quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Equal protection under the law seems fairly cut & dry to me, joether.

If a law exists allowing the civil union of two people, the genders of those people cannot be used in order to disallow the rights of marriage.

That would be the argument using the 14th Amendment.

First Amendment arguments are also possible, with some believing that marriage is a sacred union creating a holy bond. In this case, Freedom of Religion as well as the Separation of Church & State come into play, and either the institution of marriage is outside the scope of government completely, or it is again available to all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

The entire system of justice in the US is fucked up, really. There is no set definition of the Constitution (it really is about what interpretation you can rationalize, regardless of intent of those that wrote it). That society's mores can change and change the Constitutionality of a law (without amending the Constitution), simply proves this. For instance, if DOMA isn't Constitutional now, it wasn't then, either. I've said before that my beef with the Obama Administration not upholding DOMA laws was that the Constitutionality of DOMA wouldn't be challenged as quickly, and we'd have to wait longer for it to be struck down by SCOTUS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Marriage, homo or hetero, is not a right.right. It's a privilege that carries with it, certain civil benefits.

Fwiw, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Loving v. Virginia:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The entire system of justice in the US is fucked up, really. There is no set definition of the Constitution (it really is about what interpretation you can rationalize, regardless of intent of those that wrote it). That society's mores can change and change the Constitutionality of a law (without amending the Constitution), simply proves this. For instance, if DOMA isn't Constitutional now, it wasn't then, either. I've said before that my beef with the Obama Administration not upholding DOMA laws was that the Constitutionality of DOMA wouldn't be challenged as quickly, and we'd have to wait longer for it to be struck down by SCOTUS.

For me, a society that has flexible responses to today's problems is far preferable to one whose responses are rigidly determined by ageing texts. It is fine to have a Constitution to set out the basic principles but how those principles are interpreted and applied should be up for periodic review reconsideration and reinterpretation.
A society that has rigid petrified approaches based on texts (often centuries old) is a fundamentalist society and I for one wouldn't want to live in any such place, regardless of the actual hue of that fundamentalism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The entire system of justice in the US is fucked up, really. There is no set definition of the Constitution (it really is about what interpretation you can rationalize, regardless of intent of those that wrote it). That society's mores can change and change the Constitutionality of a law (without amending the Constitution), simply proves this. For instance, if DOMA isn't Constitutional now, it wasn't then, either. I've said before that my beef with the Obama Administration not upholding DOMA laws was that the Constitutionality of DOMA wouldn't be challenged as quickly, and we'd have to wait longer for it to be struck down by SCOTUS.

For me, a society that has flexible responses to today's problems is far preferable to one whose responses are rigidly determined by ageing texts. It is fine to have a Constitution to set out the basic principles but how those principles are interpreted and applied should be up for periodic review reconsideration and reinterpretation.
A society that has rigid petrified approaches based on texts (often centuries old) is a fundamentalist society and I for one wouldn't want to live in any such place, regardless of the actual hue of that fundamentalism.

That's just it, tweaks; it's a timeless document. It's not a rigid and petrified text. And, there is even a way for us mere mortal US Citizens to change it, if needed.

You and I have a VERY different belief about the role of government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Marriage, homo or hetero, is not a right.right. It's a privilege that carries with it, certain civil benefits.

Fwiw, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Loving v. Virginia:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

You have to get permission (from government) to get married. It is not a right. Think about it. Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract between two people.

If it is a right, how can a church not be forced to perform a homosexual wedding? If they didn't, they'd be infringing on your right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech

People get so wrapped up in the emotional baggage attached to a word.

When you come right down to brass tacks; the government has nothing to do with a marriage but licenses domestic partnerships where a couple becomes one before the law. Many object to "gay marriage" because they consider a "marriage" to be a sacrament of the church and anything besides one woman and one man is anathema to their sect.

Non traditional domestic partnerships should be given legal credence in inheritance law, survivor-ship, insurance eligibility, and tax status as traditional partnerships. It is time to separate the secular licensing of domestic partnerships from the term "marriage".
The government should have no say whether you can "marry" or not. But, any partnership, business or domestic, requires filing documents under the law.

Domestic partnerships should have equal legal standing under law.
All marriages are domestic partnerships.
Not all domestic partnerships are marriages.

I'm stating a thesis. Please, no multi paragraph rants on how things work right now.. counter productive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Marriage, homo or hetero, is not a right.right. It's a privilege that carries with it, certain civil benefits.

Fwiw, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Loving v. Virginia:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541 (1942).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html

You have to get permission (from government) to get married. It is not a right. Think about it. Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract between two people.
If it is a right, how can a church not be forced to perform a homosexual wedding? If they didn't, they'd be infringing on your right.

Some rights can come with duties (many times one being over 18), this doesn't mean they are not rights, and by the way you don't ask permission to get married, pubblications are the first step of the civil process of the wedding that's not just the ceremony, once the conditions for the marriage to be valid are met you can't be refused marriage.

quote:

There is difference between the religious and the civil wedding, if there are no mutual agreement one is not recognized by the other, for what I understood in the usa for cultural reasons you don't make too much distinctions but in italy after the religious wedding you also have to sign the papers for the civil one, they are two different things, in other countries you have two ceremonies one in the church and one in the city hall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
People get so wrapped up in the emotional baggage attached to a word.
When you come right down to brass tacks; the government has nothing to do with a marriage but licenses domestic partnerships where a couple becomes one before the law. Many object to "gay marriage" because they consider a "marriage" to be a sacrament of the church and anything besides one woman and one man is anathema to their sect.
Non traditional domestic partnerships should be given legal credence in inheritance law, survivor-ship, insurance eligibility, and tax status as traditional partnerships. It is time to separate the secular licensing of domestic partnerships from the term "marriage".
The government should have no say whether you can "marry" or not. But, any partnership, business or domestic, requires filing documents under the law.
Domestic partnerships should have equal legal standing under law.
All marriages are domestic partnerships.
Not all domestic partnerships are marriages.
I'm stating a thesis. Please, no multi paragraph rants on how things work right now.. counter productive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
You are basically saying that interfaith couples or not religious persons will not be able to marry, they also have an emtional attachment to that word and I don't think it's right to deny them the stauts they desire and was their right to obtain just to not piss off some zelots, you would do more harm than good with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MercTech
People get so wrapped up in the emotional baggage attached to a word.
When you come right down to brass tacks; the government has nothing to do with a marriage but licenses domestic partnerships where a couple becomes one before the law. Many object to "gay marriage" because they consider a "marriage" to be a sacrament of the church and anything besides one woman and one man is anathema to their sect.
Non traditional domestic partnerships should be given legal credence in inheritance law, survivor-ship, insurance eligibility, and tax status as traditional partnerships. It is time to separate the secular licensing of domestic partnerships from the term "marriage".
The government should have no say whether you can "marry" or not. But, any partnership, business or domestic, requires filing documents under the law.
Domestic partnerships should have equal legal standing under law.
All marriages are domestic partnerships.
Not all domestic partnerships are marriages.
I'm stating a thesis. Please, no multi paragraph rants on how things work right now.. counter productive.

Other than your using the phrase "domestic partnership" and my using the phrase "civil union," we completely agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


Interesting. What do you mean by "if there is no mutual agreement one is not recognized by the other?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
You are basically saying that interfaith couples or not religious persons will not be able to marry, they also have an emtional attachment to that word and I don't think it's right to deny them the stauts they desire and was their right to obtain just to not piss off some zelots, you would do more harm than good with that.

There are a few privileges associated with organized religion that interfaith and non-religious couples are not able to receive. For example, some religions prohibit marrying outside of the religion. If a member of that religion does marry outside of it, it is not recognized as a marriage by their church.

quote:



The problem lies in the fact that, as in the above example, marriages are recognized by the government, even if they are not recognized by the church. That same couple would have all the legal benefits afforded to any other married couple, regardless of their religion's failure to acknowledge their union.

So the government chooses to ignore the religious stance in the above case. But used religion as the basis for denying marriage to homosexuals.

quote:



If the government had stuck to civil unions, and not involved itself in the regulation of the religious aspect of the unions, then I agree that civil unions would have been a viable solution.

But since the government does have its fingers in both the civil and religious aspects of marital unions, then it should make those unions available to all, and it should be called the same. The argument that 'marriage' should only be available to some, while civil unions are the only option for others, sounds to me kind of like 'separate but equal', and we all know how that turned out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) claims the recent Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare are the "very definition of tyranny."

The 2016 presidential candidate, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, convened a hearing Wednesday to investigate what he called "abuses" by the highest court in the land.

"If any of us believes in democracy, in the constitutional rule of law, then whether we agree or disagree with a policy ... we should be horrified at the notion that five unelected judges can seize authority from the American people," he said.

"We did not establish philosopher kings in this country," Cruz added, before calling for term limits on Supreme Court justices.

The Texas firebrand further laid into Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote who wrote the majority opinion in the gay marriage case and who also voted to spare the Affordable Care Act from a major challenge. The senator said that Kennedy's "pop psychology has no basis in the text and history of the Constitution."

Kennedy's June opinion making marriage equality the law of the land was criticized by conservatives and even some liberals -- the latter of whom took issue with his "muddled" and "unconvincing" logic, even as they praised the outcome.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the subcommittee's ranking member, said he was "surprised" that Republicans were upset with what has been, on the whole, a conservative-leaning court. He noted that liberals disagreed with other Supreme Court decisions, citing rulings on campaign finance and voting rights.

After opening statements from several legal experts, Cruz asked one witness, Chapman University law professor John C. Easterman, to elaborate on a proposal that would allow the states to rein in federal judicial power. Easterman, who serves as board chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group, said that states should have the ability to overrule the Supreme Court.

“I think the Constitution structure ought to give them a check, and the one that I propose is a simple majority of the states -- that would not be easy to accomplish on any issue because it would mean that only truly egregious threats to state sovereignty as a measure would rise to that level -- but a simple majority of the states ought to be able to override those kinds of decisions by the Supreme Court," he said.

What would constitute a "truly egregious" threat? Easterman did not say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ted-cruz-gay-marriage_55b00157e4b07af29d57677c?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

They get crazier every bloody day!!!

quote:

"If any of us believes in democracy, in the constitutional rule of law, then whether we agree or disagree with a policy ... we should be horrified at the notion that five unelected judges can seize authority from the American people," he said.

"We did not establish philosopher kings in this country," Cruz added, before calling for term limits on Supreme Court justices.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The entire system of justice in the US is fucked up, really. There is no set definition of the Constitution (it really is about what interpretation you can rationalize, regardless of intent of those that wrote it). That society's mores can change and change the Constitutionality of a law (without amending the Constitution), simply proves this. For instance, if DOMA isn't Constitutional now, it wasn't then, either. I've said before that my beef with the Obama Administration not upholding DOMA laws was that the Constitutionality of DOMA wouldn't be challenged as quickly, and we'd have to wait longer for it to be struck down by SCOTUS.

For me, a society that has flexible responses to today's problems is far preferable to one whose responses are rigidly determined by ageing texts. It is fine to have a Constitution to set out the basic principles but how those principles are interpreted and applied should be up for periodic review reconsideration and reinterpretation.
A society that has rigid petrified approaches based on texts (often centuries old) is a fundamentalist society and I for one wouldn't want to live in any such place, regardless of the actual hue of that fundamentalism.

That's just it, tweaks; it's a timeless document. It's not a rigid and petrified text. And, there is even a way for us mere mortal US Citizens to change it, if needed.

You and I have a VERY different belief about the role of government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
yes but those couples are probably not that religious and don't care about this, otherwise they would not even marry

quote:

I do not agree with that, simply in the past the concept of family and sexual orientation was different it's just times change and secular laws have to evolve, opposer were doing that because of their religious background but as citizens of a democracy they have a right to be involved in the discussion even if their motivations are wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

My only objection to gay marriage is the word marriage. I hate changing definitions, especially those that have been around for seemingly forever.