Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now you as a conservative view the government as a parent meddling in people's lives that don't know any better like children? Interesting. I know what you believe but when you try to justify your prejudice those beliefs fall by the wayside when it comes to suppressing something you don't agree with. Like I said, interesting.
Just a metaphor. Trying to point out that just because other people get something, doesn't always mean that you are automatically entitled to the same thing. There are many situations where this is true, not just in marriage arguments. The state can choose.
Quote:
I have another question that I would like to put to you that I would like an answer to. Since the SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right that everyone is entitled to, what state benefits of marriage would you like to see discontinued so that we can all have equality in marriage according to your standards?
I don't want to see any discontinued. I like the way the law is right now. As does the majority if the people in this state. As do the majority of the country for that matter. Gay people have the right to be married, they have the right to ask that their marriage be recognized. But they don't get to say they are a civil rights victim and pretend that they are being served an injustice, or pretend that the states owes them something just for being gay. There is no legal basis for it. If the state chooses to recognize gay marriage, that's the legal right of the state, but they aren't obligated to.
Quote:
You seem to not have a problem with gay couples having their relationships legally aknowledged but it's the state benefits going towards gay couples that you have a problem with. Fair enough. Since the SCOTUS is not going to send us back to the days of "White water fountains" and "Colored water fountains" ("seperate, but equal" is in fact not equal, hence discriminatory) with "straight marriage" and "gay marriage" or "same-sex civil unions" marriage would have to be defined at the federal level thus bringing it into the realm where it can't discriminate.
I just mean that if they can find a church to marry them, they have that right. They aren't "entitled" to any benefits, unless the state or fed chooses to give them. Personally I don't think gay relationships should be recognized in any forum. However the law isn't the way it is, because of my personal feelings, it's the way it is, because it's a system designed to reflect the majority. I just happen to be in that majority.
Quote:
Again, fair enough. You keep saying it's a states issue. So there would then be states that are dolling out benefits of a federal instiution but legislating to only give them to certain people based on gender (a federally protected class) and sexual orientation. It would be out right discrimination to say that gay couples who are allowed to get married can't recieve the benefits of marriage so it's obviously the benefits that need to go to make things fair in your mind.
So the question is which benefits of marriage are you willing to give up when people are no longer allowed to vote discrimination into legislation?
It just doesn't work that way. The federal government can't control state benefits. "Discrimination" isn't really as dirty of a word that people make it out to be. Yes there is a very bad side of discrimination, such as racial discrimination. But there is a good side too. To use discrimination in what you allow and recognize as being in the best interest in the state is perfectly normal and prudent behavior. You can't non-discriminatingly allow everything and anything in the law. That's a silly argument.
The fundamental lack of understanding in how the U.S. Constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, State Courts and State Legislatures interact is astounding to me.
And that statement is not based on the fact that I disagree with your conclusion. One can argue against whether gay marriage is good public policy all they want, and while i may attack their logic I wouldn't disagree with them from a procedural perspective. Public policy will ultimately be a major factor in any future court's decision.
However, to suggest the Supreme Court somehow should not, cannot, or will not make this decision is just absolutely asinine. And the fact that they haven't yet means nothing. They just now, in 2010, ruled that individuals indeed have an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. And that's an issue that is explicitly addressed (in part) in the Bill of Rights. The gay marriage issue is relatively new hat in terms of constitutional law, a few decades really. Do you honestly think they Supreme Court won't eventually rule on this issue??
And I'm tired of this argument that is being made that things not explicitly outlined in the Constitution are left purely to the states. Oh freaking god. To make a statement like that shows how clueless one truly is when it comes to Constitutional Law. YOUR heterosexual right to marry is NOT an explicit right. Neither is your right to privacy. Neither is your right to live where you choose and etc. Yet, those are all considered fundamental rights in the eyes of the federal government. How can that be? Oh, yeah, the Supreme Court SAID they were fundamental rights.
The Constitution is silent on many many issues but that does NOT mean that those rights do not spring forth under its implied authority. Have you ever read the constitution?? Its NOT a statute. Its not suppose to address every single issue explicitly. It provides a broad grant of authority, and the lines of that authority are interpreted by...wait for it...wait for it...the SUPREME COURT!
So, whether or not the right to marry includes a right to marry someone of the same sex is an issue ultimately left to the Supreme Court. As it is now, sure, the states are allowed to discriminate against gay couples. Just as states used to be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples. But that power to discriminate can be ripped aways instantaneously by either Federal Statute or a Supreme Court decision. And ultimately the Federal Statute is subservient to any Supreme Court decision. No one here is saying that the Supreme Court will absolutely rule for gay marriage. I think they ultimately will, but it'll probably be a 5-4 decision.
What i am saying is they absolutely have the ability to do so and eventually they will, even if not for 20 more years. I am also saying that your arguments about states' rights and how the states can do what they want are exactly the arguments southerners used during segregation. I AM NOT saying the two issues are the same - get that straight. I am saying the situations are analogous, so please don't come back with an argument telling me how the two are different. I understand that. My point is just as the Courts trimmed back the states' ability to discriminate on the racial front, the courts can just as easily trim back the right of states to discriminate on the homosexual marriage front. And to do so the Court need only hold that the fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry someone of the same sex. And no state or federal statute can change that meaning. And if you don't recognize that fact then you have your head buried in the sand.
And I'm tired of the "benefits" argument. States are free to give out benefits as they see fit. And, yes, they can discriminate in giving out those benefits when that discrimination is constitutionally sound! So, yes, for example, the state can limit the drinking age or the driver's license age, or contract age and etc. However, they can't, for example, give a benefit to whites and then not give a benefit to blacks unless the reason for that discrimination is constitutionally sound. And when dealing with a fundamental right the asymmetric distribution of a benefit will have to pass what's known as strict scrutiny. And in applying that test the court will ask if the state was able to accomplish its goal using a less restrictive method than the discriminating statute. Umm, well, what exactly is the purpose here? If they are allowing for marriage but NOT providing the benefits to marriage then what is there compelling state interest? There isn't one, not when discussing only the benefit aspect of the issue. In the end, your benefit argument is completely irrelevant. And whether the state can discriminate in the issuance of benefits will turn just as the issue of marriage turns. If not, then the southern states would have been allowed to allow interracial marriage but not give those couples the same rights as a white couple. Ludicrous proposition.
So, please, continue to rail on about how gay marriage is bad. I don't really care. But do so in an honest way. The display here simply shows that you have no flipping clue as to how your own government works.
Last edited by mattpoulsen; 07-06-2010 at 02:29 PM..
And why is it you won't notice Matt's first statement where he.... you know.... kicked your keister?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattpoulsen
The fundamental lack of understanding in how the U.S. Constitution, Congress, the Supreme Court, State Courts and State Legislatures interact is astounding to me.
And that statement is not based on the fact that I disagree with your conclusion. One can argue against whether gay marriage is good public policy all they want, and while i may attack their logic I wouldn't disagree with them from a procedural perspective. Public policy will ultimately be a major factor in any future court's decision.
However, to suggest the Supreme Court somehow should not, cannot, or will not make this decision is just absolutely asinine. And the fact that they haven't yet means nothing. They just now, in 2010, ruled that individuals indeed have an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. And that's an issue that is explicitly addressed (in part) in the Bill of Rights. The gay marriage issue is relatively new hat in terms of constitutional law, a few decades really. Do you honestly think they Supreme Court won't eventually rule on this issue??
And I'm tired of this argument that is being made that things not explicitly outlined in the Constitution are left purely to the states. Oh freaking god. To make a statement like that shows how clueless one truly is when it comes to Constitutional Law. YOUR heterosexual right to marry is NOT an explicit right. Neither is your right to privacy. Neither is your right to live where you choose and etc. Yet, those are all considered fundamental rights in the eyes of the federal government. How can that be? Oh, yeah, the Supreme Court SAID they were fundamental rights.
The Constitution is silent on many many issues but that does NOT mean that those rights do not spring forth under its implied authority. Have you ever read the constitution?? Its NOT a statute. Its not suppose to address every single issue explicitly. It provides a broad grant of authority, and the lines of that authority are interpreted by...wait for it...wait for it...the SUPREME COURT!
So, whether or not the right to marry includes a right to marry someone of the same sex is an issue ultimately left to the Supreme Court. As it is now, sure, the states are allowed to discriminate against gay couples. Just as states used to be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples. But that power to discriminate can be ripped aways instantaneously by either Federal Statute or a Supreme Court decision. And ultimately the Federal Statute is subservient to any Supreme Court decision. No one here is saying that the Supreme Court will absolutely rule for gay marriage. I think they ultimately will, but it'll probably be a 5-4 decision.
What i am saying is they absolutely have the ability to do so and eventually they will, even if not for 20 more years. I am also saying that your arguments about states' rights and how the states can do what they want are exactly the arguments southerners used during segregation. I AM NOT saying the two issues are the same - get that straight. I am saying the situations are analogous, so please don't come back with an argument telling me how the two are different. I understand that. My point is just as the Courts trimmed back the states' ability to discriminate on the racial front, the courts can just as easily trim back the right of states to discriminate on the homosexual marriage front. And to do so the Court need only hold that the fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry someone of the same sex. And no state or federal statute can change that meaning. And if you don't recognize that fact then you have your head buried in the sand.
And I'm tired of the "benefits" argument. States are free to give out benefits as they see fit. And, yes, they can discriminate in giving out those benefits when that discrimination is constitutionally sound! So, yes, for example, the state can limit the drinking age or the driver's license age, or contract age and etc. However, they can't, for example, give a benefit to whites and then not give a benefit to blacks unless the reason for that discrimination is constitutionally sound. And when dealing with a fundamental right the asymmetric distribution of a benefit will have to pass what's known as strict scrutiny. And in applying that test the court will ask if the state was able to accomplish its goal using a less restrictive method than the discriminating statute. Umm, well, what exactly is the purpose here? If they are allowing for marriage but NOT providing the benefits to marriage then what is there compelling state interest? There isn't one, not when discussing only the benefit aspect of the issue. In the end, your benefit argument is completely irrelevant. And whether the state can discriminate in the issuance of benefits will turn just as the issue of marriage turns. If not, then the southern states would have been allowed to allow interracial marriage but not give those couples the same rights as a white couple. Ludicrous proposition.
So, please, continue to rail on about how gay marriage is bad. I don't really care. But do so in an honest way. The display here simply shows that you have no flipping clue as to how your own government works.
Umm...ya...the judge does have to sometimes make up rules as he goes. We are a common law system with a Constitution!! Nearly every time a Constitutional matter gets in front of the Supreme Court and often the lower Federal Courts a new "rule" is being made. This is because our Constitution did not and could not contemplate all the various subsequent statutes, fact patterns, and regulations that would be implemented. So he has to sit back and analyze the statute (in this case DOMA) to see if it violates the Constitution.
In fact, he ruled on a ground that you and others have been claiming as the reason states should be able to ban marriage.
I have heard it over and over that its the states right to define marriage. All he did was say that DOMA was overstepping the federal authority in this matter and its the states choice to regulate marriage.
So it seems a bit disingenuous of you to now claim he's making up laws. He's freaking interpreting the Constitution in light of a federal statute. That is their job.
Note, however, that this is an issue separate from whether the fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry members of the same sex.
The current ruling is a states rights issue. However those states rights cannot infringed of individuals fundamental rights. Just in case you get confused and attempt to use this as a vehicle to conclude it means the Courts can't stop states from discriminating against gays. It doesn't mean that. That issue wasn't present.
So what exactly do you think the Judge's job is? Is he supposed to just look at DOMA read it and then apply that law?? Do you even understand the idea of separation of powers?? The judge was doing EXACTLY what he's suppose to do.
How would you feel if Congress instituted a statute requiring all states to provide gay marriage and then this judge came in and overruled it for the same reason?? My guess is then you wouldn't think he was "making up the rules as he goes."
And no I don't think every decision is correct. But that's irrelevant, just as I don't think the proper people are always elected. The point is judicial decisions are binding law, whether you like it or not. Moreover, the "benefit" issue addressed has been addressed over and over and over. You and pheaton simply don't understand constitutional law and as a result have created a red herring with that issue. There is no distinction in the eyes of the court.
Perhaps I should rephrase that. I will say no more to him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
