Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage

[Deicide]

you can't think of any other reason why people might want to get married?

Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.

[tonymctones]

Freebies/welfare always create an incentive. This is why there is so much illegal immigration south of the border, for were the benefits not there there would be a massive reduction in motivation to cross the border. Get rid of the incentive and the problem automatically decreases. Simple as. Same issue with immigration in Europe. These are just examples. Marriage (gay or staight) is no different.

true but there are alot of other incentives to get married, especially from a family standpoint or a raising a child standpoint I dont think the number of marriages would drop significantly if the government incentives where not there.

[Deicide]

true but there are alot of other incentives to get married, especially from a family standpoint or a raising a child standpoint I dont think the number of marriages would drop significantly if the government incentives where not there.

Good. Let them do it. Watch the numbers drop in droves. Believe me...

[Straw Man]

Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.

really?

[tonymctones]

Good. Let them do it. Watch the numbers drop in droves. Believe me...

I doubt it like i said there are still alot of incentives not tied to government in marriage...

[tonymctones]

Well, it isn't the only one but probably the driving force behind it, especially for gay people.

Not at all the driving force behind the vast majority of marriage is to provide a secure enviroment to successfully produce offspring not governmental welfare which is why taking that away wouldnt diminish the numbers as much as you think i believe anyway...

[Deicide]

Not at all the driving force behind the vast majority of marriage is to provide a secure enviroment to successfully produce offspring not governmental welfare which is why taking that away wouldnt diminish the numbers as much as you think i believe anyway...

Some religious people woudn't care but many other people would.

[tonymctones]

Some religious people woudn't care but many other people would.

would care about what?

[Deicide]

would care about what?

Loss of entitlements.

[tonymctones]

Loss of entitlements.

I think just about everybody would be upset about the loss of entitlements, religion would have nothing to do with it.

[MCWAY]

your own link say that it wasn't approved until June.

Why should the court delay a decision on a case before them just because a ballot measure might be on the ballot.  That wouldn't be fair to the plaintiffs and it would possibly project a bias regarding the ballot measure.

Because of the potential legal problems that can (and, in this case, DID) occur down the line. Much of this COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED by staying the ruling.

That's why I've maintained that this was the CA Court's (and AG Brown's) attempt to rig the election against Prop. 8

BTW - who cares.  It doesn't matter now anyway and it doesn't change the courts ruling in May of 2008

The May 2008 ruling is basically worthless, with a relatively few exceptions.

[Deicide]

Clearly the most important issue facing America today...

[MCWAY]

Clearly the most important issue facing America today...

No one made such a claim, genius. This may come as a shock to you. But, people can discuss MULTIPLE issues (hence the reason we have this particular forum).

[Deicide]

No one made such a claim, genius. This may come as a shock to you. But, people can discuss MULTIPLE issues (hence the reason we have this particular forum).

I don't see anything trumping gay marriage in importance actually. I am glad you agree.

[drkaje]

Clearly the most important issue facing America today...

Apparently more important than the right to vote.

You're forgetting how many gays are on this site.

[Deicide]

Apparently more important than the right to vote.

You're forgetting how many gays are on this site.

And more important than the ruination of the US as we know it as well...

[timfogarty]

"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions.  I thought their cause was just."

"It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

- Ted Olson, uber-conservative, George W Bush's Solicitor General, argued Bush's case to the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore regarding Florida's ballots, wife was on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, that Ted Olson

[MCWAY]

"I personally think it is time that we as a nation get past distinguishing people on the basis of sexual orientation and that a grave injustice is being done to people by making these distinctions.  I thought their cause was just."

"It is our position in this case that Proposition 8, as upheld by the California Supreme Court, denies federal constitutional rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the constitution. The constitution protects individuals' basic rights that cannot be taken away by a vote. If the people of California had voted to ban interracial marriage, it would have been the responsibility of the courts to say that they cannot do that under the constitution. We believe that denying individuals in this category the right to lasting, loving relationships through marriage is a denial to them, on an impermissible basis, of the rights that the rest of us enjoy…I also personally believe that it is wrong for us to continue to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation."

- Ted Olson, uber-conservative, George W Bush's Solicitor General, argued Bush's case to the Supreme Court in Bush v Gore regarding Florida's ballots, wife was on the plane that was flown into the Pentagon, that Ted Olson

The problem with that is the precedence set by the case, Baker v. Nelson from the 1970s. Gay activists tried that same trick, fresh off the Loving v. Virginia ruling. But, that didn't float.


The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like the due process clause, is not offended by the state's classification of persons authorized to marry. There is no irrational or invidious discrimination. Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), upon which petitioners additionally rely, does not militate against this conclusion. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination. As Mr. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the court (388 U.S. 12, 87 S.Ct. 1824, 18 L.Ed.2d 1018):

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.

We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Affirmed.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm


The Minnesota court ruled that its marriage law DID NOT violate the Equal Protection clause or the Due process clause of the Constitution. The gay activists appealed to the US Supreme Court, which dismissed that appeal on its merits for lack of a substantial federal question.

When the US Supreme Court dimissses an appeal of a lower court ruling on its merits, it's basically saying that the lower court got it right and ruled almost exactly as it would have ruled. Thus, Baker.. is binding on all lower courts. It's been used as precedence to shoot down 21st-century gay activists' attempt to get other states to recognize gay "marriages" performed in Mass. and/or other states (i.e. Lockmeyer v. San Francisco, 2004 and Wilson v. Ake, 2005).




 

[timfogarty]

The problem with that is the precedence set by the case, Baker v. Nelson from the 1970s. Gay activists tried that same trick, fresh off the Loving v. Virginia ruling. But, that didn't float.

I agree the lawsuit doesn't have much of a chance.  The point of my posting was who's arguing for gay marriage.    More and more conservatives are coming around to our side.

[w8tlftr]

I agree the lawsuit doesn't have much of a chance.  The point of my posting was who's arguing for gay marriage.    More and more conservatives are coming around to our side.

That's because true conservatives believe in individual liberty vs. authoritarian government control.

[Deicide]

Most important issue in all politics.

Proof...look at the length of this thread...

[MCWAY]

Most important issue in all politics.

Proof...look at the length of this thread...

The thread's been around for over a year. OF COURSE, it's going to be long.

[BayGBM]

The thread's been around for over a year. OF COURSE, it's going to be long.

There are plenty of year-old threads that aren’t this long.  This thread is long because you bodybuilding fans are interested in the subject of gay marriage. 

[Straw Man]

Because of the potential legal problems that can (and, in this case, DID) occur down the line. Much of this COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED by staying the ruling.

That's why I've maintained that this was the CA Court's (and AG Brown's) attempt to rig the election against Prop. 8

The May 2008 ruling is basically worthless, with a relatively few exceptions.

paranoid much?

[MCWAY]

paranoid much?

Hardly!!!