PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS and marriage equality



Bristol Bay
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:23 PM
Any predictions?

I am hopeful that there will be good news for same sex couples. Maybe not in the form of a sweeping ruling declaring all gay marriage bans unconstitutional, but I think there will be cause for celebration.

I hope I am not wrong!

hey101
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:30 PM
I truly hope they do the right thing and make a sweeping declaration that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

I cannot begin to understand how they (or anyone, really) can't see that all arguments against gay marriage are based in religious beliefs.

Give me one good reason, other than a religious belief, WHY gay people cannot get married.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

The separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

Equality for all.

Ruth0552
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:31 PM
SCOTUS? SCROTUS? WAIT? WHAT?

Gestalt
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:35 PM
SCOTUS? SCROTUS? WAIT? WHAT?

Oh you are bad. :tickled_pink: I believe gay marriage will be legalized, just read about how much the government will make in taxes by allowing it.

mvp
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:37 PM
All good, except!

1) Heard someone on NPR today talk about the Roe v. Wade decision and the way that created huge backlash. That was because of the issue but also because it raised the problem of state vs. federal power. Their point was that if the SC was premature in agreeing to hear these test cases for the gay marriage issue, they might be creating the same future cluster-f.

OTOH, as someone pointed on the NPR show, the cultural acceptance of same-sex unions has been lickety-split-- much faster than abortions or feminism. No one under 30 "gets" the homosexual bigotry thing.

2) And has anyone priced out the cost of extending the benefits and rights of marriage to gay couples? In the second case, (regarding the payment of $300+K in inheritance tax by the surviving spouse in a gay marriage), Uncle Sam loses some money. I'm sure, too, that insurance companies and perhaps employees are just as happy to not have to give discounts to gay couples as they do straighties.

So, the advancement or decay of society aside, what's up with the money?

Bristol Bay
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:38 PM
Hey101, the best the lawyer for Prop 8 could come up with is that it's a redefinition of marriage. That is code for suggesting a slippery slope to plural marriages and marrying your dog.

Everyone kept referring to the history of marriage as if it were always holy matrimony, man and wife, and not the financial and political arrangement it has really always been until recently.

mvp, someone pointed out the real difference between Roe and gay marriage is harm. You can argue that abortion on demand results in harm to the unborn, but you can't argue that marriage between two men or two women victimizes anyone.

supershorty628
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:43 PM
I truly hope they do the right thing and make a sweeping declaration that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

I cannot begin to understand how they (or anyone, really) can't see that all arguments against gay marriage are based in religious beliefs.

Give me one good reason, other than a religious belief, WHY gay people cannot get married.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

The separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

Equality for all.

If you're ever in the Twin Cities, please let me buy you a drink (or a coffee or what have you). :yes:

LauraKY
Mar. 29, 2013, 06:49 PM
I suspect they will say that the CA case has no standing since CA refused to defend it and it will revert to the lower court's decision overturning it.

I think DOMA will be found unconstitutional. I heard an interesting theory that the GOP would prefer that same sex marriage be found legal...otherwise they have to continue to fight the battle or lose the evangelicals.

Who knows, that may be true. They've certainly been awfully quiet though.

AffirmedHope
Mar. 29, 2013, 07:34 PM
Oh you are bad. :tickled_pink: I believe gay marriage will be legalized, just read about how much the government will make in taxes by allowing it.

Gay divorce court TV. I would watch the crap out of that!

Chall
Mar. 29, 2013, 08:15 PM
There have been a few prominent republicans who have stated support for gay marriage ( before Hillary did).
Two things I heard/read ( so I could have misinterpreted it)
1. Once gay marriage was legalized in Canada, it became hate speech to preach against it, if that is in your religious beliefs. Canadians chime in if I'm in error
2. It brings the legality of roe v wade into question. If they rule it's a state right, not federal, then the federal ruling re abortion can be questioned - abortion was a state by state law before 1973.

My question, how many gay marriages have taken place since it was legalized (in the states that it was) I can't get statistics on that.
Lastly, there have been riots in France (against) gay marriage. That surprised me.

horseymum
Mar. 29, 2013, 08:42 PM
Hmmmmm..... I will weigh in as a Canadian. Firstly on a personal note I really don't see what your sexual orientation should have to do with either your ability to get married to your partner or to raise a family.

I think that the hate speech thing has to do with the fact that we have a very different line in the sand here in Canada then you do in the states. The supreme court judged in 1990 that hate speech could be curtailed if it expressed "unusually strong and deep-felt emotions of detestation, calumny and vilification". We did recently have a case before the court concerning a Christian preacher who was passing out flyers calling people "sodomites". People have qualified Canada as a pleasantly authoritarian state when it comes to free speech. :)

I can't comment to the Roe v Wade thing as I don't really know the ins and outs of the law. As to what was going on in France, I am from Belgium and spend most of my day with French and Belgian radio on in the house as I work. There have been riots against the "mariage pour tous" agenda but there have been just as many for the proposal. the deal is I think, that there is a pretty strong traditional Catholic base in France that would be opposed to the idea just on traditionalist basis.

Fred
Mar. 29, 2013, 08:55 PM
I truly hope they do the right thing and make a sweeping declaration that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

I cannot begin to understand how they (or anyone, really) can't see that all arguments against gay marriage are based in religious beliefs.

Give me one good reason, other than a religious belief, WHY gay people cannot get married.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

The separation of church and state in this country is a joke.

Equality for all.

:yes:
I think some people cloak their bigotry and intolerance in religious clothing, to make it somehow more acceptable.

We have had marriage equality in Canada for years.
The sky didn't fall. The sun rose and set as it always has, and everyone just kept on keeping on.

Judysmom
Mar. 29, 2013, 09:37 PM
I'd be willing to bet money that the Court will find a way to dispose of both cases that does NOT address the constitutionality (under the Federal Constitution) of banning gay marriages.

Like Laura said above, it will be based on standing or something else. But that would still be good news for marriage equality :) Of course not as awesome as a Loving v. Virginia type ruling. I guess we'll find out in a year or so!

RainyDayRide
Mar. 29, 2013, 09:57 PM
I agree with Laura ... Prop 8 case will be kicked back to CA ... will it go back to the district or higher state court to be decided. DOMA will be reversed, leaving the definition of marriage to the states (for the moment.)

Love having women on the court ... Justice Ginsberg's referring to civil unions as "skim milk marriages" and Justice Kagan's introduction of the reality that a union of two 55+ yos isn't going to yield children.

And - whatever our orientation - may we all be as active at 83 yo as plaintiff Edith Windsor is. Here is a brief video of her on the steps of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, commenting on the hearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-J8q14EuWNY

More on her story and the ACLU challenge at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EFzcUDa2Y_0

GoForAGallop
Mar. 29, 2013, 10:54 PM
My question, how many gay marriages have taken place since it was legalized (in the states that it was) I can't get statistics on that.


Not exact stats, but numbers are very easy to find via Google. Though I'm not sure why it matters?

I do know that here in MA, the home of the civilized (if slightly over-taxed), gay marriage has been legal since 2003. Somehow our cities have not burned down, our economy has not shattered, and here's a good one for the religious right to suck on....our divorce rate is one of the lowest in the country, oftentimes THE lowest from year to year.

kathy s.
Mar. 30, 2013, 12:12 AM
I am for gay marriage. What does it hurt? Many feel that there should be no regulation on marriage whatsoever. I disagree. Laws dictating incest is wrong, cousins marrying, people younger than 18 getting married, and everything in between, have their place. JMO.

mvp
Mar. 30, 2013, 12:27 AM
Gay divorce court TV. I would watch the crap out of that!

Make me a spot on your couch! Can you imagine the show we'd see?

If I may bash for a moment: Having been the friend who had the pick up truck used in a Lesbian Move Out, OMG, don't do it. More vicious that a hetero break-up by an order of magnitude.

Calvincrowe
Mar. 30, 2013, 12:58 AM
Well, just from perusing the local paper here in SW WA, the rate of gay marriage is much less than the hetero couples, following a rush as it became legal. I voted for it, proudly, to honor my gay and lesbian friends.

I'm am all for gay marriage! Since few churches will conduct them, that should keep the sanctity intact (sarcasm fully on) and all those hetero couples safely married for life. Oh...wait...the divorce notices are on the same page as the marriages in our paper...and gosh, there seems to be a lot of those, too! Snark...

Bristol Bay
Mar. 30, 2013, 01:16 AM
If I may bash for a moment: Having been the friend who had the pick up truck used in a Lesbian Move Out, OMG, don't do it. More vicious that a hetero break-up by an order of magnitude.

You may not. Really poor choice of words there.

sketcher
Mar. 30, 2013, 08:27 AM
Make me a spot on your couch! Can you imagine the show we'd see?

If I may bash for a moment: Having been the friend who had the pick up truck used in a Lesbian Move Out, OMG, don't do it. More vicious that a hetero break-up by an order of magnitude.

I had a divorce atty tell me recently that lesbian couples were the easiest to divorce because it is typically amicable. So, while I've had a lesbian friend here and there over the years who probably would fit into the scenario above, I wouldn't say it is typical.

nasalberry
Mar. 30, 2013, 08:53 AM
... Having been the friend who had the pick up truck used in a Lesbian Move Out, OMG, don't do it. More vicious that a hetero break-up by an order of magnitude.
BTDT, many times! OMG :eek: Do NOT even get in between them. Stay in the truck; you'll be a little safer.

Frank B
Mar. 30, 2013, 08:53 AM
They'll probably allow it.

SCOTUS is made up of lawyers, so think about how much the lawyers are going to make from all those additional divorces that will result.

nasalberry
Mar. 30, 2013, 08:57 AM
I had a divorce atty tell me recently that lesbian couples were the easiest to divorce because it is typically amicable. So, while I've had a lesbian friend here and there over the years who probably would fit into the scenario above, I wouldn't say it is typical.
Truly it depends on the temperament or mental stability of the gay or lesbian in question - as it would with straight people. All things being equal, females can be more vicious and devious than males. ;)

Canaqua
Mar. 30, 2013, 09:18 AM
Not exact stats, but numbers are very easy to find via Google. Though I'm not sure why it matters?

I do know that here in MA, the home of the civilized (if slightly over-taxed), gay marriage has been legal since 2003. Somehow our cities have not burned down, our economy has not shattered, and here's a good one for the religious right to suck on....our divorce rate is one of the lowest in the country, oftentimes THE lowest from year to year.

Yep, Mass is doing well on most fronts, 9 years later. DH and I were married in 2004, the same year legal gay marriages were allowed to start taking place. Our marriage license says "Party A" and "Party B" instead of "Groom" and "Bride" like my first one did.

A lesbian couple in the neighborhood was married the same year. Both marriages are still doing fine ;).

Eclectic Horseman
Mar. 30, 2013, 09:31 AM
We kind of have an informal pool going around the legal dept. in which I work. Most people seem to feel that in both cases the court will avoid a decision on the merits--that is that the court will avoid finding that DOMA and Prop 8 violate the Equal Protection of the 4th Amendment clause.

The majority speculate that in the Prop 8 CA case, that the people bringing the appeal to uphold Prop 8 do not have standing since they are just citizens who organized the initiative petition and are not California officials or their designees. This makes sense because if they could bring the appeal, they could also settle it, which means that they could bind the state of CA to an agreement that the state of CA doesn't want. And the people of CA couldn't vote them out of office--because they aren't in any office. So that looks like the best decision in that case.

They could go the same way (lack of standing) in the DOMA case although the facts are different. The other procedural ground that they could decide it on would be federalism--that is that the federal government doesn't have any right to regulate the qualifications for marriage and that that is the exclusive province of the states. The court could go that way, but the danger is that states like Utah may want to legalize polygamy and the federal government would be powerless to stop it. Historically, Utah was only accepted as a state in the USA on the condition that it make polygamy illegal. With Islam being the fastest growing religion, polygamy may well be the next battleground.

Polygamy is the real "slippery slope" fear, not marrying your dog. The only real way, I think to avoid a slide toward acceptance of polygamy is to decide both cases on the procedural standing issue. Or to find that prohibition of gay marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, because gay couples are similarly situated to straight couples (one person marries another person.)

Personally, I hope that they decide it on the merits and find that these laws violate Equal Protection. It is the right thing to do.

HenryisBlaisin'
Mar. 30, 2013, 05:08 PM
I hope that they decide that just as racial segregation was illegal under the 14th Amendment, that disallowing couples the right to marriage based on their sexual orientation is also illegal...the 14th Amendment gives all Americans equal protection under the law.

And for the religious zealots that whine about the Bible, I hope every one of them follows every other rule laid out in that Book--like keeping a Kosher table, for instance. If they do not follow every Biblical rule to the letter, they are hypocrites, plain and simple.

Also, if a particular church does not wish to marry a same-sex couple, it should not have to, as that's up to each religion to decide..but ALL couples should have the right to get married in front of a JP or at City Hall. We don't have the right to tell people how they should be allowed to love each other. Nobody has that right.

sketcher
Mar. 30, 2013, 06:34 PM
Truly it depends on the temperament or mental stability of the gay or lesbian in question - as it would with straight people. All things being equal, females can be more vicious and devious than males. ;)

Yes, females can most definitely be more vicious and devious than males. You'll get no argument from me there.

But we are talking about lesbians, and believe it or not, there is a difference much of the time. I have a wide circle of lesbian friends and am married to one myself ;) and in my personal experience, women tend to break up with less animosity than hets. Can there be krayzee? Absolutely.

I only mentioned it because I happened to be talking to a divorce lawyer who said she experienced lesbian divorces, out of the hundreds of divorces she has overseen, are often (obviously not always) more amicable than most - and this jibes with my personal experience over the last 30 years.

HenryisBlaisin'
Mar. 30, 2013, 07:04 PM
Statistically, same-sex couples are more likely to remain monogamous than heterosexual couples. Just a little food for thought.

Bluey
Mar. 30, 2013, 07:11 PM
Statistically, same-sex couples are more likely to remain monogamous than heterosexual couples. Just a little food for thought.

That and other that has been presented is really moot question.
The real question here seems to be, why does anyone else but those involved should have anything to say about who they go with or marry?

This is about certain personal freedoms that should be the same for all.
This should not matter to anyone else but those involved, when they decide to become a family, be it of two or same sex.

So what if same sex marriage had more divorces? That should not matter.
They may be as happy or unhappy married as everyone else.;)

lesyl
Mar. 30, 2013, 07:15 PM
If you're ever in the Twin Cities, please let me buy you a drink (or a coffee or what have you). :yes:

Or if either of you are ever in Tucson! I still do not understand how if two people whom neither I nor my spouse know are of the same sex and are married how that affects my marriage. Pretty sure I would still be married and no less married.

lesyl
Mar. 30, 2013, 07:18 PM
Truly it depends on the temperament or mental stability of the gay or lesbian in question - as it would with straight people. All things being equal, females can be more vicious and devious than males. ;)

I think horror stories abound for all sorts breakups and are not necessarily in relation to the sexes involved.

horsetales
Mar. 30, 2013, 07:27 PM
I really hope that gay marriage is allowed and all people have equal rights. If you feel it violates your religous belief, then don't conduct the marriage in your church.

Frank B
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:30 AM
http://www.arcamax.com/newspics/68/6843/684352.gif

DMK
Apr. 1, 2013, 09:59 AM
All good, except!

I'm sure, too, that insurance companies and perhaps employees are just as happy to not have to give discounts to gay couples as they do straighties.



Insurance companies could care less, all they really care about is gaming the system - meaning you pretend someone is your "domestic partner" solely to get them insurance coverage for some condition. Recognizing the legal union would clear up some muddy waters and what insurance companies hate are muddy waters. Who marries who? notsomuch.

In other words, insurance companies and national employers are waaaaaaaay ahead of the gub'mint (with exceptions made for places like Chik Fil A - tasty sammich, lousy morals).

Canaqua
Apr. 1, 2013, 10:10 AM
Insurance companies could care less, all they really care about is gaming the system - meaning you pretend someone is your "domestic partner" solely to get them insurance coverage for some condition. Recognizing the legal union would clear up some muddy waters and what insurance companies hate are muddy waters. Who marries who? notsomuch.

In other words, insurance companies and national employers are waaaaaaaay ahead of the gub'mint (with exceptions made for places like Chik Fil A - tasty sammich, lousy morals).

Yes. Some employers here in Mass were offering domestic partner coverage long before gay marriage was made legal here. It's actually made things much simpler. At first, domestic partner coverage was only available to same sex partners, because they couldn't get married. Straight, unmarried, couples then wanted it too, and some employers had to struggle with fairness on that issue...some offered domestic partner coverage to straight couples, some didn't. Then, there was the issue of proving domestic partnerhood. It's much more straightfoward with gay marriage...proving a marriage is relatively easy and the same rules can apply to everyone, across the board.

Sporthorse Shop
Apr. 1, 2013, 11:46 AM
I think everyone on both sides is just going at this all wrong. Get government completely out of marriage. Everyone should file their taxes as individuals. Legal documents should be written up to cover medical directives, wills, etc... If I want my sibling, parent, partner, child, insert any person under the sun to make medical decisions for me and not my spouse, then that should be my choice. A marriage document should never trump that. A person's assets should not by default go to their marriage partner. There should be a document stating where their assets go.

If we get government out of marriage, then people can marry whomever or however many people they want since there will be no government legal paperwork involved. Marriage will become a ceremony about commitment like it was meant to be rather than a legal contract. Then churches can support the types of marriages they wish. People can have their friend, parent, whomever marry them because it is only symbolic not legal. Insurance companies and businesses already choose how to hand out benefits, since benefits are just part of a total compensation package. The only thing that government would then get involved with is child custody and support which happens already in unmarried couples.

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 1, 2013, 01:04 PM
I think everyone on both sides is just going at this all wrong. Get government completely out of marriage. Everyone should file their taxes as individuals. Legal documents should be written up to cover medical directives, wills, etc... If I want my sibling, parent, partner, child, insert any person under the sun to make medical decisions for me and not my spouse, then that should be my choice. A marriage document should never trump that. A person's assets should not by default go to their marriage partner. There should be a document stating where their assets go.

If we get government out of marriage, then people can marry whomever or however many people they want since there will be no government legal paperwork involved. Marriage will become a ceremony about commitment like it was meant to be rather than a legal contract. Then churches can support the types of marriages they wish. People can have their friend, parent, whomever marry them because it is only symbolic not legal. Insurance companies and businesses already choose how to hand out benefits, since benefits are just part of a total compensation package. The only thing that government would then get involved with is child custody and support which happens already in unmarried couples.


I have friends who are unmarried couples who have attempted to achieve a legal domestic partnership through written contracts rather than get married and automatically be subject to the rights and obligations that come with marriage. First, it was very expensive to have lawyers draft these agreements. Second, it was impossible to completely mimic marriage because so many federal benefits (like Social Security) attach to spouses.

Call it what you will, but "marriage" is just another form of legal entity such as partnerships or corporations. When you enter into a business partnership or become a corporation, there are many rights and obligations that you are subject to automatically.

Regarding health care--Right now in most states you can sign a health care proxy that will designate the person that can make decisions regarding your care if you should be incapacitated. Have you done that? What will happen if you haven't?

You can have a will leaving your assets to someone other than your spouse. But what happens if you don't do that?

My point is that most people don't or can't afford to hire a lawyer to draft documents that will memorialize their wishes. Usually the law only steps in to provide the answers where the individual has not provided for that in a written agreement or where the right or obligation concerns a government benefit.

So it is easy to be glib and say that the government should get out of the marriage business, in practice it would cause lots of confusion and uncertainty.

Sporthorse Shop
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:10 PM
I have friends who are unmarried couples who have attempted to achieve a legal domestic partnership through written contracts rather than get married and automatically be subject to the rights and obligations that come with marriage. First, it was very expensive to have lawyers draft these agreements. Second, it was impossible to completely mimic marriage because so many federal benefits (like Social Security) attach to spouses.

Call it what you will, but "marriage" is just another form of legal entity such as partnerships or corporations. When you enter into a business partnership or become a corporation, there are many rights and obligations that you are subject to automatically.

Regarding health care--Right now in most states you can sign a health care proxy that will designate the person that can make decisions regarding your care if you should be incapacitated. Have you done that? What will happen if you haven't?

You can have a will leaving your assets to someone other than your spouse. But what happens if you don't do that?

My point is that most people don't or can't afford to hire a lawyer to draft documents that will memorialize their wishes. Usually the law only steps in to provide the answers where the individual has not provided for that in a written agreement or where the right or obligation concerns a government benefit.

So it is easy to be glib and say that the government should get out of the marriage business, in practice it would cause lots of confusion and uncertainty.

First, no benefits should automatically attach to a spouse. You are approaching the problem given the way marriages are set up today. If we abolish marriage legally then the government sets new guidelines for benefits. Second, you don't need a lawyer to draft basic wills or medical directives. Third, you are correct that the legal part of marriage is essentially a business partnership contract. So, if everyone, ie tens of millions of people, need basic legal help to form a partnership contract, then there will be a booming business for drafting easy cheap contracts. This doesn't exist now because domestic partnerships are rare.

It takes all of a few hours to write up a basic medical directive and will. If someone doesn't bother doing that, then they really shouldn't complain when something happens. For health care and assets if you don't have the documents, then legally they can default to next of kin. If one didn't want that to happen, then they should set aside the TV remote and spend the couple of hours drafting the documents. People make such a big deal out of drafting these types of documents when they are very simple.

If I get married, I don't want the government in my marriage... why would anyone??

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:19 PM
So, if everyone, ie tens of millions of people, need basic legal help to form a partnership contract, then there will be a booming business for drafting easy cheap contracts. This doesn't exist now because domestic partnerships are rare.

I think that you are vastly overestimating the number of people who would have a contract, no matter how cheap and easy. There are relatively few people who even have a will or a health care proxy.

So in the end, the government would still have to figure out who owns what. And if you have ever lived with anyone and paid jointly for household items--it is not that easy to figure out who gets what after the fact, and almost no one keeps track of it when it is still the honeymoon stage. One way or the other, the courts or the government would have to sort it out.

Alagirl
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:23 PM
All good, except!

1) Heard someone on NPR today talk about the Roe v. Wade decision and the way that created huge backlash. That was because of the issue but also because it raised the problem of state vs. federal power. Their point was that if the SC was premature in agreeing to hear these test cases for the gay marriage issue, they might be creating the same future cluster-f.

OTOH, as someone pointed on the NPR show, the cultural acceptance of same-sex unions has been lickety-split-- much faster than abortions or feminism. No one under 30 "gets" the homosexual bigotry thing.

2) And has anyone priced out the cost of extending the benefits and rights of marriage to gay couples? In the second case, (regarding the payment of $300+K in inheritance tax by the surviving spouse in a gay marriage), Uncle Sam loses some money. I'm sure, too, that insurance companies and perhaps employees are just as happy to not have to give discounts to gay couples as they do straighties.

So, the advancement or decay of society aside, what's up with the money?

Somebody threw out a ballpark figure of 100 to 200 billion dollars that could/would be spend if gay marriage would be allowed: all in just wedding expenses! Nothing to sneeze at and enough taxes to be had from that!

lizathenag
Apr. 1, 2013, 03:49 PM
I am quoting poorly but Will Ferrell made the best comment on Congress and gay marriage.

Something to the effect that we was glad Congress was keeping his marriage safe so he and his wife could go out and buy assault weapons.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 05:13 PM
By the way, how did we get to marriage (and divorce and child support) being a state thing? And should we care about the past, or the lumping together of those issues?

That seems to be a hang-up: The sheer tradition of putting "all things marital" on a state- rather than federal footing.

lizathenag
Apr. 1, 2013, 06:33 PM
the states decide who can marry and the federal gov't gives the federal benefits without questioning the marriage.

JoZ
Apr. 1, 2013, 07:01 PM
Even with religion in the picture, it makes no sense to me. For what other "sin" are marriage rights abridged? I believe even convicted murderers can marry. Not to mention premarital sex. I would just love to see an adulterer or philanderer restricted in the ways that gays have been. Not likely.

mvp
Apr. 1, 2013, 08:11 PM
the states decide who can marry and the federal gov't gives the federal benefits without questioning the marriage.

Yabbut how did we get all statey on this issue?

loshad
Apr. 1, 2013, 10:22 PM
Yabbut how did we get all statey on this issue?

Probably because the colonies all regulated marriage separately under their charters, then the Articles of Confederation didn't regulate ANYTHING, and when we ratified the Constitution they figured they didn't need to get involved in something so well established plus the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Or at least that's the theory I'm putting out there.

lizathenag
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:03 AM
my feeble recollection is sometime in perhaps the 80s (1980s that is), Hawaii gave a marriage license (by mistake to two women). I think they might have had gender neutral names like Terry. Then Hawaii started thinking about civil unions and folks started freaking out and thought the federal government needed to get involved so gay people couldn't get federal benefits.

but I might be wrong. too lazy to look it up.

Frizzle
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:55 AM
Here's to hoping "the land of the free" will actually allow two consenting adults in a loving, monogamous relationship to get married. I still can't believe it's NOT legal.

big_red_ottb
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:35 AM
I believe that the argument for "stateyness" lies in the 10th Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Basically, the power to regulate marriage is not given to the Federal government, nor is it prohibited from the states, so it is granted to the states to decide what needs to be done in each state to attain a marriage license.
I believe the same reasoning is applied re: why states regulate and license professionals.

However, the argument is that 14th amendment prohibits states from creating and enforcing laws that discriminate against US citizens, and by prohibiting gay marriage, they are violating the Constitution.

It's very possible that I completely botched that explanation. If I did, someone please call me out on it. :o

randomequine
Apr. 2, 2013, 07:56 AM
After many different discussions, I've come to the decision that there is absolutely no way someone ELSE having a gay marriage affects me (or anyone else...other than them being 'morally opposed)....not one way.

Except for if they get married and demand expensive gifts. Then if affects me.

Prompting my lesbian friend to make sure that if she ever gets married I'm getting an invitation that specifically states "Expensive and rare gifts to be lavished" upon them. Then I'll have to shake my fist at those darn gays and how they're ruining my life ;)

:lol:

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 2, 2013, 08:59 AM
Yabbut how did we get all statey on this issue?

Not sure what you mean here. If you mean why is it a state's right to regulate marriage and not the federal government's right, the answer is federalism. The Federal government really can only regulate things that literally or figuratively "cross state lines." The framers of the constitution, having just split from a monarchy, were afraid to give to much power to a central government.

If you mean why should any governmental entity get involved in what is basically a religious matter, the answer is that "holy matrimony" has always been different than marriage. "Marriage" is a contract implied in law which has well defined rights and obligations. A marriage that is recognized by the goverment controls the PROPERTY rights of the parties, first and foremost. You have to remember that it was not so long ago that women were considered "chattels," that's right--women were considered property that belonged to their fathers and then their husbands. There were dowrys to consider, as well as support obligations. Everyone seems to forget that so easily, and it wasn't that long ago, historically speaking. It is laughable when people talk about "traditonal marriage" and they gloss over that aspect of it. :mad:

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 2, 2013, 09:02 AM
I believe that the argument for "stateyness" lies in the 9th Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Basically, the power to regulate marriage is not given to the Federal government, nor is it prohibited from the states, so it is granted to the states to decide what needs to be done in each state to attain a marriage license.
I believe the same reasoning is applied re: why states regulate and license professionals.

However, the argument is that 14th amendment prohibits states from creating and enforcing laws that discriminate against US citizens, and by prohibiting gay marriage, they are violating the Constitution.

It's very possible that I completely botched that explanation. If I did, someone please call me out on it. :o

It's actually the 10th Amendment that established the concept of Federalism, but other than that you are right on.

IdahoRider
Apr. 2, 2013, 11:59 AM
If you mean why is it a state's right to regulate marriage and not the federal government's right, the answer is federalism. The Federal government really can only regulate things that literally or figuratively "cross state lines."

I don't know how to word my question appropriately, but I'll try. Doesn't the current system of patchwork legal acceptance of same-sex marriage impact a couple's ability to cross state line's and have their union recognized equally under the law?

As it is now, a couple living in Washington state can get married in that state. It is a legally recognized marriage. They have children. They move to Idaho and one member of the couple dies. Their marriage is not recognized. Idaho does not recognize the surviving spouse as the legal parent of the children and gives custody to a "blood relative".

How does the federal government handle death benefits for surviving spouses and children? If you were in a straight marriage and your spouse dies, you collect SS benefits, and any minor-aged children do as well. Correct? But if you are in a same sex marriage and your spouse dies, you get exactly zero benefits and your children, born into a lawfully wed union, get screwed as well.

But if the federal government begins to recognize same-sex marriages, but leaves the decision about granting these marriages up to each individual state, how is federal law being applied fairly to all citizens? If you live in a state that recognizes your marriage you are treated as a legally married couple for all federal purposes as well? What if you get married and live in a state that recognizes your marriage? The federal government notes you live in a state where your marriage is recognized, and grants you the full array of benefits available to any other married couple. And then you move to a state that does not recognize your marriage? Does the federal government then send you a notice informing you that you have just lost your "married, filing jointly" tax status, etc.?

If the federal government is going to treat every married couple equally under the law, those benefits need to be available to every married couple. How is it equal treatment if my marriage is recognized in every state in the country, but the marriage of my gay friends is not? And then, if discrimination under the law is allowable in this instance, why isn't discrimination under the law allowable in other instances as well? Such as discrimination based on race, or gender or class?

It seems that we have backed ourselves into a corner here. And the type of contortionist behavior required to get out of the corner and still maintain the status quo is impossible. Any argument to reject marriage equality opens up a can of worms.

I hope SCOTUS does the right thing, and does not decide to just kick the can down the road for some other time to decide.
Sheilah

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 2, 2013, 12:34 PM
Sheilah-
Yes, the reasons that you gave would be the reason for the court to find that DOMA and Prop 8 violate the 14th of amendment of the United States because they violate the equal rights of gays and lesbians. That's what the court did when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws. And, I agree that is what they SHOULD do now.

I was using shorthand when I said that the federal government can only legislate things that cross state lines. Actually, it is the inter-state commerce clause of the Constitution that allows that legislation, and the qualifications of marriage are not inter-state commerce.

Having the federal gov't decide the qualifications for marriage, would be as in how old you have to be and whether you can marry your cousin. Or whether to recognize common law marriage or not. The states should continue to legislate the qualifications for marriage in accordance with community values and not as mandated by the federal government. The federal government couldn't or wouldn't enforce a federal marriage license law anyway.

The states should continue to decide what the qualifications for marriage are, but they should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender just like they cannot discriminate on the basis of race.

IdahoRider
Apr. 2, 2013, 01:45 PM
Sheilah-
Yes, the reasons that you gave would be the reason for the court to find that DOMA and Prop 8 violate the 14th of amendment of the United States because they violate the equal rights of gays and lesbians. That's what the court did when it struck down anti-miscegenation laws. And, I agree that is what they SHOULD do now.

Eclectic, thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Sheilah

lizathenag
Apr. 2, 2013, 02:02 PM
DOMA being overturned will change my life.

Currently my wife has a federal job in another state (and we have lots of frequent flyer miles)(luckily it is the neighboring state).

She cannot cover me on her federal heath care plan even though we are married in CA and she could cover me when she worked in CA (non federal job).

So as soon as DOMA is overturned, I can move to be with her.

wireweiners
Apr. 2, 2013, 03:56 PM
Well, if gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy? If all the parties are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with multiple wives or husbands. If polygamy was allowed it would prevent the fundamentalist Mormon sects from having their plural wives apply for welfare for their "out of wedlock" children.

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:21 PM
Well, if gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy? If all the parties are consenting adults, I don't have a problem with multiple wives or husbands. If polygamy was allowed it would prevent the fundamentalist Mormon sects from having their plural wives apply for welfare for their "out of wedlock" children.

I agree, but there are many who argue that polygamy as traditionally practiced is coercive and often involves very young women and sometimes slavery. That is why liberals don't like it and conservative s think it is immoral so I don't see that being legal anytime soon.

IdahoRider
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:40 PM
Well, if gay marriages are allowed, why not polygamy?

Because marriage could be narrowly defined as the legal union between two consenting adults, with no mention of gender?
Sheilah

Eclectic Horseman
Apr. 2, 2013, 04:57 PM
Yes, that would not violate equal protection Sheilah. But if the court decided on the grounds of federalism, then some state could decide that polygamy is okay. And the federal government couldn't stop it. That's why precedent is so important and the court has to be really careful.

gr8fulrider
Apr. 2, 2013, 05:08 PM
Somebody threw out a ballpark figure of 100 to 200 billion dollars that could/would be spend if gay marriage would be allowed: all in just wedding expenses! Nothing to sneeze at and enough taxes to be had from that!

On top of the economic stimulus, net revenue increase:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-samesexmarriage.pdf