(10-08-2020 12:28 PM)umbluegray Wrote: There is no such thing as settled law. And we should be thankful for that.
Otherwise slavery would still be legal.
Not as determined by the courts. The courts did not overturn slavery.... an amendment to the constitution did. Laws get changed all the time, through their appropriate channels. The purpose of the courts is to make sure that the laws that are passed are consistent with the Constitution. This is the part that dems want to circumvent through a 'living document'. Yes, the document is alive... and it has grown approximately 18 times (one of them it grew a WHOLE lot.) It does not grow through court decisions, or it's not supposed to.
What he's saying is that the courts have set a precedent where abortion is legal that has been upheld for 40 years now... That doesn't mean that it is inviolate... but to rule it suddenly unconstitutional requires an activist, not a conservative court.
Gay Marriage is similar. The WORST that happens even in the wildest fantasies would be that it becomes a Constitutional case... but the vastly more likely one would be that the court sent 'marriage' back to the states/people (because that's where rights not given up to the government go) and the governments have to pass laws about personal contracts... which of course there are also decades and even centuries of evidence where such things have been supported, even across state lines.
(10-08-2020 03:03 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: (10-07-2020 11:59 AM)Bronco14 Wrote: (10-07-2020 11:52 AM)umbluegray Wrote: (10-07-2020 09:34 AM)Claw Wrote: I have a lesbian relative getting married in January because they are afraid they won't be able to get married later.
You might want to share with her that if gay marriage does somehow become illegal again, then they can just as easily invalidate all gay marriages that took place prior to the ruling.
You know, if you want to mess with her.
That's what I was thinking
Gay marriage will never be overturned and no serious politician would dare try. Its not worth the cost because the majority of Americans support it. Nor will any SCOTUS risk their credibility on it.
That is a core difference between the Christian right and the Godless progs. We can be against something, but respect that its a minority position and we are a democratic Republic.
This, not to mention that the courts wouldn't be asked to uphold something that has so clearly been decided before. They would be asked to judge the merits of a specific, new case. Again, worst case is that they'd have to enter into a new contract to CONTINUE the relationship.
That would be the interesting part though... I wonder, if freed from the bounds of the states definition of 'marriage', would gay people still sign on for the identical contract? I'm guessing that at least some would instead opt for limitations on some things... including perhaps any definition whatsoever of gender. What is 'gay' or 'straight' if you are non-binary??
The more I think of it, the more its clear that progressives should want to overturn gay marriage just as much as the far religious right.