Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied .. very surprised gay and lesbian isnt a protected class in 2013.
wow

It would have to be enacted as such. More legislation.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

strict or intermediate scrutiny should be applied .. very surprised gay and lesbian isnt a protected class in 2013.
wow

I agree. But, think about it, the Gay Rights movement is a relatively recent force in politics. Sure, they have been fighting since the 70's but is only in the last decade that they have acheived any real legislative success.

Again, the right - but hard - way to deal with this is in the policy making arena, not abdicating it to nine unelected individuals who are in no way accountable to the public. It's simple enough, amend the appropriate legislation to include gender preference as a type of protected class, either as an intermediate or suspect class. That way, the type of Constitutional scrutiny the Courts are to be apply is set forth by policy makers responsive to voters.

Again, this would require adherence to the Constitution's division of power, diffusion of soveriegnity and protection of an individual's rights and responsibility to decide governmental policy. Better just to say, "eh, constitution, smonstitution ... that's too much work" and abdicate our rights and responsibilities to a bunch of unelected jurists.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i wasn't talking about the ruling by the SC, or Roberts decision. i was quoting justice scalia

While the Alito filed a dissent in DOMA, he simply joined in Roberts' opinion in VRA. So not sure what you are "quoting" from Alito in regards to the VRA. Please provide a cite to your assertion that Alito stated:

Originally Posted by dmek25

he also said the we dont need the voting rights act. that was for when there was racism in the south. now a days the south is no more racist then me.

Further, Alito's dissent in DOMA is entirely consistent with the majority opinion in the VRA. Rather than using judicial authority to overturn legislative policy determinations without a sound constitutional basis for doing so (as the majority does in the DOMA ruling), he believes such policy decisions rightly belong before the legislative arm subject only to constitutional review by the judicial branch.

What Windsor and the United States seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right [the right to same-sex marriage] but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges.

...

Legislatures, however, have little choice but to decide between the two views. We have long made clear that neither the political branches of the Federal Government nor state governments are required to be neutral between competing visions of the good, provided that the vision of the good that they adopt is not countermanded by the Constitution. ... Accordingly, both Congress and the States are entitled to enact laws recognizing either of the two understandings of marriage. And given the size of government and the degree to which it now regulates daily life, it seems unlikely that either Congress or the States could maintain complete neutrality even if they tried assiduously to do so.

[NC_Skins]

[MTK]

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings - seattlepi.com

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Pa. gov: Gay marriage is like marriage of siblings - seattlepi.com

This explains the ignorance ....— Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett compared the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister during an appearance on a Friday morning TV news show, a remark that was quickly condemned by advocates involved in the state's ongoing battle over whether to allow gays to wed.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

This explains the ignorance ....— Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett compared the marriage of same-sex couples to the marriage of a brother and sister during an appearance on a Friday morning TV news show, a remark that was quickly condemned by advocates involved in the state's ongoing battle over whether to allow gays to wed.

Well if they love each other and want to get married isn't that the argument for people backing gay marriage? What is it for someone to tell them they cannot?

[JoeRedskin]

Well, let me ask you this ... if two adult siblings wish to enter into a contract of marriage with each other (I.e. a lifelong commitment of mutual support, cohabitation, sexual relations and the right to have/adopt children & raise them). What basis, if any, would you have to deny them the legal right to do so? Do you see anything wrong with such a union? Is the bottom line simply do what you want so long as you do not cause physical or emotional harm that manifests itself in an immediate and obvious manner?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, let me ask you this ... if two adult siblings wish to enter into a contract of marriage with each other (I.e. a lifelong commitment of mutual support, cohabitation, sexual relations and the right to have/adopt children & raise them). What basis, if any, would you have to deny them the legal right to do so? Do you see anything wrong with such a union? Is the bottom line simply do what you want so long as you do not cause physical or emotional harm that manifests itself in an immediate and obvious manner?

Is the chance of children with flippers a valid reason?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, let me ask you this ... if two adult siblings wish to enter into a contract of marriage with each other (I.e. a lifelong commitment of mutual support, cohabitation, sexual relations and the right to have/adopt children & raise them). What basis, if any, would you have to deny them the legal right to do so? Do you see anything wrong with such a union? Is the bottom line simply do what you want so long as you do not cause physical or emotional harm that manifests itself in an immediate and obvious manner?

incest = gay marriage?

really Joe?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

incest = gay marriage?

really Joe?

Did I say they were equivalent? I think it is very different. Just as many think that a homosexual marriage is very different from that of the historical definition of marriage. At the same time, however, I simply assert that the ability for any State to legally prohibit such a union is highly questionable in light of the SC's rationale for invalidating DOMA.

The legal basis for homosexual marriage is that we cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into the contract of marriage. Even if a legislative body properly enacts such a denial through the appropriate legal process, the denial of the right to marry between two consenting adults is an unconstitutional denial of their equal protection under the law and due process rights. How is such a contract between two consenting siblings any less a denial of the same?

Based on the DOMA ruling, incestous, polygamous and other contractual unions between consenting adults cannot rely on the "b/c the majority of us don't like it" or even, I would suggest, "b/c we think it unhealthy". One of the arguments for traditional marriage was the "health and well being" of the American family structure. In striking down the argument - rather than recognizes an overriding societal concern held by the majority as a legitimate and appropriate legislative goal - the Court said such arguments do not outweigh the right of consenting individuals to enter into contracts, and gain the benefits of such a contract, that are granted under a marriage contract.

To be clear (1) I do not oppose homosexual marriage; and (2) I think incestous marriages are in no way equivalent of homosexual marriages. I am only highlighting the effects of judicial activism in the DOMA ruling. IMHO,by removing the definition of "marriage" from the appropriate policy making body, the SC has created a situation in which, only through base hypocrisy, can it legally uphold a State's prohibition agains incestous marriages.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Did I say they were equivalent? I think it is very different. Just as many think that a homosexual marriage is very different from that of the historical definition of marriage. At the same time, however, I simply assert that the ability for any State to legally prohibit such a union is highly questionable in light of the SC's rationale for invalidating DOMA.

The legal basis for homosexual marriage is that we cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into the contract of marriage. Even if a legislative body properly enacts such a denial through the appropriate legal process, the denial of the right to marry between two consenting adults is an unconstitutional denial of their equal protection under the law and due process rights. How is such a contract between two consenting siblings any less a denial of the same?

Based on the DOMA ruling, incestous, polygamous and other contractual unions between consenting adults cannot rely on the "b/c the majority of us don't like it" or even, I would suggest, "b/c we think it unhealthy". One of the arguments for traditional marriage was the "health and well being" of the American family structure. In striking down the argument - rather than recognizes an overriding societal concern held by the majority as a legitimate and appropriate legislative goal - the Court said such arguments do not outweigh the right of consenting individuals to enter into contracts, and gain the benefits of such a contract, that are granted under a marriage contract.

To be clear (1) I do not oppose homosexual marriage; and (2) I think incestous marriages are in no way equivalent of homosexual marriages. I am only highlighting the effects of judicial activism in the DOMA ruling. IMHO,by removing the definition of "marriage" from the appropriate policy making body, the SC has created a situation in which, only through base hypocrisy, can it legally uphold a State's prohibition agains incestous marriages.

I understand what you're saying from the legal perspective.

It can just be unsettling when incest is mentioned along with gay marriage.

[mlmdub130]

Wow. It really does show you where we really are as a society when people compare homosexuality to incest. It's just too dumb to even really argue with. If your view is that narrow minded it is what it is, not much you can say to change that.

The lyrics from that Mackelmore song come to mind. "America the brave, still fears what we don't know"

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

Wow. It really does show you where we really are as a society when people compare homosexuality to incest. It's just too dumb to even really argue with. If your view is that narrow minded it is what it is, not much you can say to change that.

The lyrics from that Mackelmore song come to mind. "America the brave, still fears what we don't know"

Well first off I'm not against gay marriage. Just go back and see prior post. If two guys can fall in love why can't a sister and brother?

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well first off I'm not against gay marriage. Just go back and see prior post. If two guys can fall in love why can't a sister and brother?

Might wanna re-read my post, never said or insinuated that you were against gay marriage. I just that anyone who would compare homosexuality to incest is very narrow minded. Then you reply with the above statement and compare them. If you really can't tell the difference, I don't really know what to tell you.