300 Republicans file amicus curiae in support of SSM (Christmas, school, elections)
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.
The simple reason is that throughout history, marriage (two party, three party, etc) was for the joining of property rights for the benefit of progeny.
I'm presuming the fact not all marriages result in progeny hasn't escaped you. Point being legally, that horse left the barn long ago.
The cases matter because of court precedence, using cases related to marriage and the 14th amendment as precedence is completely rational. There is not much difference between race and sex when it comes to how laws are made or deemed unconstitutional.
Loving was about the constitutionality of the race restriction in marriage laws.
The current case (to be heard on April 28th) is about the constitutionality of the sex restriction in marriage laws.
And yes this is being heard on 14th amendment grounds just like the Loving case. The 14th applies to ALL citizens not just black citizens or straight citizens. So, unless the state can show compelling state interest in denying marriage to people based on the sex of the people getting married, then it is unconstitutional.
But you completely ignore that current Court precedent (Baker v. Nelson hasn't been overruled) states that same sex marriage does not present a Federal question of law; and, note, I never claimed that Loving, which remains the precedent of the Court isn't relevant . . . rather, the cases upholding bans on interracial marriage (one of which you cited to) are irrelevant to this discussion. Taken together with other opinions that are current Court precedent (i.e. the Loving line of cases) and understanding the context in which those cases were handed down, its nonsensical to claim that the Loving line of cases stands for the position that marriage as an institution outside of the traditional understanding of marriage is a fundamental/civil right. Again, when you refer to those cases to discuss marriage, you have to discuss how marriage was defined and understood by the country/Court during that period. Same sex relationships did not fit within the definition of marriage (just as polygamous, incestuous, and relationships among people of certain ages did not fit within that definition and understanding). Your argument is novel, but not one supported by Court precedent.
Whether you think traditional marriage amendments should be subject to strict scrutiny as violations of the EPC does nothing to change the fact that Supreme Court precedent (specifically, Baker v. Nelson, which I mentioned was issued after Loving but helps to explain Loving's context nonetheless), does not currently support that position. Again, I don't see what's so controversial about that point.
Please re-read my post detailing the constitutional analysis applicable for sexual orientation:
Quote:
True, the amendment by its own words applies to more than racial minorities. But this is why we have a tiered standard of judicial review when applying the 14th Amendment/EPC. For the area that the amendment was explicitly passed to address and that its framers hoped would have the greatest impact (i.e. race/color/national origin-based classifications), there is strict scrutiny. For other areas, the standard of review is lower (either intermediate scrutiny or rationale basis scrutiny). This tiered structure is necessary to prevent the amendment from being used (via judicial overreach) to invalidate certain discriminatory practices that its framers had no intention of applying the amendment to.
As gays as a group were not the main target of the 14th Amendment/EPC, its a tough sell to argue that laws that discriminate against gays are subject to heightened scrutiny, something that the Court has refused to do. Thus, applying a rationale basis standard of review, I don't see how traditional marriage amendments violate the 14th Amendment/EPC. Indeed, promoting procreation in marriage (and all of the benefits that a stable household via marriage will provide children) is more than sufficient in my view. Whether gay couples raising children could provide the same benefit as heterosexual couples is irrelevant under rational basis review as the Court has stated multiple times that discriminatory laws under rational basis review may be either underinclusive or overinclusive in their coverage. True, the Supreme Court has decided that laws that target a group for animus do not survive even rationale basis review, but I find it hard to claim that marriage amendments, which merely codified in state constitutions what had been the law in those states since their founding, meet that definition.
At the end of the day, though, intent of the framers matters as well when interpreting the Constitution. And, for those of us who are originalists in reading the document, we challenge others to make a serious argument that the framers of this amendment, who were from a much more conservative and religious period in this country's history, thought they were providing the kind of legal protection to gay couples that would invalidate traditional marriage amendments.
Note, I write this as someone who agrees with your reasons for legalizing same sex marriage as a matter of public policy and I personally support it and wish that every state in the Union would legalize it (there are very "rational" reasons to do so in my view). The way I interpret the Constitution, however, does not lead me to the same conclusions as you and others in reading whether the 14th Amendment/EPC requires states to recognize same sex marriages. This is where we differ.
I next bring up the implications of the legal rationale for legalizing same sex marriage under the 14th Amendment/EPC to date. Based on the reasoning being put forward by the federal courts of appeal, etc., in striking down marriage amendments, I don't see how the state can ban polygamy under the law. Indeed, if marriage is a fundamental right (which means restrictions on marriage are subject to strict scrutiny) as many federal courts of appeal have held, then I don't see the "compelling" governmental interest in banning polygamy.
The same goes for bans on certain incestuous marriages. True, a compelling governmental interest could be the health and welfare of children that would be produced from incest (the increased risk of physical and intellectual birth defects, etc.). But, even here, the outright ban on incestuous marriage would not be narrowly tailored (the second part of the strict scrutiny/fundamental right analysis) to achieving that interest. Indeed, the governments' restrictions on incestuous marriages are only narrowly tailored to achieving the interest of reducing children born from such relationships if they apply to people who are capable of producing children. People who cannot bear children but are otherwise banned from marrying each other under incest laws (i.e. a sterile man married to a non-sterile woman or a woman who has gone through menopause married to a man, among other examples) must be allowed to marry if marriage is truly a fundamental right. Note, this doesn't even get into gay incestuous marriages, which are also banned under incest laws even in those states that allow same sex marriage; the case for banning gay incestuous relationships is even weaker under this "fundamental right" argument as gay couples cannot, by way of basic biology, produce offspring from sexual intercourse! It is insane to suggest that the framers of the 14th Amendment/EPC envisioned the document requiring the sanctioning of such relationships, but this is the natural conclusion/extension of the fundamental right analysis/rationale (incorrectly and broadly citing to Loving v. Virginia) being offered by many federal courts of appeal to strike down state marriage amendments.
Again, the fact that you believe, in the face of current precedent stating that same sex marriage doesn't present a Federal question of law, that restrictions on same sex marriage are subject to strict scrutiny in judicial review as restrictions on fundamental rights does nothing to change the fact that the current precedent of the Supreme Court holds the exact opposite.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 03-07-2015 at 05:42 PM..
Will are talking of Man's Law here. Are these on the right side of History?
These politicians have to come home sometime. This purely a political move and nothing else.
We will have to see.
Many of them are FORMER politicians. What kind of political motive is there for them to do anything?
Mans laws are what the laws of this country run on. There are no other laws that we need to be concerned with when it comes to the legal system that we all have to live by. If you choose to live by your imaginary friends rules that is all you, but do not try to force me to live by your personal religious laws.
But state determines the marriage law and it have never been a right. once California vote was loss they quickly filed in lower court with liberal appointed judges.. That is normal but supreme court will set the nationwide standard. They will either leave it to the states or make it federally controlled. Even then I doubt they make them a protected class.
The purpose of this thread was to highlight the significance of republicans signing on to support gay marriage. It's no surprise all these companies did the same.
Unfortunately my opinion as to why the republicans are doing this is cynical but at least they're doing it.
I believe the republican leadership wants marriage equality to be a non-issue in the 2016 campaign..they don't want to lose votes over it any longer (they can see the writing is on the wall and that Americans overwhelmingly support marriage equality. It's simple math really..it will be interesting to see what part of the party....my guess the tea party, will refuse to sign onto this new republican support of gay marriage. I'm hoping for the super conservative religious right wing to fight it tooth and nail and further divide the party, hopefully resulting in many more election losses down the road
Your guess of the Tea Party reveals your ignorance of conservative politics and casts doubt on your credibility for making any useful speculations. You obviously gain your information about what the Tea Party wants from listening to liberals instead of listening to the Tea Party itself. When you listen to someone's opponents to find out what that someone wants then you demonstrate a lack of value in facts.
You are clearly more interested in your own party winning elections than you are in the truth.
Just watch, in five years the Republicans will be claiming they were behind the move to legalize same-sex marriage!
You mean like how Democrats call Iraq "Bush's war" even though the resolution was passed with a Democrat majority?
Or how they claim that Bush wrecked the economy even though Democrats held majorities in both Houses and the changes to law that allowed the subprime lending were signed into law by Bill Clinton?
Or how the Democrats said that changing the Senate debate rules for federal judges would be damaging to the democratic fabric of the government while Bush was president, then made the same changes they argued against once Obama was in office?
Or how Obama said he'd veto any attempt to get around sequestration but then blamed Republicans for sequestration?
Or how Democrats ran an ad showing Republicans pushing grandma off a cliff but it was Democrats who opposed giving senior citizens prescription drug coverage in Medicare when Bush was president?
Or how Democrats claimed they had no knowledge of people with individual medical plans losing their insurance with Obamacare, but the congressional record shows them voting down legislation designed to ensure that people with individual medical plans would not lose their insurance?
Or how Obama claimed that he knew nothing about the problems at the VA before the news reports happened about veterans dying but then then video surfaced of him giving a speech years earlier acknowledging those very same problems and vowing to get to the bottom of them?
Or how Eric Holder told congress under oath that he had no knowledge of fast & furious before a memo was found discussing fast & furious with his name on it?
Is that the sort of thing that you want to bash Republicans for possibly doing 5 years from now while saying nothing at all about Democrats being proven to be doing it over and over and over again right now?
"On another issue slated to come before the court this term, 63% of Americans say that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry and have their marriages recognized by the law as valid. That's up from 49% in August 2010. Over that time, the share who see marriage as a constitutional right has climbed 15 points among Republicans to 42% and 19 points among Democrats to 75%.
The CNN/ORC International poll was conducted by telephone February 12-15, 2015, including interviews with 1,027 adult Americans. Results for all adults have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 points."
There are many more you will find with a simple Google search
I think abortion should be legal but I think it is an abhorrent thing.
See how that works.
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.
They have to come sometime to face the Voters
