Gay rights

Rich said:

Not we. 9 Supreme Court Justices. Whatever THEY say is a right, is a right. And Kennedy almost said exactly that.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Just to be a bit more precise, the question of what is or what isn't a "right" or "fundamental right" really isn't the right one, because that can get into all sorts of philosophical/religious stuff.

The key question is who decides what is a constitutionally enforceable "right", and on what basis they should decide that. And on that count, you nailed it. A majority of Justices (and you're right -- Kennedy was pretty blatant about it -- believe that they are the ones who should decide that. Not voters, states, or Congress, despite the express Constitutionally prescribed process for Amendment.

The viewpoint that the Supreme Court should take that responsibility for themselves is often supported by the demonstrably false claim that the Court has to be the one to decide which rights are Constitutionally protected, because majorities will never do so on their own.
That's the point that Cavatt made earlier.

Of course, our own history disproves that repeatedly. Not only does the Constitution itself deliberately protect the rights of minorities (after all, majorities need not worry about having their religion or speech suppressed legislatively), but a majority also supported every one of our amendments, as well as the anti-discrimination statutes that exist in every single state in the Union.

Just because majorities don't protected every right every minority believes should be protected does not invalidate the evidence that majorities very often do expressly protect minority rights.

The Oi said:

Sorry. For the sake of comedy, I made the grave mistake of generalizing against white people like myself.

I should have pointed out that there's a lot of ignorant blacks that wish to restrict the rights of gays of all colors based on their reading of religious texts, and probably more likely...due to their own sexual insecurities or lack of exposure to well-adjusted homosexuals.

It's kinda funny how those blacks seem to forget how their grandparents and great-grandparents had their rights trampled on just a few decades ago.

Isn't it?

Click to expand...

Honestly, what is really sad to me is that the result of the decision is all some people seem to care about. The idea that unelected Justices can essentially amend the Constitution at will, and not even pretend to be simply "gap-filling" should offend those who care about our system of government.

Look, it's obvious that when the Constitution was written, they could not have foreseen every case to come before them. So, Courts have to "fill gaps" by handling those unexpected situations. That's reasonable.

But when the Court is issuing rulings that admittedly change what the Constitution was understood to be, as when you get a result like this one, then they're no longer interpreting the document. They're actually usurping the Amendment role that was reserved to the people, the states, and Congress. There is no question - none - that anyone involved in the ratification of the 14th Amendment would have believed that it mandated recognition of gay marriages. Anymore than they would have believed it outlawed abortions. Kennedy basically acknowledges that. His point is that "well, they were just wrong back then, and we've learned more so now we should get it right."

Which is fine and dandy as a matter of policy, but the idea that the Justices should be the ones to alter the accepted meaning of the Constitution, is completely fucked up.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Honestly, what is really sad to me is that the result of the decision is all some people seem to care about. The idea that unelected Justices can essentially amend the Constitution at will, and not even pretend to be simply "gap-filling" should offend those who care about our system of government.
.

Click to expand...

I see what you did there.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Honestly, what is really sad to me is that the result of the decision is all some people seem to care about. The idea that unelected Justices can essentially amend the Constitution at will, and not even pretend to be simply "gap-filling" should offend those who care about our system of government.

Look, it's obvious that when the Constitution was written, they could not have foreseen every case to come before them. So, Courts have to "fill gaps" by handling those unexpected situations. That's reasonable.

But when the Court is issuing rulings that admittedly change what the Constitution was understood to be, as when you get a result like this one, then they're no longer interpreting the document. They're actually usurping the Amendment role that was reserved to the people, the states, and Congress. There is no question - none - that anyone involved in the ratification of the 14th Amendment would have believed that it mandated recognition of gay marriages. Anymore than they would have believed it outlawed abortions. Kennedy basically acknowledges that. His point is that "well, they were just wrong back then, and we've learned more so now we should get it right."

Which is fine and dandy as a matter of policy, but the idea that the Justices should be the ones to alter the accepted meaning of the Constitution, is completely fucked up.

Click to expand...

What was the right way to give gays this right in your opinion?

I'm asking because I probably make you sad in that I've never really given that much of a shit about their rights to get married or their rights to have sex with each other, other than that I always felt that they should be allowed to do both without being interfered with.

The side effect of that is that I'm flat out not knowledgeable on the legalities of this.

To me it follows that it's a good thing that they're being allowed to, but I do recognize that it's possible this wasn't done the "right" way from a legal standpoint.

First page of this thread...

The Oi said:

What was the right way to give gays this right in your opinion?

Click to expand...

Either through 1) the legislative process in each , 2) the court process in each state to the extent the state constitution actually protected that right (very rare) or 3), if you want a national ruling, through a Constitutional Amendment. Any of those are fine.

I'm asking because I probably make you sad in that I've never really given that much of a shit about their rights to get married or their rights to have sex with each other, other than that I always felt that they should be allowed to do both without being interfered with.

Click to expand...

It's not an issue I really cared about one way or the other either.

To me it follows that it's a good thing that they're being allowed to, but I do recognize that it's possible this wasn't done the "right" way from a legal standpoint.

Click to expand...

It's more than a mere technicality, because nobody gives much of a shit about those anyway. But people should care about who decides whether our definition of what is a fundamental right should change -- the people, or unelected Justices.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Either through 1) the legislative process in each , 2) the court process in each state to the extent the state constitution actually protected that right (very rare) or 3), if you want a national ruling, through a Constitutional Amendment. Any of those are fine.



It's not an issue I really cared about one way or the other either.



It's more than a mere technicality, because nobody gives much of a shit about those anyway. But people should care about who decides whether our definition of what is a fundamental right should change -- the people, or unelected Justices.

Click to expand...

Everything he just said could be applied to Loving v Virginia and interracial marriage.

It's a double-standard.

Marriage is a right, we've always recognized it as such; now conservatives want to pretend as though it isn't because they don't want gays using that right.

If marriage is a fundamental right (which is exactly the right question), then neither the court nor the government discriminate on who can or cannot exercise that right.

I'm curious what they're gonna do with it. I'd like to see what the gay divorce rate is about 10 years from now. It's putrid with straight people.

The beliefs of those who don't want them getting married is irrelevant now (thankfully). But I wonder if gay marriages will prove to be more, less or about equal to straight ones in...statistical quality I guess?

It's hard to place a value on a marriage, because you can't calculate what makes a good couple on paper.

But if the divorce rate is outrageously high or incredibly low compared to straights, I wonder how the anti-gay rights crowd will react. I know they'll tell us they were right and removing their power was a mistake if it's high. But will they fess up if it's low or just spin?

The Oi said:

I wonder how the anti-gay rights crowd will react.

Click to expand...

Fuck these people.... They're bigots.

I'm tired of people treating "anti-gay rights" folks as though they have some level of standing or importance. This false equivalence has to stop.

It's time to call these people out for their discrimination and bigotry. LGBT people are people, they have one life to live just like the rest of us!

And frankly, I'm disgusted that anyone who would consider themselves a rational, intelligent human being would ever be against someone having the same rights as they do.

Frankly Jigo you hit the nail on the head upthread (people, regardless of race, want to discriminate against another group of people - it's fucked up and pathetic).

Have we ever figured out why only gay guys have that gay voice? What causes that?

I looked this up and wasn't satisfied with the answer in the first article I read, but the link below did pop up as suggested reading at the bottom of the article in the spam section:

http://www.medicaldaily.com/how-oft...ts-its-more-range-magic-339368?rel=most_read2

gourimoko said:

This false equivalence has to stop.

Click to expand...

The gay rights conversations over the last couple years have lead me to a few different conclusions, but one of them is this:

When people say, "Gays can do ________ but I shouldn't be forced to accept it," they're embarrassing themselves, but that statement makes it clear that they just don't realize that they're doing so.

The "accept" statements are so cringe-worthy. Like literally just that word alone unpacks how asinine religion can be in the wrong hands.

Saying that gays aren't protected through the 14th amendment is silly in my opinion because supposedly these "great legal minds didn't think of it". Well, basically until Aids came around gay people were not even viewed as a group. They had 0 political power, and were never mentioned in political speeches or anything else. Only sometimes did it come up when someone was prosecuted for fornication. While marginalized, African americans and other minorities were at least acknowledged to exist, gays were not.

Now that they are recognized as existing, it just follows automatically that they should be afforded the same protections as others. It isn't a small group either. most estimates around 10%. That is on par with larger minority ethnic groups. It's no stretch or reaching on the constitution. This is a group of people left out of specific wording because they were unrecognized as existing for so long. The judges didn't make anything up. They just included this group under the umbrella we were all under already.

That's 'merica!

Cavatt said:

Saying that gays aren't protected through the 14th amendment is silly in my opinion because supposedly these "great legal minds didn't think of it". Well, basically until Aids came around gay people were not even viewed as a group. They had 0 political power, and were never mentioned in political speeches or anything else. Only sometimes did it come up when someone was prosecuted for fornication. While marginalized, African americans and other minorities were at least acknowledged to exist, gays were not.

Now that they are recognized as existing, it just follows automatically that they should be afforded the same protections as others. It isn't a small group either. most estimates around 10%. That is on par with larger minority ethnic groups. It's no stretch or reaching on the constitution. This is a group of people left out of specific wording because they were unrecognized as existing for so long. The judges didn't make anything up. They just included this group under the umbrella we were all under already.

That's 'merica!

Click to expand...

Agreed..

Literally until very recently, people thought homosexuality was just deviant behavior. It wasn't until very very recently that the majority of the country actually came to understand that people were in fact born with their sexual orientation, it wasn't just them choosing to reject normality.

By these people being born into a class of people, that changes the dynamic. We can't pass laws that deliberately discriminate against specific classes of people.

So all this talk about Constitutionality seems to be getting thrown out of the window, simply to make an illogical argument to support the status quo of discrimination.

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

• Sen. Rand Paul @RandPaul
  

June 28, 2015


Carlos Barria—ReutersRepublican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul waits before addressing a legislative luncheon held as part of the "Road to Majority" conference in Washington on June 18, 2015.
Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.

While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.

Do consenting adults have a right to contract with other consenting adults? Supporters of the Supreme Court’s decision argue yes but they argue no when it comes to economic liberties, like contracts regarding wages.


It seems some rights are more equal than others.

Marriage, though a contract, is also more than just a simple contract.

I acknowledge the right to contract in all economic and personal spheres, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a danger that a government that involves itself in every nook and cranny of our lives won’t now enforce definitions that conflict with sincerely felt religious convictions of others.

Some have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling will now involve the police power of the state in churches, church schools, church hospitals.

This may well become the next step, and I for one will stand ready to resist any intrusion of government into the religious sphere.

Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.


Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.


Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.

So now, states such as Alabama are beginning to understand this as they begin to get out of the marriage licensing business altogether. Will others follow?

Thomas goes on to say:

To the extent that the Framers would have recognized a natural right to marriage that fell within the broader definition of liberty, it would not have included a right to governmental recognition and benefits. Instead, it would have included a right to engage in the very same activities that petitioners have been left free to engage in — making vows, holding religious ceremonies celebrating those vows, raising children, and otherwise enjoying the society of one’s spouse — without governmental interference.

The 14th Amendment does not command the government endorsement that is conveyed by the word “marriage.” State legislatures are entitled to express their preference for traditional marriage, so long as the equal rights of same-sex couples are protected.

So the questions now before us are: What are those rights? What does government convey along with marriage, and should it do so? Should the government care, or allocate any benefits based on marital status?

And can the government do its main job in the aftermath of this ruling — the protection of liberty, particularly religious liberty and free speech?

We shall see. I will fight to ensure it does both, along with taking part in a discussion on the role of government in our lives.

Perhaps it is time to be more careful what we ask government to do, and where we allow it to become part of our lives.

The Constitution was written by wise men who were raised up by God for that very purpose. There is a reason ours was the first where rights came from our creator and therefore could not be taken away by government. Government was instituted to protect them.

We have gotten away from that idea. Too far away. We must turn back. To protect our rights we must understand who granted them and who can help us restore them.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Either through 1) the legislative process in each , 2) the court process in each state to the extent the state constitution actually protected that right (very rare) or 3), if you want a national ruling, through a Constitutional Amendment. Any of those are fine.

Click to expand...

I'm interested in your opinion on this. Under what level of scrutiny do you believe homosexuals should be viewed for Equal Protection analysis?

After listening to the oral arguments, it became pretty clear that the only argument against gay marriage was that it changed the historical definition of marriage. The omission from that side of any discussion claiming that LGBT persons should not be subject to heightened scrutiny was pretty telling and I took it as a concession of the point especially in light of last year's decision on this subject.

But people should care about who decides whether our definition of what is a fundamental right should change -- the people, or unelected Justices.

Click to expand...

This is to Roberts, not you - what a bunch of eye rolling bullshit. Where was this deference to the people during Shelby County v. Holder or Citizens United? There he was all too happy to tell Congress to buzz off when it suited his politics. Further, the Court has already "changed" the definition of marriage in Kirchberg v. Feenstra. Does he suggest that decision was wrong and that we should let overwhelmingly male legislatures come to their senses that a marriage shouldn't be a relationship where the man is dominant over the woman?

Justices employ this defer to the people argument when they are on the wrong side of history and have no real argument in their favor. It is as transparent as can be.