The Supremes are on a roll

[diana_eva]

I was trying to joke about things that people can do in case they care whether others think they are this or that.

[hrothgar]

What do you do if:

1) in favor of gay marriage

2) the law is vague or nonexistent

granted we do not want to be called a bigot per posters----------

==========================================

 

 

 

based on these posts many posters seem to say

 

 

vote on what we say or you are a bigot

 

I know that I am going to regret this, but in what way is the Obergefell v. Hodges decision either vague or nonexistent?

 

The ruling clearly exists.

There is nothing vague about it: The 13 states that didn't recognize the right to same sex marriage don't get to do so any more.

 

I suspect that you were making an inarticulate claim that

 

1. You agree that there should be a right to same sex marriage

2. You disagree with the way Obergefell v. Hodges was decided

3. You don't wish to be considered a bigot

 

FWIW, I don't believe that you are necessarily a bigot.

[barmar]

It's possible to believe that there should be a right to gay marriage, but that the US Constitution as currently written does not guarantee this. So by the 10th Amendment, it's left to the states to decide on their own, as they have been. That's hardly bigoted, it's just a belief in federalism -- we'd need a new amendment to the Constitution to override the states' rights. I think this is essentially what John Robert's dissent was saying: it may be the right thing, but it was done the wrong way.

 

Obviously the 6 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this, so they were not undermining the Constitution, just updating its interpretation. The Constitution was deliberately written in general terms, to allow it to apply as society changed, and it's SCOTUS's job and duty to determine how it applies to contemporary life.

[Winstonm]

It's possible to believe that there should be a right to gay marriage, but that the US Constitution as currently written does not guarantee this. So by the 10th Amendment, it's left to the states to decide on their own, as they have been. That's hardly bigoted, it's just a belief in federalism -- we'd need a new amendment to the Constitution to override the states' rights. I think this is essentially what John Robert's dissent was saying: it may be the right thing, but it was done the wrong way.

 

Obviously the 6 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this, so they were not undermining the Constitution, just updating its interpretation. The Constitution was deliberately written in general terms, to allow it to apply as society changed, and it's SCOTUS's job and duty to determine how it applies to contemporary life.

 

You are either misunderstanding the 10th Amendment or falling sway to right-wing misrepresentation of same as the Constitution does not have to expressly grant a right to a particular group in order for the Federal government to use its powers, which are implied, to grant that right. I submit that to misrepresent and distort the historical and judicial understanding of the Constitution in order to justify excluding a particular group from exercising its rights is indeed bigotry at its most heinous.

[ArtK78]

It's possible to believe that there should be a right to gay marriage, but that the US Constitution as currently written does not guarantee this. So by the 10th Amendment, it's left to the states to decide on their own, as they have been. That's hardly bigoted, it's just a belief in federalism -- we'd need a new amendment to the Constitution to override the states' rights. I think this is essentially what John Robert's dissent was saying: it may be the right thing, but it was done the wrong way.

 

Obviously the 6 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this, so they were not undermining the Constitution, just updating its interpretation. The Constitution was deliberately written in general terms, to allow it to apply as society changed, and it's SCOTUS's job and duty to determine how it applies to contemporary life.

So where is it written in the Constitution that there is a right to heterosexual marriage? Interracial marriage?

 

Sure, if it were left to the states, heterosexual marriage would still be permitted everywhere. But interracial marriage? Not necessarily.

 

 

 

 

[barmar]

You are either misunderstanding the 10th Amendment or falling sway to right-wing misrepresentation of same as the Constitution does not have to expressly grant a right to a particular group in order for the Federal government to use its powers, which are implied, to grant that right. I submit that to misrepresent and distort the historical and judicial understanding of the Constitution in order to justify excluding a particular group from exercising its rights is indeed bigotry at its most heinous.

If I'm misunderstanding it, then it seems that Roberts is under the same misconception, so I feel like I'm in good company.

 

Or do you think he's misprepresenting it in order to justify his dissent, rather than the other way around?

[Winstonm]

If I'm misunderstanding it, then it seems that Roberts is under the same misconception, so I feel like I'm in good company.

 

Or do you think he's misprepresenting it in order to justify his dissent, rather than the other way around?

 

I think that even extremely smart people, unless diligent about honest self-searching, can be surprised by their own biases. I do not think this is purposeful or inherently "evil", but a bias toward belief system that invades cognition.

[Vampyr]

It's possible to believe that there should be a right to gay marriage, but that the US Constitution as currently written does not guarantee this. So by the 10th Amendment, it's left to the states to decide on their own, as they have been.

 

I think that this may be the case.

 

Obviously the 6 5 Justices who voted in favor believe that the Equal Protection clause includes this,

 

And maybe this is the case. Anyway it's done and dusted, and to be honest I would rather just be pleased about the decision than worry about whether it was strictly correct constitutionally!

[MrAce]

I thought Gays are smart people in general.

I have no idea why they wanted this right. After all they did not have to explain to their better half why they don't want to marry without hurt feelings.

"It is not allowed by law" was a good excuse....Now they are screwed just like the rest of us!

I believe they will later learn by experience that there was nothing about it to celebrate! http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

 

I never had any problem with them or with what they choose but as they say" Watch what you wishing for, it may come true!" And it did. Congrats I guess.

[Vampyr]

Are you just stupid? Marriage is not some abstract thing; it confers significant financial and legal benefits.

 

In this country inheritance tax is 40% but 0% if you are inheriting from your spouse.

 

Now, maybe nobody should have to subsidise anyone else; but as long as some people get to ride the marriage gravy train, everyone should be allowed on.

[diana_eva]

Is this the humor-banned thread or something? How can you even think he's serious.

[MrAce]

Are you just stupid? Marriage is not some abstract thing; it confers significant financial and legal benefits.

 

In this country inheritance tax is 40% but 0% if you are inheriting from your spouse.

 

Now, maybe nobody should have to subsidise anyone else; but as long as some people get to ride the marriage gravy train, everyone should be allowed on.

 

I don't know which one is more insulting. To be called "stupid" or your assumption that I do not know all these about marriage or that I am capable of saying what I said in a serious manner. But instead of getting into bitchfest, I will try to reply to your points about gays and the rights that they seem to have gained;

 

It may be one of their motivation at the beginning to gain benefits. And people accepted this. Gays were ready to be given all these benefits by almost everyone, including the ones who are against "same sex marriage". They were mostly against it being called "marriage" They just wanted it to be called something else than "marriage" (I am not one of them though), such as pdship etc. Hell...there are some people who are against this so much that if it was up to them, they would agree to give even more benefits to gays as long as they find another name. So gays did not gain any benefit that was available ONLY by marriage. They could have gotten it in so many different names that they can give to their relation.They wanted it because they wanted to call it "marriage" and they wanted to marry just like all other adults who are willing to live their life together and call it a family. Any other name would be discrimination and I agree with them. So this is more or less an official recognition and political gain for gays. They believed it had to be spelled out right officially. And they got it. This is how I see it.

 

What I wrote in previous reply was an attempt to make a joke as Diana said.

[Winstonm]

If I'm misunderstanding it, then it seems that Roberts is under the same misconception, so I feel like I'm in good company.

 

Or do you think he's misprepresenting it in order to justify his dissent, rather than the other way around?

Btw, the U.S. Constitution does not mention the word "marriage" so I guess by that thinking we are all single.

[helene_t]

Not really. The constitution doesn't mention the word "icecream" either but even so you could probably challenge a state law that prohibited people of a particular skin colour, sexual orientation or whatever from eating icecream.

[Vampyr]

What I wrote in previous reply was an attempt to make a joke as Diana said.

 

OK, sorry.

[barmar]

The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things explicitly. I believe is traditionally addressed by the notion of "common law": traditional customs are automatically assumed as the baseline. The rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (e.g. freedom of speech and religion) were needed because there wasn't a tradition that citizens had these rights. Marriage, on the other hand, had been around for ages, so there was no need for the Constitution to confer the right in general; there are only statutes that deal with the details (the process of becoming married, financial implications, legal rights of spouses, divorce/annullment, etc.).

 

But since the concept of marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, it leaves it up to the definition in common language. That's where much of the controversy comes from. It means different things to different people, but you can't rely on personal definitions when it's tangled up in so many legal issues. There are probably people who have attacked others, but their personal notion of "assault" doesn't include "when the guy has it coming", but we don't allow that as a defense.

 

Some states have gone to the effort of adding a definition of marriage to their state Constitutions. The Supremes basically decided that it makes no sense that such a basic concept can have a definition that depends on where you happen to live. Its meaning is basically what it has always been, but society itself has changed, so that the details are now different.

[Winstonm]

The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things explicitly. I believe is traditionally addressed by the notion of "common law": traditional customs are automatically assumed as the baseline. The rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (e.g. freedom of speech and religion) were needed because there wasn't a tradition that citizens had these rights. Marriage, on the other hand, had been around for ages, so there was no need for the Constitution to confer the right in general; there are only statutes that deal with the details (the process of becoming married, financial implications, legal rights of spouses, divorce/annullment, etc.).

 

But since the concept of marriage isn't defined in the Constitution, it leaves it up to the definition in common language. That's where much of the controversy comes from. It means different things to different people, but you can't rely on personal definitions when it's tangled up in so many legal issues. There are probably people who have attacked others, but their personal notion of "assault" doesn't include "when the guy has it coming", but we don't allow that as a defense.

 

Some states have gone to the effort of adding a definition of marriage to their state Constitutions. The Supremes basically decided that it makes no sense that such a basic concept can have a definition that depends on where you happen to live. Its meaning is basically what it has always been, but society itself has changed, so that the details are now different.

 

Exactly - it was (and is not) a state issue but a federal one. The states are rather limited in their rights - it is the Federal government and then the people who hold most rights. I do not think Roberts thought this a state issue either. My reading of his dissent shows that he thought the electorate, i.e., Congress, should have been the arbiter rather than SCOTUS.

[kenberg]

I have started at least a half dozen posts on this thread and then dumped them. Maybe I will post this one. And then probably regret it. I am fine with gays getting married. I have an intense dislike of legal arguments. I rarely agree with any of them, the few times that I have been in court (an observer, mostly but not always) I have been dismayed by the way it goes. I think the time I liked best was when I was in courrt, along with maybe fifty other people, for a traffic ticket and the judge began by carefully spelling his name. He explained that if any of us wanted to write a letter of complaint to the Washington Post he wanted to be sure we spelled his name correctly.

 

Anyway, there are nine supremes, I accept that none of them is there for the fun of wearing robes. Nine serious educated people do not totally agree. This does not shock me.

 

Summing up: I am fine with gays getting married, I am positive I would flunk a bar exam, that's about all I have to say. I am probably better at computing Galois groups than most of the supremes.[Although a bit out of practice]

[Vampyr]

 

Anyway, there are nine supremes,

 

Actually only three -- if you count Diana Ross. I had assumed that this thread would be abut music; I have never before encountered this new terminology.

[blackshoe]

Exactly - it was (and is not) a state issue but a federal one. The states are rather limited in their rights - it is the Federal government and then the people who hold most rights. I do not think Roberts thought this a state issue either. My reading of his dissent shows that he thought the electorate, i.e., Congress, should have been the arbiter rather than SCOTUS.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -- U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

 

States' rights, like Federal rights, are limited only by what the people have delegated to them.

 

Note: this is why it falls so harshly on my ears when people talk about the government (at any level) "giving" rights. That ain't the way it works, and any citizen of this country ought to know that.

[ArtK78]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence.

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

This is enough of a Constitutional argument to establish the right of anyone to marry as is necessary. The rest is applesauce. :)

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -- U.S. Constitution, Tenth Amendment

 

States' rights, like Federal rights, are limited only by what the people have delegated to them.

 

Note: this is why it falls so harshly on my ears when people talk about the government (at any level) "giving" rights. That ain't the way it works, and any citizen of this country ought to know that.

 

You assume a word that does not exist - expressly. The powers delegated to the U.S. are vast and purposely unspecified. States have some rights but those rights cannot conflict with federal law. The Constitution grants Congress all the implied powers "necessary and proper" to using its enumerated powers. These are the "implied" powers that are not enumerated, nor should they be, but are delegated to the U.S. by its Constitution.

 

States rightists attempt to argue Articles of Confederation as though they had been adopted rather than the 10th Amendment.

[barmar]

Exactly - it was (and is not) a state issue but a federal one. The states are rather limited in their rights - it is the Federal government and then the people who hold most rights. I do not think Roberts thought this a state issue either. My reading of his dissent shows that he thought the electorate, i.e., Congress, should have been the arbiter rather than SCOTUS.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that. Although I'm happy with this decision, it does seem weird that a panel of nine people gets to decide what our entire society means when we refer to "marriage". And last year's Obamacare ruling hinged on a rather arbitrary distinction between a fine and a tax -- that really seemed like the majority simply defined the words to mean what was necessary to justify their decision.

 

These types of decisions seem like they should be based on concensus of the people, not a tiny group of old men and women.

 

Rather than leaving it up to SCOTUS to make decisions like this, it seems like it would be better to have a process where something becomes a US law if a sufficient number of states each pass it. 72% of the states had already legalized gay marriage, that seems to be enough to indicate that there's a widespread concensus in favor of it, so perhaps a supermajority like this should have just made it the law of the land automatically. Of course, we'd need a constitutional amendment to add this process.

 

However, there's a Catch-22. Let's assume that we start with a situation where most states have a law AGAINST something, so it's automatically elevated to a US law. When any state tries to pass a law ALLOWING it, it won't be possible because of that rule. State legislation is supposed to be an opportunity to experiment, but this would strangle that ability.

[Winstonm]

Yeah, I've been thinking about that. Although I'm happy with this decision, it does seem weird that a panel of nine people gets to decide what our entire society means when we refer to "marriage". And last year's Obamacare ruling hinged on a rather arbitrary distinction between a fine and a tax -- that really seemed like the majority simply defined the words to mean what was necessary to justify their decision.

 

These types of decisions seem like they should be based on concensus of the people, not a tiny group of old men and women.

 

Rather than leaving it up to SCOTUS to make decisions like this, it seems like it would be better to have a process where something becomes a US law if a sufficient number of states each pass it. 72% of the states had already legalized gay marriage, that seems to be enough to indicate that there's a widespread concensus in favor of it, so perhaps a supermajority like this should have just made it the law of the land automatically. Of course, we'd need a constitutional amendment to add this process.

 

However, there's a Catch-22. Let's assume that we start with a situation where most states have a law AGAINST something, so it's automatically elevated to a US law. When any state tries to pass a law ALLOWING it, it won't be possible because of that rule. State legislation is supposed to be an opportunity to experiment, but this would strangle that ability.

 

Are you getting your information from primarily right-wing sources? I'm not trying to accuse but am attempting to understand why your thinking is as such. From my perspective, we have 3 branches of government, Congress, Executive, and SC. SC was given the job to determine legality of laws and executive actions. These 9 judges determined that the Constitution grants a right to equal treatment, even as regards to marriage, and in no way re-defined marriage. Marriage was never defined as simply male-female union by the Constitution, so it was the judges' jobs to determine a number of issues - including whether or not the decision should be made federally (they took the case to the answer is yes) or by a district judge, or by the states legislature.

 

There is precedent - interracial marriage used to be illegal until the SC ruled that law a violation of the Constitution, as well.

 

What most people do not grasp is that the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority from the oppression of the majority. Rampant democracy can be dangerous and tyrannical if left unchecked. Gays have equal rights. Without the Constitution and the SC, that would not be so.

[Winstonm]

And last year's Obamacare ruling hinged on a rather arbitrary distinction between a fine and a tax -- that really seemed like the majority simply defined the words to mean what was necessary to justify their decision.

 

Hardly arbitrary - the SC was charged with determining if Congress and the President had created a legal bill and thus a legal law. The SC held that it was within the rights of Congress to levy taxes, and thus the Affordable Care Act was legal as it imposed a tax for non-compliance.

 

Words are never black and white, as some would suggest. Without knowing the content of the words and the intent of the author(s), words can have many interpretations. I read this example lately: suppose you are giving a friend a ride home in your car but do not know where his place is located. You approach a traffic light that turns yellow, and your friend says, "Go through the light." What does he mean by that statement? Does he mean he wants you to run the yellow light? Is he explaining that you will go past this light before turning? Is it something else altogether?

 

There is no way to know simply from the words - tone of voice, body movements, inflection, outside factors - all of these play a role in helping us understand (or try to) the phrase, "Go through the light."

 

Some right winger states' rightists, so called 10th Amendmenters, would hold that words(like the 10th Amendment and 2nd Amendment) can only mean exactly what they say in black and white. If so, where in the Constitution does the government have a right to create a U.S. flag? (hint: nowhere). They use this argument only when it fits their purpose. This black-and-white-words argument is exactly the position Antonin Scalia took with regards to the ACA decision and his dissent, that words can only mean exactly what they say, regardless of intent or context, which is surely a silly and superficial argument, much like a child who was rebuked for eating too much candy when the sign above the candy said, "help yourself", would make.