Same sex marriage & cultural jousting at the Supreme Court.

[fontana]

Here is the opinion handed down by the Supreme Court regarding Same-Sex Marriage in the United States:

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/06/29-obergefell-same-sex-marriage-lempert

Is this ruling in keeping with the constitutional principles of the United States?

What impact do you see this having on our society?

[fungfung]

Is this ruling in keeping with the constitutional principles of the United States?

It's equality under the law, so absolutely yes.

What impact do you see this having on our society?

More people will have the legal option to get married. That will probably mean more people getting married, but not necessarily so. The option hasn't gained a whole lot of interest among younger generations for several reasons, economics being high on the list. Informal and temporary partnerships seem to be more favored, but that might change as the generations age.

I don't think that we'll see any change in the divorce rate, as expressed by a percentage. It might rise but along the lines of a trend that's been going on anyway.

Businesses involved in putting on marriage ceremonies should see a rise in activity as demand increases. Some will opt out, as has been seen before, but I suppose most will want the added income.

Religions might change, probably not very quickly.

It'll be interesting to see how employers react. I expect that some will use sneaky discrimination to not hire people in same-sex marriages, similar to how ageism and racism are done. Other employers will likely see the commitment as a positive sign of maturity and reliability. Big employers, especially those in forward-tech fields, will likely not care one way or another. Just do the work, eh?

Politically, I expect lots of whining and maybe some violence from the crazy fringes.

[abasin]

Is this ruling in keeping with the constitutional principles of the United States?

This is kind of a no-brainier, it is basically identical to Loving vs Virginia, and no one today really thinks that was a bad decision either- however- we had the same yelping from the right wing then as well. Same claim that the blacks were going for your daughters etc.

What impact do you see this having on our society?

Well, might hurt my states economy with it's near lock on same sex wedding ceremonies and that is about it.

[Gijina]

Is this ruling in keeping with the constitutional principles of the United States?

I do not think so. Though lacking consistent constitutional principles the opinion and dissents do continue the Supreme Court practice of a political representation purpose of the court with the predominating morals of the majority being presented as the meaning of the Constitution.

What impact do you see this having on our society?

It has a bad effect upon society as it further cements the Constitution as an unprincipled document without a purpose to protect rights nor limit government to prevent the government from exceeding its Constitutional purpose and trample upon those rights.

[Ilirix]

Is this ruling in keeping with the constitutional principles of the United States?

No, it's a distortion of those principles as a way of entering new legal territory. I've said this plenty of times in the past, and it's still true: the Constitution mandates that people be treated equally. It does not mandate that preferences be treated equally. The Court has created a very novel, and in my view, dangerous innovation in constitutional jurisprudence.

What impact do you see this having on our society?

Well, continuing on my thought above, it means that the courts are going to have all kinds of new avenues for micromanaging our laws. Since there isn't a single law on the books that suits everyone's preferences equally, all are going to be suspect, and it will therefore depend, more than ever before, on the ideological whims of the adjudicator which ones stay and which ones go.

[Riniojet]

Is this ruling in keeping with the constitutional principles of the United States?

No, it's a distortion of those principles as a way of entering new legal territory. I've said this plenty of times in the past, and it's still true: the Constitution mandates that people be treated equally. It does not mandate that preferences be treated equally. The Court has created a very novel, and in my view, dangerous innovation in constitutional jurisprudence.

I'm guessing that what you mean by "preferences" is that you think homosexuality is a choice. Am I right?

[Ilirix]

I'm guessing that what you mean by "preferences" is that you think homosexuality is a choice. Am I right?

I didn't say that. Do you choose your preferences? Or when something appeals to you is it a mostly involuntary reaction?

Now your actions are a choice, of course.

[Riniojet]

I'm guessing that what you mean by "preferences" is that you think homosexuality is a choice. Am I right?

I didn't say that. Do you choose your preferences? Or when something appeals to you is it a mostly involuntary reaction?

Now your actions are a choice, of course.

My personal preference is women. I choose to act on that preference, including getting married.

Now - why don't you draw the distinction between that and your argument against homosexual marriage.

[Ilirix]

My personal preference is women.

So I take it you agree that "preference" is not the same as "choice"? Then I guess we are on the same page after all.

Now - why don't you draw the distinction between that and your argument against homosexual marriage.

My argument was against the Court inventing new legal concepts not found in the Constitution.

[Riniojet]

My personal preference is women.

So I take it you agree that "preference" is not the same as "choice"? Then I guess we are on the same page after all.

No, I'm just debating you on your home court. I find your use of the distinction a rationalization that (you believe) allows you to hold homosexuals to a different standard, guilt-free.

Now - why don't you draw the distinction between that and your argument against homosexual marriage.

My argument was against the Court inventing new legal concepts not found in the Constitution.

The Court develops new legal concepts all the time. The Constitution, as written, doesn't come close to covering everything that needs covering without some pretty expansive interpretation.

I think your real problem with this decision is that a few days ago, your preference was the law, and now it's not. You were just fine when the law drew a distinction - based purely in morality and religion - between two otherwise identical individuals.

We used to legally discriminate against blacks, and we used to legally discriminate against women. Looking back, the mistakes are obvious. Don't you see the same kind of mistake here?

[noone000]

I think it should be free in whole world. But I don't think that's possible especially in East societies.

[Ilirix]

I find your use of the distinction a rationalization that (you believe) allows you to hold homosexuals to a different standard, guilt-free.

No, prior to the ruling all states were holding everyone to the same standard. It's just that that standard wasn't equally in line with everyone's preferences.

I think your real problem with this decision is that a few days ago, your preference was the law, and now it's not.

I could just as easily say that the reason you like this ruling is that it suits your policy preference, whereas it wasn't being suited two days ago. And I'd be backing it up with exactly as much evidence as you've provided.

The Court develops new legal concepts all the time. The Constitution, as written, doesn't come close to covering everything that needs covering without some pretty expansive interpretation.

There's such a thing as misinterpretation also. Concepts that the courts elaborate have to have a basis in the Constitution. This one does not.

We used to legally discriminate against blacks, and we used to legally discriminate against women. Looking back, the mistakes are obvious. Don't you see the same kind of mistake here?

No, for reasons I explained. Those earlier laws treated people differently. As I've pointed out, the Court struck down this law because it doesn't accomodate preferences equally. Non-constitutional and dangerous precedent.

[Riniojet]

The Court develops new legal concepts all the time. The Constitution, as written, doesn't come close to covering everything that needs covering without some pretty expansive interpretation.


There's such a thing as misinterpretation also. Concepts that the courts elaborate have to have a basis in the Constitution. This one does not.

The Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting it?

We used to legally discriminate against blacks, and we used to legally discriminate against women. Looking back, the mistakes are obvious. Don't you see the same kind of mistake here?


No, for reasons I explained. Those earlier laws treated people differently. As I've pointed out, the Court struck down this law because it doesn't accomodate preferences equally. Non-constitutional and dangerous precedent.

You haven't given any reasons. You are just leaning your argument on the whole "preference" line of baloney.

What distinction are you drawing between homosexuals and heterosexuals that allows one the right to a marriage contract, but not the other? Spell it out, please.

[Daewoo]

Would a rational person ever choose marry a person they didn't prefer? One could argue the "business" relationship or marriage of convenience, but these are more the exception than the rule. It is specious to argue that the choice of who we marry and the person we prefer to marry are separate things. The right to marry involves the right to choose and, it should always be difficult for the government to interfere with that choice. Do you believe that notion is not supported by constitutional principles? Should the government be able to restrict marriage between brown-haired people - meaning that brown-haired people can't marry one another?

[bleddy]

My personal preference is women.

So, you would have sex with men, but you are more sexually attracted to women?

[Riniojet]

Would a rational person ever choose marry a person they didn't prefer? One could argue the "business" relationship or marriage of convenience, but these are more the exception than the rule. It is specious to argue that the choice of who we marry and the person we prefer to marry are separate things. The right to marry involves the right to choose and, it should always be difficult for the government to interfere with that choice. Do you believe that notion is not supported by constitutional principles? Should the government be able to restrict marriage between brown-haired people - meaning that brown-haired people can't marry one another?

My personal preference is women.

So, you would have sex with men, but you are more sexually attracted to women?

If it was a matter of life and death, but otherwise, no, of course not. The whole choice argument is ridiculous.

If one is so inclined, you can make a legal argument to support either side of most issues, including this one. Some are reasonable, and some are real stretches, but we ultimately find the argument that we want to find. The idea of homosexuality gives some people the Herbie-jeebies, and those people naturally find what they are looking for in Black stone's argument, or in the freedom of religion angle. But that's all it is, some justification for discriminating against homosexuals that they think gets them off the moral hook.

[steve.reimer]

If it was a matter of life and death, but otherwise, no, of course not. The whole choice argument is ridiculous.

If one is so inclined, you can make a legal argument to support either side of most issues, including this one. Some are reasonable, and some are real stretches, but we ultimately find the argument that we want to find. The idea of homosexuality gives some people the Herbie-jeebies, and those people naturally find what they are looking for in Black stone's argument, or in the freedom of religion angle. But that's all it is, some justification for discriminating against homosexuals that they think gets them off the moral hook.

The hook isn't so much moral as rational, the ratio between those permitted to do something and those who are not permitted to do the same thing.

If some are permitted to discriminate against homosexuals based on religious beliefs, then can homosexuals discriminate against people with said religious beliefs? Equal discrimination under the law. It's foolish but makes a balanced ratio.

If all people are permitted to marry but some don't like some people getting married, is it rational to disallow all marriages? That's both foolish and irrational, yet the idea has been brought forth.

The only smart and rational thing is to allow all people to get married, given the same restrictions such as age and number of participants. Equality under the law.

Meanwhile, religious institutions shouldn't be forced to accept same-sex marriage. There's no legal reason to do so, and since secular venues are readily available, there's no logical reason either. People who don't want to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies shouldn't be forced to do so either, no matter what the reason. Granting marriage licenses is a different matter, since denying the license on religious grounds directly breaks the law. However, taking the job was a free choice to begin with, so better find one that doesn't require you to go against your religion. Which of course was also your free choice.

Seems that it's common for people who have made their free choices to attempt imposing these choices upon others. Irrational but quite human. That's why we have courts to figure out when people have gone too far.

[Ilirix]

The Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting it?

If you're going to take that attitude then what's the point of having this debate at all?

You haven't given any reasons. You are just leaning your argument on the whole "preference" line of baloney.

The fact that you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean I haven't given any. And just calling it "baloney" doesn't even come close to constituting a counterargument.

The Constitution simply does not require that preferences (or desires or whatever equivalent term you want to use) be treated equally. It's just not there, either in the text of the document, the history behind it, or judicial precedents that have been established up till now. You're free to try to come up with any evidence to the contrary.

What distinction are you drawing between homosexuals and heterosexuals that allows one the right to a marriage contract, but not the other? Spell it out, please.

Maybe if you can post where I said that, I can address it. But I'll just point out to you that if a state wanted to legislate that only same-sex unions would be recognized as "marriage", that wouldn't be discrimination against heterosexuals either, for the exact same reasons I mentioned.

[Riniojet]

The Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting it?

If you're going to take that attitude then what's the point of having this debate at all?

It's not an attitude at all. It's the truth. There is no entity that overrules the Supreme Court on these matters, and it certainly isn't your call (or mine) as to whether they got this one "right." They made their judgment, and unless and until they change that judgment, it will stand.

You haven't given any reasons. You are just leaning your argument on the whole "preference" line of baloney.

The fact that you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean I haven't given any. And just calling it "baloney" doesn't even come close to constituting a counterargument.

The Constitution simply does not require that preferences (or desires or whatever equivalent term you want to use) be treated equally. It's just not there, either in the text of the document, the history behind it, or judicial precedents that have been established up till now. You're free to try to come up with any evidence to the contrary.

Instead, why don't you come up with the precedent that frames a similar issue in terms of "preferences"? It's been a while since I had my nose in a law textbook, but I can't recall the "preference" argument at all. I do remember protected groups, though, which I think fits this case very well. It was only a matter of time before homosexuality was recognized.

What distinction are you drawing between homosexuals and heterosexuals that allows one the right to a marriage contract, but not the other? Spell it out, please.

Maybe if you can post where I said that, I can address it. But I'll just point out to you that if a state wanted to legislate that only same-sex unions would be recognized as "marriage", that wouldn't be discrimination against heterosexuals either, for the exact same reasons I mentioned.

Such a law falls heavier on a certain group, and it serves no useful purpose. There is nothing terribly novel about this decision at all.

Your argument is, as Entspeak said very well, specious. From the decision, "The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." A number of years back (but within my lifetime), if your "preference" as a white man was to marry a black woman, you were out of luck in many states. You could always "choose" to marry a white woman and stay within the law, but your right to your personal choice has already been well established. Plus, we all know that's flat-out discrimination, and 48 years later, it's incredibly easy to spot.

[engwell]

The country can overrule the Court - via amendment of the Constitution, but with the change in attitude in this country, the possibility of that happening is slim to none.