If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Legally, gays are treated as second class citizens. They can't marry, in most states they can't recieve benefits with a spouse, and are overall treated with less legal regard. However, they can still run for office, and many have held public office.
Frankly, in a country where divorce is 50%, there is no sancticity of marriage, at least from a legal standpoint.
"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot
Discuss Gay Marriage from a LEGAL standpoint in the USA
However, originally, the federal constitution and bill of rights only protects the citizens from federal laws not legislation at the local and state level, unless you mention the rest of the argument which the illustration above is missing. That makes it an oversimplification which is very dangerous at times. So it's important to add the missing link
Technically, the bill of rights only applies to the federal government. The state governments did not have to legislate according to the federal bill of rights. And even the 5th amendment (Due process clause) is only there to protect the citizens from the federal government. Therefore, a strict and narrow interpretation of the constitution would allow states to infringe upon the 5 main 1st amendment freedoms. For example, Barron v. Baltimore ruled that the federal bill of rights can only be applied to the federal laws and not the state and local laws. Marriage is a state regulated entity (For the most part, I am aware of the Federal marriage amendment).
However, the 14th amendment (the second reconstruction amendment) tries to fix that by extending equal protection under the law to include the states (although the 5th technically does that for the feds). Under a broad interpretation of this law, one can find that the bill of rights at the federal level has been incorporated to include the states. That's the missing link. The illustration must include the incorporation process or at least the 14th amendment to be correct.
Even if there is precedent to rule for full incorporation of the bill of rights to the states (A series of cases from the 1890's on), there is reason to believe that the courts could deny incorporation and reverse their standing on the incorporation of any part of the bill of rights to the states. For example, they did just that in USA v. Cruikshank. In that case the court held the first and second amendments to the US constitiution did not apply to the states as well. So, while the argument is technically correct under the current precedent, that does not mean that it will be true forever or in the future. So the correct words would be "your argument is invalid now but may not be so in the future". So the illustration is a little misleading and the issue a little more complex than it's pretending it is.
Even if it does end up in the US Supreme court, there's not guarantee on the ruling. The perceived ruling is that it will be for gay marriage. But, again, because it's based on the precedent of a broad interpretation, the court could rule against that precedent. All I'm saying is that it's nowhere near as clear cut people think it is legally. Most people accept a much broader interpretation. The current court has surprised some by taking a narrower interpretation. In legal terms, the ruling could go either way.
Looking at the current justices, I can see Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas voting against because of their leanings towards originism and textualism. Kennedy could be a swing vote either way. With Ginsberg, Breyer, and Alito voting to uphold. Not much is known about Kagan or Sotomayor and where they tend to lean as of right now. To be honest, We'll have a lot more knowledge once we know the outcome of their interpretation of the traditionally broad commerce clause when it comes to Obamacare. That should generally tell us how broad of an interpretation the court generally upholds.
I agree with that^. In this state your allow to marry and I think I'll go by the Domino Effect therefor the rest will fallow.
Well I think there are 7 states now that allow it (or close to 7). The first state allowing it (pretty sure it was Mass) opened the door for others. But I dont think its a true domino effect. I mean what they do in liberal Massachusetts doesnt really concern conservatives in Nebraska. But sure it opened the door ... no doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkness_prevails
Even if it does end up in the US Supreme court, there's not guarantee on the ruling. The perceived ruling is that it will be for gay marriage. But, again, because it's based on the precedent of a broad interpretation, the court could rule against that precedent. All I'm saying is that it's nowhere near as clear cut people think it is legally. Most people accept a much broader interpretation. The current court has surprised some by taking a narrower interpretation. In legal terms, the ruling could go either way.
Looking at the current justices, I can see Scalia, Roberts, and Thomas voting against because of their leanings towards originism and textualism. Kennedy could be a swing vote either way. With Ginsberg, Breyer, and Alito voting to uphold. Not much is known about Kagan or Sotomayor and where they tend to lean as of right now. To be honest, We'll have a lot more knowledge once we know the outcome of their interpretation of the traditionally broad commerce clause when it comes to Obamacare. That should generally tell us how broad of an interpretation the court generally upholds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovemaster
Very true, I just meant it was important that it was going to the Supreme Court.
Ya I have no idea what the Supreme Court will rule. Or if there ruling will affect the whole country or just Cali. I mean of course it will ultimately affect the country, but how quickly it will affect it.
About my feelings, LEGALLY ... Like catch-22 said, in many ways gays are treated differently than straight married people. But that's bc as now, only straights can marry. Gays aren't treated any different than single steaights. So in that sense they arent missing out on their entitlements bc they can't get them legally. So giving gays those entitlements thru civil unions should appease gays. But it hasn't. They want more than entitlements. They want to get the words "marriage". Idk why? Who knows why? And I'm not smart enough to know if marriage is legally only allowed for a man and a woman. Obv it always has been. But how difficult would it be to change that? I have NO idea. I mean where does it say marriage has to be just for a man and woman? Consitution? Dictionary? Bill of rights? Idk. So legally idk. I sorta lean towards that marriage will have to be open to include gays. But personally I kinda hope we can just compromise on civil unions.
Today's Toppers
8Likes
Gay Marriage:
