(08-12-2014 02:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I could give a rats ass about any court decision, nothing will ever cause me to accept this as normal. I may have to accept it as legal but in
my heart I'll ways feel that homosexuality is an abomination. This won't cause me to hate gays but I won't ever accept them as normal people.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

You're welcome to think or feel however you like on the matter, I even completely understand lots of churches/temples/mosques won't allow them to be held on their property...but marriage in America is secular...you go to the court house, file papers with the state, and get married by a JOP...nothing religious about it unless you want there to be...it's a simple matter of civil rights under the law.

(08-12-2014 02:28 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:11 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  You don't vote on civil rights...simple as that.

We have. There are several Civil Rights Acts that were passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Anyone of them is subject to review by the courts, and could be struck down/upheld at any time...

(08-12-2014 01:55 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I am not even getting into the "gay" thing here. But, let's clear some things up. The original colonies and later states are plenary governments. That means they have all of the sticks in a bundle, unless their citizens want to take some back. In order to form the United States, these states gave some of these sticks to the federal government. The federal government has NO power over issues for which the state has not given it a stick.

With the ratification of the Constitution, it was the people of the states who took sticks from the state governments and gave them to the federal government, not the states themselves. And the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government a very large stick to use against the states.

Quote:Moreover, no SCOTUS decision has done either of the following: (1) ruled that sexual orientation is a federally protected class or (2) asserted that the stick regarding marriage is somehow not entirely within the purview of the state. The 2nd point is never going to happen given the heavy precedent...that is, SCOTUS has always stated that marriage is exclusively a state issue. The question is whether gays, or more succinctly, sexual orientation creates the type of discrete and insular minorities, such that they would require protection from the federal government under the equal protection statute. SCOTUS has not done this. Even if they did, the question would be under what basis would states have to overcome in order to create a system that would treat people of different sexual orientations differently.
So far, many of the Courts have gone beyond anything SCOTUS has done. SCOTUS has had several bites at this apple and have yet to explicitly state sexual orientation is a federally protected class, like the lower Courts.

You are correct that the Supreme Court has never declared gays to be a discrete and insular minority worthy of heightened scrutiny. But they haven't needed to when striking down anti-gay laws. Instead, they ruled that those laws were motivated solely by animus and thus failed to be even rationally related to any legitimate function of government. These laws have failed the rational basis test (the real rational basis test, not the hypothetical rational basis test typically used).

And I don't think the lower court judges have necessarily gone beyond the Supreme Court (although I haven't read their decisions). Writing in dissent in Lawrence Scalia complained that the decision would make the eventual legalization of gay marriage inevitable. Have these judges decided that gays were entitled to protected status or have they merely recognized the same thing that Scalia did.

(08-12-2014 02:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I could give a rats ass about any court decision, nothing will ever cause me to accept this as normal. I may have to accept it as legal but in
my heart I'll ways feel that homosexuality is an abomination. This won't cause me to hate gays but I won't ever accept them as normal people.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

You're welcome to think or feel however you like on the matter, I even completely understand lots of churches/temples/mosques won't allow them to be held on their property...but marriage in America is secular...you go to the court house, file papers with the state, and get married by a JOP...nothing religious about it unless you want there to be...it's a simple matter of civil rights under the law.

So because I use the term abomination you think I'm opposed to it on religious grounds? If so you'd be wrong.

(08-12-2014 04:43 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 01:55 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I am not even getting into the "gay" thing here. But, let's clear some things up. The original colonies and later states are plenary governments. That means they have all of the sticks in a bundle, unless their citizens want to take some back. In order to form the United States, these states gave some of these sticks to the federal government. The federal government has NO power over issues for which the state has not given it a stick.

With the ratification of the Constitution, it was the people of the states who took sticks from the state governments and gave them to the federal government, not the states themselves. And the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government a very large stick to use against the states.

Quote:Moreover, no SCOTUS decision has done either of the following: (1) ruled that sexual orientation is a federally protected class or (2) asserted that the stick regarding marriage is somehow not entirely within the purview of the state. The 2nd point is never going to happen given the heavy precedent...that is, SCOTUS has always stated that marriage is exclusively a state issue. The question is whether gays, or more succinctly, sexual orientation creates the type of discrete and insular minorities, such that they would require protection from the federal government under the equal protection statute. SCOTUS has not done this. Even if they did, the question would be under what basis would states have to overcome in order to create a system that would treat people of different sexual orientations differently.
So far, many of the Courts have gone beyond anything SCOTUS has done. SCOTUS has had several bites at this apple and have yet to explicitly state sexual orientation is a federally protected class, like the lower Courts.

You are correct that the Supreme Court has never declared gays to be a discrete and insular minority worthy of heightened scrutiny. But they haven't needed to when striking down anti-gay laws. Instead, they ruled that those laws were motivated solely by animus and thus failed to be even rationally related to any legitimate function of government. These laws have failed the rational basis test (the real rational basis test, not the hypothetical rational basis test typically used).

And I don't think the lower court judges have necessarily gone beyond the Supreme Court (although I haven't read their decisions). Writing in dissent in Lawrence Scalia complained that the decision would make the eventual legalization of gay marriage inevitable. Have these judges decided that gays were entitled to protected status or have they merely recognized the same thing that Scalia did.

Exactly... Rational Basis has been enough to overturn these laws and as a result the court is unlikely to even need to label homosexuals a suspect classification entitled to strict scrutiny.

Having said that, marriage has traditionally been defined by the states and will continue to generally be under the purview of the states provided it does not violate the equal protection clause, due process clause or full, faith and credit clause.

I have a very hard time seeing the Supreme Court ruling that a state can choose not to recognize a valid marriage from a state that has passed gay marriage. The full, faith and credit clause requires states to give full faith and credit to any public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Marriage is a public act.

To violate the full, faith and credit clause and not recognize gay marriage a state would have to have a reason for doing so. In Windsor the Supreme Court held that there was not even a rational basis for the federal government to deny recognition of valid marriage and there is little reason that logic would not apply to the states (and why the tide of court ruling has been so strongly in favor of recognizing valid gay marriages).

There is also still the possibility that the court will apply strict scrutiny for marriage recognition (I think they should). This has nothing to do with suspect classification and has everything to do with the fact that the Court has held marriage is a fundamental right. To deny a fundamental right, one must have a compelling state interest and use the lease restrictive means in doing so. This is a test no state could meet. If a homosexual couple gets married in a state that legally recognized same sex marriage, they have exercised this fundamental right. For another state to say they will not recognize it, contra to the full faith and credit clause requiring them to do so, would be to deny them a fundamental right they have already exercised. If the Court were to use strict scrutiny in marriage recognition, no gay marriage ban would stand.

Of course as stated, most Courts have held that gay marriage bans do not even satisfy rational basis and have struck down because the bans are animus. This is consistent with what the Supreme Court stated just last year. I don't know that the Court is ready to say states have to perform gay marriage, but I'd be shocked if the Courts held states don't have to recognize validly performed gay marriages from states that do recognize them.

(08-12-2014 05:42 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 04:43 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 01:55 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  I am not even getting into the "gay" thing here. But, let's clear some things up. The original colonies and later states are plenary governments. That means they have all of the sticks in a bundle, unless their citizens want to take some back. In order to form the United States, these states gave some of these sticks to the federal government. The federal government has NO power over issues for which the state has not given it a stick.

With the ratification of the Constitution, it was the people of the states who took sticks from the state governments and gave them to the federal government, not the states themselves. And the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government a very large stick to use against the states.

Quote:Moreover, no SCOTUS decision has done either of the following: (1) ruled that sexual orientation is a federally protected class or (2) asserted that the stick regarding marriage is somehow not entirely within the purview of the state. The 2nd point is never going to happen given the heavy precedent...that is, SCOTUS has always stated that marriage is exclusively a state issue. The question is whether gays, or more succinctly, sexual orientation creates the type of discrete and insular minorities, such that they would require protection from the federal government under the equal protection statute. SCOTUS has not done this. Even if they did, the question would be under what basis would states have to overcome in order to create a system that would treat people of different sexual orientations differently.
So far, many of the Courts have gone beyond anything SCOTUS has done. SCOTUS has had several bites at this apple and have yet to explicitly state sexual orientation is a federally protected class, like the lower Courts.

You are correct that the Supreme Court has never declared gays to be a discrete and insular minority worthy of heightened scrutiny. But they haven't needed to when striking down anti-gay laws. Instead, they ruled that those laws were motivated solely by animus and thus failed to be even rationally related to any legitimate function of government. These laws have failed the rational basis test (the real rational basis test, not the hypothetical rational basis test typically used).

And I don't think the lower court judges have necessarily gone beyond the Supreme Court (although I haven't read their decisions). Writing in dissent in Lawrence Scalia complained that the decision would make the eventual legalization of gay marriage inevitable. Have these judges decided that gays were entitled to protected status or have they merely recognized the same thing that Scalia did.

Exactly... Rational Basis has been enough to overturn these laws and as a result the court is unlikely to even need to label homosexuals a suspect classification entitled to strict scrutiny.

Having said that, marriage has traditionally been defined by the states and will continue to generally be under the purview of the states provided it does not violate the equal protection clause, due process clause or full, faith and credit clause.

I have a very hard time seeing the Supreme Court ruling that a state can choose not to recognize a valid marriage from a state that has passed gay marriage. The full, faith and credit clause requires states to give full faith and credit to any public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. Marriage is a public act.

To violate the full, faith and credit clause and not recognize gay marriage a state would have to have a reason for doing so. In Windsor the Supreme Court held that there was not even a rational basis for the federal government to deny recognition of valid marriage and there is little reason that logic would not apply to the states (and why the tide of court ruling has been so strongly in favor of recognizing valid gay marriages).

There is also still the possibility that the court will apply strict scrutiny for marriage recognition (I think they should). This has nothing to do with suspect classification and has everything to do with the fact that the Court has held marriage is a fundamental right. To deny a fundamental right, one must have a compelling state interest and use the lease restrictive means in doing so. This is a test no state could meet. If a homosexual couple gets married in a state that legally recognized same sex marriage, they have exercised this fundamental right. For another state to say they will not recognize it, contra to the full faith and credit clause requiring them to do so, would be to deny them a fundamental right they have already exercised. If the Court were to use strict scrutiny in marriage recognition, no gay marriage ban would stand.

Of course as stated, most Courts have held that gay marriage bans do not even satisfy rational basis and have struck down because the bans are animus. This is consistent with what the Supreme Court stated just last year. I don't know that the Court is ready to say states have to perform gay marriage, but I'd be shocked if the Courts held states don't have to recognize validly performed gay marriages from states that do recognize them.

Right, and we'll see if you are the same legal scholar once the gaystapo goes after Churches that refuse to perform the ceremony.

(08-12-2014 04:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I could give a rats ass about any court decision, nothing will ever cause me to accept this as normal. I may have to accept it as legal but in
my heart I'll ways feel that homosexuality is an abomination. This won't cause me to hate gays but I won't ever accept them as normal people.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

You're welcome to think or feel however you like on the matter, I even completely understand lots of churches/temples/mosques won't allow them to be held on their property...but marriage in America is secular...you go to the court house, file papers with the state, and get married by a JOP...nothing religious about it unless you want there to be...it's a simple matter of civil rights under the law.

So because I use the term abomination you think I'm opposed to it on religious grounds? If so you'd be wrong.

I don't care why you oppose it...your personal reason are, by definition, personal.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-12-2014 06:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 04:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I could give a rats ass about any court decision, nothing will ever cause me to accept this as normal. I may have to accept it as legal but in
my heart I'll ways feel that homosexuality is an abomination. This won't cause me to hate gays but I won't ever accept them as normal people.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

You're welcome to think or feel however you like on the matter, I even completely understand lots of churches/temples/mosques won't allow them to be held on their property...but marriage in America is secular...you go to the court house, file papers with the state, and get married by a JOP...nothing religious about it unless you want there to be...it's a simple matter of civil rights under the law.

So because I use the term abomination you think I'm opposed to it on religious grounds? If so you'd be wrong.

I don't care why you oppose it...your personal reason are, by definition, personal.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I bet this ruling has been on your mind all day.

This will be taken up by the SCOTUS. I'd give the odds at this point in time that there's a 75% chance that the supreme court upholds the tn ruling, and basically rule that the states can decide for themselves on this matter. And thats the way it should be. If you want gay marriage in your state, pass it in your state.

(08-12-2014 07:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This will be taken up by the SCOTUS. I'd give the odds at this point in time that there's a 75% chance that the supreme court upholds the tn ruling, and basically rule that the states can decide for themselves on this matter. And thats the way it should be. If you want gay marriage in your state, pass it in your state.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I'd think the ever loosening interpretation of "equal protection" will eventually force all states to perform them. Even though I don't believe states should be able to define marriage however their citizens want, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is there for a reason; a couple who is married in one state should be married in all fifty. I would like to see some minimum standards set at the federal level, such as minimum age, no marriages of more than two people, etc., but I'm afraid the gay cat is out of the bag.

(08-12-2014 07:32 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This will be taken up by the SCOTUS. I'd give the odds at this point in time that there's a 75% chance that the supreme court upholds the tn ruling, and basically rule that the states can decide for themselves on this matter. And thats the way it should be. If you want gay marriage in your state, pass it in your state.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, I'd think the ever loosening interpretation of "equal protection" will eventually force all states to perform them. Even though I don't believe states should be able to define marriage however their citizens want, the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is there for a reason; a couple who is married in one state should be married in all fifty. I would like to see some minimum standards set at the federal level, such as minimum age, no marriages of more than two people, etc., but I'm afraid the gay cat is out of the bag.

There are lots of things full faith and credit doesn't apply to...so, there's hope. But, SCOTUS has already said that the federal government has no authority to define marriage differently from the states. My guess is that you'll need to federal $$ to see it happen, if it ever happens.

IMO, once you allow the gay cat out of the bag, you should let them all out of the bag. If a state has no power to define marriage as between a man and woman, then it has no power to define it as between one person and another person. The age thing is a bit trickier, but if you have gay marriage, then polygamy and multi-person marriages should also be allowed.

(08-12-2014 06:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 06:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 04:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:36 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 02:24 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I could give a rats ass about any court decision, nothing will ever cause me to accept this as normal. I may have to accept it as legal but in
my heart I'll ways feel that homosexuality is an abomination. This won't cause me to hate gays but I won't ever accept them as normal people.


Posted from the shallow recesses of my feeble mind.

You're welcome to think or feel however you like on the matter, I even completely understand lots of churches/temples/mosques won't allow them to be held on their property...but marriage in America is secular...you go to the court house, file papers with the state, and get married by a JOP...nothing religious about it unless you want there to be...it's a simple matter of civil rights under the law.

So because I use the term abomination you think I'm opposed to it on religious grounds? If so you'd be wrong.

I don't care why you oppose it...your personal reason are, by definition, personal.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I bet this ruling has been on your mind all day.

Work has been on my mind all day. Glad to get home and kick up my feet.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-12-2014 07:41 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  IMO, once you allow the gay cat out of the bag, you should let them all out of the bag. If a state has no power to define marriage as between a man and woman, then it has no power to define it as between one person and another person. The age thing is a bit trickier, but if you have gay marriage, then polygamy and multi-person marriages should also be allowed.

I don't think age limits are really a problem--there are all kinds of restrictions on minors of various ages that are constitutional.

But you are correct that if gay marriage cannot be banned simply out of animus then it is very difficult to advance a coherent justification for continuing to ban plural marriages. I don't doubt the Court will find a way, but it won't be consistent.

(08-12-2014 07:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:41 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  IMO, once you allow the gay cat out of the bag, you should let them all out of the bag. If a state has no power to define marriage as between a man and woman, then it has no power to define it as between one person and another person. The age thing is a bit trickier, but if you have gay marriage, then polygamy and multi-person marriages should also be allowed.

I don't think age limits are really a problem--there are all kinds of restrictions on minors of various ages that are constitutional.

But you are correct that if gay marriage cannot be banned simply out of animus then it is very difficult to advance a coherent justification for continuing to ban plural marriages. I don't doubt the Court will find a way, but it won't be consistent.

First, I was speaking as to it being trickier to allow such marriages irregardless of age. But, I think the argument can made that if a 12 or 14 year can decide to die or have an abortion, they can decide to marry a 45 year old.

Second, gay marriage is not banned out of animus. There are reasons...pro-gay marriage people just don't like those reasons.

Third, these ruling show that a state's Constitution is rubbish and the will of the people is easily ignored.

We have veered away from strictly following our Constitution and the rules into this new grey area of emotions and feeling. But, these things have a way of expanding into other areas...can't wait for that.

(08-12-2014 07:58 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:49 PM)jh Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 07:41 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  IMO, once you allow the gay cat out of the bag, you should let them all out of the bag. If a state has no power to define marriage as between a man and woman, then it has no power to define it as between one person and another person. The age thing is a bit trickier, but if you have gay marriage, then polygamy and multi-person marriages should also be allowed.

I don't think age limits are really a problem--there are all kinds of restrictions on minors of various ages that are constitutional.

But you are correct that if gay marriage cannot be banned simply out of animus then it is very difficult to advance a coherent justification for continuing to ban plural marriages. I don't doubt the Court will find a way, but it won't be consistent.

First, I was speaking as to it being trickier to allow such marriages irregardless of age. But, I think the argument can made that if a 12 or 14 year can decide to die or have an abortion, they can decide to marry a 45 year old.

Second, gay marriage is not banned out of animus. thats for the court to decide There are reasons...pro-gay marriage people just don't like those reasons.

Third, these ruling show that a state's Constitution is rubbish and the will of the people is easily ignored. when the people pass an unconstitutional law, it's the courts duty to strike it down...that's Civics 101

We have veered away from strictly following our Constitution and the rules into this new grey area of emotions and feeling. But, these things have a way of expanding into other areas...can't wait for that.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Seems like settled law to me.

Couples used to run over state lines because they could get married when she was 14 and not have to wait till she was 16. Then they came back home and their home state had to recognize the marriage.

That didn't compel the home state to allow a 14 year old to marry though.

(08-12-2014 10:08 PM)Claw Wrote:  Seems like settled law to me.

Couples used to run over state lines because they could get married when she was 14 and not have to wait till she was 16. Then they came back home and their home state had to recognize the marriage.

That didn't compel the home state to allow a 14 year old to marry though.

Being gay is not against any law...marrying a 14 year old is...therefore the state is justified to not grant marriage under your scenario.

(08-12-2014 11:14 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:08 PM)Claw Wrote:  Seems like settled law to me.

Couples used to run over state lines because they could get married when she was 14 and not have to wait till she was 16. Then they came back home and their home state had to recognize the marriage.

That didn't compel the home state to allow a 14 year old to marry though.

Being gay is not against any law...marrying a 14 year old is...therefore the state is justified to not grant marriage under your scenario.

Actually, being gay has been against the law far more years than it hasn't. Legalization of sodomy is a recent legal change.

(08-12-2014 07:58 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  First, I was speaking as to it being trickier to allow such marriages irregardless of age. But, I think the argument can made that if a 12 or 14 year can decide to die or have an abortion, they can decide to marry a 45 year old.

Of course an argument can be made. But the age of consent laws in this country have always been a jumbled mess so this is easy to sidestep.

Quote:Second, gay marriage is not banned out of animus. There are reasons...pro-gay marriage people just don't like those reasons.

Such as?

Quote:Third, these ruling show that a state's Constitution is rubbish and the will of the people is easily ignored.
We have veered away from strictly following our Constitution and the rules into this new grey area of emotions and feeling. But, these things have a way of expanding into other areas...can't wait for that.

This was one of the points of the Fourteenth Amendment. States could no longer violate the fundamental rights of their citizens or deny them the equal protection of the laws without the possibility of federal intervention.

(08-12-2014 11:18 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:14 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:08 PM)Claw Wrote:  Seems like settled law to me.

Couples used to run over state lines because they could get married when she was 14 and not have to wait till she was 16. Then they came back home and their home state had to recognize the marriage.

That didn't compel the home state to allow a 14 year old to marry though.

Being gay is not against any law...marrying a 14 year old is...therefore the state is justified to not grant marriage under your scenario.

Actually, being gay has been against the law far more years than it hasn't. Legalization of sodomy is a recent legal change.

That doesn't make what I said any less true. (See bolded)