Gay rights

[MalTalm]

I think the decision itself was horrible -- this is not an issue that should have been decided by the Supreme Court, but rather by voters in each state. All the flowery language in the Court's opinion just illustrates that the Court was acting as a policy-making legislature rather than a law-adjudicating court.

Kind of a funny contrast with yesterday's Obamacare decision. There, you had unambiguous language that said one thing, but the Court decided that the intent of those who drafted it should trump that language.

Yet here, even though nobody involved in the drafting/ratification of the 14th Amendment (and nobody for at least 100 years after that) intended it to force states to recognize gay marriage, their intent was completely ignored in favor of those 5 justices' preferred modern view of social policy.

Only consolation is that it's fun to see Robert's so outraged at the Court going beyond the text of the relevant legal authority.

The Supreme Court has been the most powerful branch (by far) in our government since the early 1800's. They've used legal interpretation to create an array of laws for this country, this is no different. In a sense, I agree with you in principle: The Supreme Court of today certainly isn't what was intended by the constitution, and the justices have rarely been shy about wielding that power given the chance. That said, when you have the political gridlock that prevents forward momentum on issues such as this despite a large national consensus, it's reassuring to see there's at least one way to crash through the bullshit and just get something done.

All in all, a good day for America, though it's unfortunate we needed to wait on the Court to bend their power to get it done rather than our representative government actually try and represent the American people.

 

[MRMsix6]

Better late than never?

In the future we're going to look back at these bans and think "Wow, what the hell?"

Not only are the bans highly discriminatory, they're largely rooted in religion. You don't have a right to vote away another person's right to marry through a democratic process. That's ridiculous.

And, even if you ignore the legality of the bans, what the hell does it matter to you that gay people have their marriage recognized in all states and don't have to jump through a bunch of bullshit hoops to get some pretty mundane benefits?

 

[Otsego Mar]

 

[Lee]

Better late than never?

In the future we're going to look back at these bans and think "Wow, what the hell?"

Not only are the bans highly discriminatory, they're largely rooted in religion. You don't have a right to vote away another person's right to marry through a democratic process. That's ridiculous.

And, even if you ignore the legality of the bans, what the hell does it matter to you that gay people have their marriage recognized in all states and don't have to jump through a bunch of bullshit hoops to get some pretty mundane benefits?

Not mundane really.

The next of kin to be allowed to make life/death decisions for the person you dedicated your life to when tragedy hits in the hospital. This one is huge, tax benefits don't really exist accept inheritance tax, health insurance all accepts partners, so really its about recognizing the persons life partner as the person who can make legal decisions for you when you are no longer capable.

 

[Huber.]

You don't have a right to vote away another person's right to marry through a democratic process. That's ridiculous.

What do you think could have happened today?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Absolutely. When has a minority gained rights through popular vote? Nothing springs to mind.

Then you need to get out more.

We're a representative republic not a direct democracy, so I'd agree that "popular votes" don't usually directly enact laws. Though I do know that Wisconsin recently approved gay marriages via referendum.

But elected bodies have recognized minority rights a shitload of times. How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, just for starters? Those were all laws passed by members of Congress elected by a majority of votes. And elected state legislatures also have voted to pass their own versions of those laws as well. All examples of the majority recognizing the rights of the minority. If none of those spring to mind, that's on you.

Or hell, how about the 13th Amendment itself, that ended slavery? Or the 14th? Or the 15th, that involved the majority granting to the minority the right to vote, even though the net effect of that was to dilute the votes of each member of the majority?

I mean, the entire premise of the Bill of Rights is that the minority must be protected against things that a majority-elected government might do. This idea that every member of a majority is so self-centered that they don't care about what rights other people have is defied by more than 230 years of history.

Sure, the majority cannot deprive the minority of fundamental rights, but that begs the question of what exactly constitutes a "fundamental right". And that's supposed to be something that is defined by the Constitution, not by the preferred social vision of the Justices or self-appointed social justice warriors.

The 14th Amendment upon which this decision was premised has been on the books for 147 years, and the Court apparently just discovered today that it actually compels state recognition of gay marriages. Fancy that.

That would surprise the shit out of the folks who wrote it, and the elected members of Congress and the state legislatures who ratified it.

I care very little about the issue itself. I care very much about the Court making this shit up.

 

[MRMsix6]

Not mundane really.

The next of kin to be allowed to make life/death decisions for the person you dedicated your life to when tragedy hits in the hospital. This one is huge, tax benefits don't really exist accept inheritance tax, health insurance all accepts partners, so really its about recognizing the persons life partner as the person who can make legal decisions for you when you are no longer capable.

Mundane was the wrong word. What I meant is straightforward rights that the rest of us take for granted between spouses.

How could people be opposed to that?

 

[MalTalm]

Then you need to get out more.

We're a representative republic not a direct democracy, so I'd agree that "popular votes" don't usually directly enact laws. Though I do know that Wisconsin recently approved gay marriages via referendum.

But elected bodies have recognized minority rights a shitload of times. How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, just for starters? Those were all laws passed by members of Congress elected by a majority of votes. And elected state legislatures also have voted to pass their own versions of those laws as well. All examples of the majority recognizing the rights of the minority. If none of those spring to mind, that's on you.

Or hell, how about the 13th Amendment itself, that ended slavery? Or the 14th? Or the 15th, that involved the majority granting to the minority the right to vote, even though the net effect of that was to dilute the votes of each member of the majority?

Sure, the majority cannot deprive the minority of fundamental rights, but that begs the question of what exactly constitutes a "fundamental right". And that's supposed to be something that is defined by the Constitution, not by the preferred social vision of the Justices or self-appointed social justice warriors.

The 14th Amendment upon which this decision was premised has been on the books for 147 years, and the Court apparently just discovered today that it actually compels state recognition of gay marriages.

That would surprise the shit out of the folks who wrote it, and the elected members of Congress and the state legislatures who ratified it.

I care very little about the issue itself. I care very much about the Court making this shit up.

I think he was being sarcastic...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I think he was being sarcastic...

I don't/didn't. But he should feel free to correct me if it was really just sarcasm.

 

[Cavatt]

Then you need to get out more.

We're a representative republic not a direct democracy, so I'd agree that "popular votes" don't usually directly enact laws. Though I do know that Wisconsin recently approved gay marriages via referendum.

But elected bodies have recognized minority rights a shitload of times. How about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, just for starters? Those were all laws passed by members of Congress elected by a majority of votes. And elected state legislatures also have voted to pass their own versions of those laws as well. All examples of the majority recognizing the rights of the minority. If none of those spring to mind, that's on you.

Or hell, how about the 13th Amendment itself, that ended slavery? Or the 14th? Or the 15th, that involved the majority granting to the minority the right to vote, even though the net effect of that was to dilute the votes of each member of the majority?

I mean, the entire premise of the Bill of Rights is that the minority must be protected against things that a majority-elected government might do. This idea that every member of a majority is so self-centered that they don't care about what rights other people have is defied by more than 230 years of history.

Sure, the majority cannot deprive the minority of fundamental rights, but that begs the question of what exactly constitutes a "fundamental right". And that's supposed to be something that is defined by the Constitution, not by the preferred social vision of the Justices or self-appointed social justice warriors.

The 14th Amendment upon which this decision was premised has been on the books for 147 years, and the Court apparently just discovered today that it actually compels state recognition of gay marriages. Fancy that.

That would surprise the shit out of the folks who wrote it, and the elected members of Congress and the state legislatures who ratified it.

I care very little about the issue itself. I care very much about the Court making this shit up.

Ok, so you aren't talking about voters you are talking about elected officials. Reframe my statement and then tell me I am wrong. How can you misinterpret the phrase "popular vote"? Good on Wisconsin.

This is about laws that are denying minorities the pursuit of happiness IMO. To me that is in direct contradiction to the fundamental meaning of our country. These laws were against a specific group of people criminalizing making a family. Antiamerican IMO.

You hold a referendum on the Civil rights act and it doesn't get passed. It just flies in the face of your argument.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

The Supreme Court has been the most powerful branch (by far) in our government since the early 1800's.

Andrew Jackson aside, that's true at least in the theoretical sense of the power each branch has while sitting. But -- as great justices have pointed out throughout our history -- that's precisely why the Court must remember that it's job is to interpret the law, not to make the law.

That said, when you have the political gridlock that prevents forward momentum on issues such as this despite a large national consensus,

What "gridlock" is that??? States are perfectly free to recognize gay marriages on their own, and the number that has done so has been increasing every year. Hell, the last time Kennedy wrote something about gay marriage, he expressly said it was the role of the states, not the federal government, to address marriage. He just reversed himself completely because of the particular result he desired.

It's really pretty breathtaking. Based on the last time this issue was on the table, Kennedy's logic compels the conclusion that he would have thought it unconstitutional for Congress to pass a law recognizing gay marriage. But, he now apparently found that the Court can do the same thing. It's completely bizarre.

Further, even if your statement was true -- which it isn't -- "political gridlock" in this context just means that elected representatives aren't voting the way you think they should. It's not "gridlock" just because your view doesn't prevail in legislation as quickly as you'd like.

 

[MalTalm]

I don't/didn't. But he should feel free to correct me if it was really just sarcasm.

My bad, I guess you were right...

 

[gourimoko]

Ok, so you aren't talking about voters you are talking about elected officials. Reframe my statement and then tell me I am wrong.

This is about laws that are denying minorities the pursuit of happiness IMO. To me that is in direct contradiction to the fundamental meaning of our country. These laws were against a specific group of people criminalizing making a family. Antiamerican IMO.

You hold a referendum on the Civil rights act and it doesn't get passed. It just flies in the face of your argument.

It's an easy question.... can voters vote, or politicians vote, to take away the fundamental rights of a class of people?

Anyone who is arguing for the dissent in this decision needs to answer this question first and foremost.

Q-Tip, or anyone else who says "this isn't what the courts are for" are mistaken.

This is exactly what the courts are for. This is no different than Loving vs Virginia which struck down anti-miscegenation laws.

Governments do not imbue us with our human rights, they are emergent from us as living, thinking people, (or: "endowed by our Creator") and are inalienable rights. Not to be given or taken away by referendum or legislation.

The Court today acknowledged, again, that marriage was a "fundamental human right" - as has been understood for nearly a century.

There is a severe misunderstanding and woeful ignorance, and by some, deliberate obtuse stupidity on this issue.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Ok, so you aren't talking about voters you are talking about elected officials. Reframe my statement and then tell me I am wrong.

Voters are the ones who elect elected officials. Do you think ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments by states wasn't an issue before voters in the late 1860's when they were voting for legislators? Seriously??? Are you old enough to remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act was also an issue that figured into campaigns?

So yes, you're still completely wrong.

Plus, the argument you're making is irrelevant anyway. Because as you note, laws are generally passed by legislators, not through direct referendum. So gay marriage, like the Civil Rights Act and all those other laws passed by legislatures that protect minorities, could very easily be recognized through the legislative process, even if "the majority" didn't support it.

Maybe you should argue with MalTalm, because according to him, the majority does want to recognize gay marriage.

These laws were against a specific group of people criminalizing making a family. Antiamerican IMO.

Uh....

You know, any substantive response I type to this is going to be much more rude and insulting than I really care to be. So, I'll just let it go.

 

[gourimoko]

Voters are the ones who elect elected officials. Do you think ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments by states wasn't an issue before voters in the late 1860's when they were voting for legislators? Seriously??? Are you old enough to remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act was also an issue that figured into campaigns?

So yes, you're still completely wrong.

No he is not wrong, you are.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments corrected the codification within the Constitution that legalized institutional racism, slavery, and discrimination. Those amendments to the governing document were required and the Supreme Court can not make corrections to the Constitution itself; hence the need for the Congress/States to make such a change.

Marriage equality does not require a constitutional amendment (change) as the protections for all individuals already exist within the Constitution as the 5 Justices said today.

Lastly, to your point, for a lesson in Reconstruction Era politics, Mississippi didn't ratify the 13th Amendment until 2013. That's right, Mississippi ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution two years ago.