This issue needs to be out to bed once and for all on a national level. It's exhausting.
How exactly does it affect you?
So instead you'd prefer the Federal Circuit courts do it in their stead? All right then. As long as the states aren't deciding for themselves I'm comfortable.
I'm comfortable that we're going with the constitution, rather than legislating popular prejudices. Whether the ruling comes from a circuit court or the supreme court, the reasoning and outcome are the same. The constitution doesn't permit this kind of discrimination.
There can be no compromise, either sexual orientation is a protected class or it isnt. This affects a lot more than just gay marriage.
I'm curious as to why opponents keep bringing up protected classes. It has never been a significant portion of any rulings on the subject. Sexual orientation needn't be a protected class in order for the fourteenth amendment to protect it.
I agree that government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, but they are. And as long as they are, this issue will not be settled through avoidance.
Having a functioning system of inheritance will be almost impossible without legally defined families.
They probably have real issues to pay attention to.
If it's not a real issue, why are conservatives devoting so much energy to fighting it?
Nope, it was about INTERRACIAL marriage. Ignoring that detail isn't helping your argument.
And the compelling reason to distinguish the two is...?
I am no Constitutional scholar, but if you see little difference, then you don't even have a basic understanding of the cases, the subjects, and the Constitution. Can't really put it any other way.
I am a constitutional scholar. There is no significant difference between the two. It seems to be you that misunderstands the issues at play here.
No, it doesn't, and to whom specifically do those unremunerated rights fall to? The STATES and the PEOPLE, not the federal.
That is a completely incorrect assertion about the ninth amendment. Governments don't have rights. People do. And it falls to federal and state governments to protect the rights of people. But the ninth amendment refers to rights protected by the federal constitution.
The tally is currently 41 wins and 2 losses. The losses were a state judge in Tennessee and a federal judge in Louisiana.
Plus both of those losses are facing appeals at levels below the supreme court. They are exceedingly unlikely to stand and won't require the supreme court to take up the issue.
Quick point, nobody is being told they can't get married. It isn't a fundamental right to change marriage to suit your own needs. That's the real issue.
Yeah, those gays are really oppressing you by trying to marry. Imagine what they'll change next!?
State courts don't really matter at this point because their on the bottom rung as I understand it.
The vast majority of state court rulings aren't appealed, because there are no grounds upon which to do so. When it comes to constitutional questions, that's not what will happen, but SSM is very much a constitutional issue.
In terms of the federal constitution state courts are the end of the chain for unremunerated rights. They decide if the issue comports or conflicts with the STATE constitution. They should not be allowed to consider precedence set by the federal courts in their decisions for obvious reasons.
You have made this up out of thin air.
Thanks for the softball. First, there is no pro-discrimination side in this. Second, all men can marry women, all women can marry men. No one has to, many don't. That covers everyone. And third, I really don't like when people decide to use the government, unconstitutionally, to force their desires on everyone else. That has to be stopped, it undermines our society. If SSM happens, it needs to happen within the rules that we have set up. You can't have an entire State vote on an issue, and then when you lose, get one person to flip it. What the Hell was the vote for???
This is within the rules we have set up. And there was no reason to put civil rights to a vote, since that's unconstitutional.
You can play games with my arguments as much as you like, it's not a response to them. They are still part of "any person", however, they are not a protected class and the 14th just does not apply here.
Again, all this bit about protected classes... There's a lot more to the 14th amendment than this. It's actually a relatively minor part of 14th amendment law.
Show me this fundamental right in the constitution please.
The ninth amendment specifically says that we have protected rights that are not enumerated. This argument is ALWAYS wrong. Please stop making it. It's wrong about abortion. It's wrong about gay rights. It's wrong every time you make it.
In a word yes. Is there a compelling reason - other than the "ick" factor - not to?
It would certainly complicate many areas of law. And of course there is the question of where we draw the line. How many people can a marriage have? At what point are we no longer talking about marriages and start talking about corporations? I don't th ink these are insurmountable problems, but there are actual legal problems with recognizing polygamy.
And just to be clear, just because they claim marriage a fundamental right does not mean that ssm is necessarily a fundamental right.
What it means is that every person (consenting adult) has the right to marry the person (consenting adult) they want, unless there's a compelling reason to stop them. This is just as true for same sex marriages as it is for opposite sex marriages.
Yes. Please see my #266. The federal government is out of the marriage definition business. Federal courts, another matter entirely, still have jurisdiction.
Circuit court judges are appointed by the president and approved by congress, the same as supreme court justices. How exactly is the latter part of the federal government and not the former?
The problem is that the links you post don't really back up the argument you're trying to make. SSM "bans" do not prevent individuals from marrying, they prevent the government from recognizing that union. You may call that parsing terms, but that's only because you fail to understand why that might be important from a legal standpoint.
What exactly is the difference? Whatever marriage you think same sex couples can have, it's a lesser form, which is unconstitutional. "Recognizing" as you put it, includes a thousand or so benefits and restrictions. This is just nonsense semantics you have here.
Not necessarily. If EVERYONE is allowed a heterosexual marriage then the law is being applied equally. What is new is the recognition of the idea of homosexual marriage. That is social and cultural evolution.
So if EVERYONE is allowed to marry a person of the same race then the law is being applied equally. That was nonsense in 1967 and it's nonsense now.