. Petitions
I am not sure whether each of those is a "life choice" but the decision to engage in each of them is a choice we make during our lives.
Maybe the better argument, the one more consistent with our historical and constitutional understanding of rights, is that LGBT rights should be protected because they are the produdct of choice. Just like most of the other rights protected by the bill of rights are.
--Hiram
Maybe I should note that while marriage is a status, the decision to marry is a choice, and as I have suggested, the founders were very concerned about protecting the right to make choices.
Here is a question I have. Marriage is a status, not a choice. That being the case, how is it logically possible to be married in one place but not another. For those who think the validity of marriage should be determined on a state by state basis, how could this be consistent with the most basic understanding of marriage which is that marriage are valid everywhere? Doesn't arguing that a marriage that which is valid in one place isn't valid somewhere else undermine the whole concept of marriage?
--
I was proposing on MinnPost that the LGBT supporters should simply get another amendment passed.
Then they could be clearly protected like the one's you listed.
By the way, being a legally recognized Lawyer, Teacher. Doctor, etc in one state does not mean you are in the neighboring state. Look at the fuss Liberals are raising to slow the licensing of out of state Teachers...
I was proposing on MinnPost that the LGBT supporters should simply get another amendment passed.
Then they could be clearly protected like the one's you listed.
It's their argument that the constitution currently prohibits discrimination against gay marriage.
"By the way, being a legally recognized Lawyer, Teacher. Doctor, etc in one state does not mean you are in the neighboring state. Look at the fuss Liberals are raising to slow the licensing of out of state Teachers..."
So is it your argument that when a married couple leaves a state, while they continue to be married, their marriage isn't legally recognized? As is the case with lawyers?
It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS agrees with them...
Lawyers, Teachers, Engrs, Surveyors, Fishing People, Hunters, etc. Seems like there is quite a bit of precedent for if a person retains a legal status when crossing state lines.
"By the way, being a legally recognized Lawyer, Teacher. Doctor, etc in one state does not mean you are in the neighboring state."
But here's the difference. Federal law has over 1,000 provisions where martial status determines rights, benefits, etc. which is why federal law dictates recognition of marriages done in one state in another.
Similar federal provisions do not exist for the named occupations.
It will be interesting to see what SCOTUS decides.
Post a Comment