Justices mum on whether to review same-sex marriage constitutionality

Papa bull said:

And the reason those arguments failed was because race was a suspect class for discrimination and because aside from race, interracial marriages were just like any other (e.g. one man and one woman joined together in marriage). Homosexual marriage is something quite different, but we'll see how it works out.

Click to expand...

There is nothing legally more different for two men or two women to get married as compared to a man and a woman than there is between two people of the same race getting married as compared to two people of different races getting married. Legal marriage is about establishing a legal kinship. There is nothing that a male spouse can do better for a female spouse than a female spouse can do for a female spouse, not that is required by law. And there is nothing that a female spouse can do better or at all for a male spouse than a male spouse could do for that male spouse, again, not that is required by laws.

roguenuke said:

There is nothing legally more different for two men or two women to get married as compared to a man and a woman than there is between two people of the same race getting married as compared to two people of different races getting married. Legal marriage is about establishing a legal kinship. There is nothing that a male spouse can do better for a female spouse than a female spouse can do for a female spouse, not that is required by law. And there is nothing that a female spouse can do better or at all for a male spouse than a male spouse could do for that male spouse, again, not that is required by laws.

Click to expand...

Marriage, from the government's perspective, is about money.

Samhain said:

But some restrictions are still ok, like underage, incest, plural, and multiple marriages, right?

Click to expand...

I don't agree with polygamy being illegal and for it to be legalized would be more of an admin issue (paperwork) more than anything else. The other restrictions are already there due to concent laws and psycological harm (incest). Multiple marriage would run most likely in contract violations since that is what marriage is.

Samhain said:

Marriage, from the government's perspective, is about money.

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's about establishing a legal family relationship. The government benefits (at least a little) from marriage, as do most married couples, but legal marriage is about establishing that legal relationship status of "spouse".

TheNextEra said:

I don't agree with polygamy being illegal and for it to be legalized would be more of an admin issue (paperwork) more than anything else. The other restrictions are already there due to concent laws and psycological harm (incest). Multiple marriage would run most likely in contract violations since that is what marriage is.

Click to expand...

The state has shown they have interest in regulating marriage, from the government's angle as the third party to the contract. As their "interest" continues to erode, I expect the rest of the restrictions to be dropped as well. While normal consent laws would cover intra-age marriage(lol), I doubt they would have standing to block two adult gay brothers from getting married.

Samhain said:

The state has shown they have interest in regulating marriage, from the government's angle as the third party to the contract. As their "interest" continues to erode, I expect the rest of the restrictions to be dropped as well. While normal consent laws would cover intra-age marriage(lol), I doubt they would have standing to block two adult gay brothers from getting married.

Click to expand...

And they may not, but that isn't here nor there at this time. What is here is there is no reason for two gay people to not be allowed to marry. We don't base laws on "what-if" games from whacky slippery slope people that are essentially throwing a temper tantrum that they can't get their way to ban two gay people from marrying.

And marriage has been "eroding" for decades due to STRAIGHT people and divorces.

roguenuke said:

No, it isn't. It's about establishing a legal family relationship. The government benefits (at least a little) from marriage, as do most married couples, but legal marriage is about establishing that legal relationship status of "spouse".

Click to expand...

Its about forming a legal contract with the state, which has nothing to do with marriage. The state requires a fee to create that contract, and a fee to dissolve it as well.

TheNextEra said:

And they may not, but that isn't here nor there at this time. What is here is there is no reason for two gay people to not be allowed to marry. We don't base laws on "what-if" games from whacky slippery slope people that are essentially throwing a temper tantrum that they can't get their way to ban two gay people from marrying.

And marriage has been "eroding" for decades due to STRAIGHT people and divorces.

Click to expand...

I didn't say marriage has been eroding. The state's list of "interests" in regulating marriage have been eroding, and they will eventually have no legal standing to regulate it.

Samhain said:

Its about forming a legal contract with the state, which has nothing to do with marriage. The state requires a fee to create that contract, and a fee to dissolve it as well.

Click to expand...

No. It's about state recognition of the legal relationship of spouse. That is the only thing that marriage does for absolutely everything. The state requires a fee to get a new birth certificate as well. That has to do with paperwork and the taking care of the costs that government incurs from filing and keeping track of your paperwork. Most divorce proceedings involve a judge and some state employees, which cost money. There is going to be paperwork, which costs money. There is going to be some checks that have to be made on the validity of the marriage, assets within the marriage, etc., which cost money. That is why it costs a fee. These fees have absolutely nothing to do with the actual marriage, the actual relationship.

Papa bull said:

Again, the reason it is false is because you added "of the same race".

Click to expand...

I did not add that, I was disagreeing with another poster who did.

Taylor said:

Well, no... because it was never defined that way. They were seeking to regulate marriage, not define what it means to be married.


Of course they did, or they wouldn't have written statutes invalidating these marriages. There would have been nothing to invalidate.

Click to expand...

You are still arguing semantics. The rest of us are arguing about actions and freedom. I'm not sure why you think the phraseology is so important. Interracial couples were not able to get legally married on the basis of their race. Currently, same ex couples are not able to get legally married on the basis of their gender. It doesn't matter whether you call it "defining marriage" or "banning marriage." If a state wants to define "arms" as "the two things attached to your shoulders," this still guts the 2nd amendment if this results in a gun ban. Nobody is going to be arguing "this doesn't limit your right to bear arms, it's just the state defining arms!

Since gender is a protected classification under the 14th amendment, albeit at a lower level of scurutiny, the measure is subject to challenge. The test is intermediate scrutiny, the state must demonstrate an "important state interest" that the measure in question is "substantially related" to furthering. Either this test is passed, or the measure is unconstitutional. And this same test does not apply to polygamy or pedophiles or bestiality, because none of those things are protected classifications.

Some argue that because SCOTUS has repeatedly defined marriage as a "fundamental right," this means the test of strict scrutiny applies. I'm not really convinced, and this logic makes any marriage-based distinction subject to strict scrutiny. And it seems excessive to me that things like tax brackets and license fees all be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.

Even if intermediate scrutiny doesn't apply, same sex marriage bans do not pass even the rational basis test. Absolutely no state interest is furthered by preventing a same sex couple from marrying. Merely being legislatively or democratically enacted does not pass this test, because if "it was enacted" passes constitutional scrutiny then it's not a test at all.

Samhain said:

I didn't say marriage has been eroding. The state's list of "interests" in regulating marriage have been eroding, and they will eventually have no legal standing to regulate it.

Click to expand...

What makes you say the interest is eroding?

Deuce said:

What makes you say the interest is eroding?

Click to expand...

Because the State doesn't have a successful argument to make to continue regulating marriage.

The SCOTUS wants to wait another generation for all the propaganda to sink in and the old guard who remember to die off some more.

Samhain said:

Because the State doesn't have a successful argument to make to continue regulating marriage.

Click to expand...

Sure they do. They just don't have a successful argument to make to continue denying marriage certificates on the basis of gender. There's still plenty of other interests.

clownboy said:

The SCOTUS wants to wait another generation for all the propaganda to sink in and the old guard who remember to die off some more.

Click to expand...

Right. Can't make any tough decisions, now. Wouldn't want the Supreme Court to be to quick about improving individual liberty before the public is sufficiently accepting of freedom!