• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

**BREAKING** U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage

tres borrachos said:
They need to step out. Of all of the people in this country who should not have a right to tell any citizen who he/she can or can't marry, it's our politicians.
Click to expand...

:agree: Anyone who is firstly madly in love with themselves probably doesn't have a clue about what someone else should or should not do!
 
Crovax said:
That isnt exactly correct, sexual orientation is not a protected class. The SCOTUS would have been ruling on whether or not it was a protected class had they taken up the case
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. In a lot of the cases, the bans did not even pass the lowest level of scrutiny for the Equal Protection Clause, Rational Basis review. The states were having a really hard time showing that their respective state bans were rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.
 
tres borrachos said:
The general welfare of this country wouldn't improve or diminish if I married someone else. The general welfare of this country is far greater than who we choose to marry, and it isn't something that our politicians need to be or should be involved in. They have enough to worry about and don't even manage what they're elected to do.

Marriage is a deeply personal issue and nobody's business but the 2 (or more) people who are looking to partner with other/others via a ceremony and a piece of paper.
Click to expand...

Gay people can already have a ceremony and live happily ever after, obviously there is something magical about the government sanctioning their marriage or they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it
 
rocket88 said:
The thing that SCOTUS needs to rule on is whether a state is bound to recognize legal marriages from another state. At which point, if you move what is the status of your marriage? Can you just change your official residence for a couple of months as a backdoor divorce? Why does a state get to say "we recognize this marriage from another state, but not this one" just because of sexuality.
Click to expand...


Question: "if you move what is the status of your marriage?"

You remain married because the license was issued and remains valid in the jurisdiction in which it was issued. The marriage remains valid, it's just that the new state doesn't recognize it. To end the marriage either a state court would have to issue a divorce (which would require the new state to recognize it as a marriage to begin with - a Catch 22) or it would have to be annulled in the original jurisdiction. Simply moving doesn't annul a Civil Marriage.​



Question: "Can you just change your official residence for a couple of months as a backdoor divorce?"

Moving (or returning to the new state) isn't a "divorce" or "annulment". The marriage remains valid, for example a couple from Mississippi go to Massachusetts and gets a legal marriage and then returns to Mississippi. Mississippi doesn't recognize the marriage but the couple still gets federal recognition and submits their tax forms as "Married Filing Jointly". If their Civil Marriage was annulled by simply setting foot in Mississippi, then they would have no Federal recognition.​


Question: "Why does a state get to say "we recognize this marriage from another state, but not this one" just because of sexuality."

At this point in time, because Article IV, Section 1 gives Congress the power to determine the "effect thereof" of public acts between the States. Congress did that in 1996 by passing the Defense of Marriage Act and in Section 2 stating that States are not required to recognize Civil Marriages from another states for same-sex couples. Now whether that provision is Constitutional or not is another question since it relies on the gender classification of the couple. However the SCOTUS has not had a case where they have ruled on Section 2, Windsor only impacted Section 3. Now if Congress had said that States were no required to recognize ANY Civil Marriage that conflicted with their own internal laws, then that would have been 100% Constitutional.​



>>>>
 
danarhea said:
It is my understanding that it was John Roberts who was the pivotal decider in this case. A lot of people have bashed Justice Roberts for many of his Libertarian stances, but unlike a lot of people who claim to be Libertarians, but are only Libertarian where it comes to things they like, John Roberts seems to be the real deal. If gay people want to marry, what business is it of any authoritarian government? When Bush picked Roberts, I was lambasted by many on the left for praising Bush for that pick. And now, Liberals can praise John Roberts too, although I bet I won't see that happen anytime in the next........ well, my lifetime. LOL.
Click to expand...

It takes 4 justices to take up a case. He could hardly have been the decider of not taking up a case.
 
Anthony60 said:
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
Click to expand...

The "feds" are the ones who decided these cases. SCOTUS is not overruling "the feds".
 
tres borrachos said:
They need to step out. Of all of the people in this country who should not have a right to tell any citizen who he/she can or can't marry, it's our politicians.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree.

My belief is that government's should be restricted by the constitution to make enabling legislation. Period.

But the other side of the coin demands intervention, society today will simply not allow a relationship of any kind between a child and an adult, let alone marriage. If we have social welfare programs, we need guard against abuse, such as fraud in welfare and old age security.

So, some, is necessary; in the US at least there appears to be too much and a lot of it on moral grounds. That for me is where all government's should be banned from treading; morals cannot and will not be legislated; too many politicians have far too much booze in their bellies when they vote for me to be comfortable with any morality based law.
 
tres borrachos said:
They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

So would you give up all the benefits you get from marriage? They are pretty significant.
 
I do not admire the SCOTUS for running away from this.

But if it makes same sex marriages easier to come by...good.
 
Crovax said:
That isnt exactly correct, sexual orientation is not a protected class. The SCOTUS would have been ruling on whether or not it was a protected class had they taken up the case
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. SCOTUS could have ruled for example that SSM bans discriminated on the bases of gender.
 
Crovax said:
Im not aware of anything that changed in the constitution between 1972 and now that would make difference in gay marriage. If you read the district courts rulings they are based on the 14th amendment and creating a new protected class. So you can cite those other factors but those arent what the judges are saying. What exactly has changed in the 14th amendment from 1972 to now?
Click to expand...


Now you are moving a goal post from "lack of a Federal question" (which was the basis of Baker in 1972) to saying "changed in the Constitution".


If you go and read the Circuit Court rulings in the matter of these cases (the 10th, 7th, and 4th's) and the District Court rulings you will not that most (I say most but I really think it's all) specifically addressed the applicability of Baker and note that given the change in the legal landscape (because multiple states recognize SSCM, because the Federal government took action in DOMA, and because the Federal government now recognizes legal SSCM's) that the conditions from the time of Baker don't apply.


You may disagree of course. The facts are that (a) the courts recognize the change in the legal landscape, and (b) the SCOTUS just basically signed off on that by rejecting the appeals which means they become the final ruling in those jurisdictions.



>>>>
 
Crovax said:
Just as the federal courts have no place ruling on gay marriage today, the 14th amendment said the same words in 1972 as it does today.
Click to expand...

It was not ruled on the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. It was a summary disposition made on federal-question jurisdiction.

And under court law when it comes to the rules of summary dispositions, "Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment."

I think that the repeal of sodomy laws and the recognition of same sex marriage on the state and federal level constitute "subsequent developments". What do you think?
 
Crovax said:
Despite the headline that isnt the case otherwise the part of DOMA that allowed states not to be able not to recognize gay marriages from other states would have struck down as well.
Click to expand...


Section 2 of DOMA was not a factor in the Windsor case as Windsor was only about the Federal government recognizing the legal marriage from Windsor's state of residence (New York).



>>>>
 
rocket88 said:
I wouldn't say that it's a victory in an odd-way. Leaving the lower court decisions in place means almost the same as if they had decided on it (in favor of SSM). In essence, by not hearing the cases they're essentially saying that the decisions were correct.
Click to expand...

"the odd way" is that SSM movement wanted the SCOTUS to hear the case(s) or a case to resolve this once and for all. The SCOTUS refused to take up any of these cases, which is a rejection of both the SSM movement AND the states that were appealing lower court decisions.

Though the action (or non-action, as the case may be) has acted to affirm lower court rulings, where such rulings exist, the SSM movement still has about 1/3 of the states where this issue is not resolved... and, is subject to the possibility that another circuit court actually rules in favor of a state, which would then mean the SCOTUS would have to take the matter up later.

The SSM movement was hoping for national clarity on the issue. They got something far less than that. A victory, and a big victory, but their battle continues. Call it a D-Day success for the SSM movement.... its not the end of the war, just a clarity that momentum is with them.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
Oh, I agree.

My belief is that government's should be restricted by the constitution to make enabling legislation. Period.

But the other side of the coin demands intervention, society today will simply not allow a relationship of any kind between a child and an adult, let alone marriage. If we have social welfare programs, we need guard against abuse, such as fraud in welfare and old age security.

So, some, is necessary; in the US at least there appears to be too much and a lot of it on moral grounds. That for me is where all government's should be banned from treading; morals cannot and will not be legislated; too many politicians have far too much booze in their bellies when they vote for me to be comfortable with any morality based law.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't a morality issue, to me anyway.
 
Crovax said:
Despite the headline that isnt the case otherwise the part of DOMA that allowed states not to be able not to recognize gay marriages from other states would have struck down as well.
Click to expand...

no, they *****footed around with the wording because there was no demonstration of individual damage. the implication was that when a case came through which demonstrated specific personal damage (i.e. financial damage, such as a partner dies and the remaining partner is out a lot of money that a similar heterosexual spouse would not have to pay,) that case would be heard, and the issue would be rectified. unfortunately, the SCOTUS punted. that really sucks.

i suppose the circuit courts are just going to have to toss out the bans one by one.
 
tres borrachos said:
I didn't get married for the benefits.
Click to expand...

Understood, nor am I trying to suggest you did. Sorry if that was not clear. The point was that there are a metric ****ton of benefits to marriage, and I don't think many people who are married would really like to give those benefits up. Alot of those benefits are in fact good ideas as well it should be pointed out.
 
Redress said:
Understood, nor am I trying to suggest you did. Sorry if that was not clear. The point was that there are a metric ****ton of benefits to marriage, and I don't think many people who are married would really like to give those benefits up. Alot of those benefits are in fact good ideas as well it should be pointed out.
Click to expand...

I got you, but you lost me. Who would have to give up benefits if SSM was legal in all 50 states?
 
Redress said:
Understood, nor am I trying to suggest you did. Sorry if that was not clear. The point was that there are a metric ****ton of benefits to marriage, and I don't think many people who are married would really like to give those benefits up. Alot of those benefits are in fact good ideas as well it should be pointed out.
Click to expand...

Well they're going to have to live with it then, or live without it. That's where this is headed. Why isn't it discrimination that an unmarried couple living together, or just any two folks living together don't have access to those same benefits?
 
tres borrachos said:
I got you, but you lost me. Who would have to give up benefits if SSM was legal in all 50 states?
Click to expand...

I was referring to where you said this:

tres borrachos said:
They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

I took that to mean that the government should not sanction or promote marriage. I apologize if I misunderstood. But if I did get it right, the way the government sanctions and promotes marriage is with the benefits to marriage.
 
clownboy said:
Well they're going to have to live with it then, or live without it. That's where this is headed. Why isn't it discrimination that an unmarried couple living together, or just any two folks living together don't have access to those same benefits?
Click to expand...

Because they can take the steps to get those benefits. They are not barred from doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom