Gay "Marriage" vs. the U.S. Constitution

[dgs49]

It appears that the USSC will presently take a look into the contentious constitutional and political issues associated with both the creation and prohibition of the perverted social/sexual/civil relationships commonly referred to as "gay marriages."

In my personal view, the States should be free to create whatever sorts of civil relationships they like, provided they go through the legislative processes that are called for in those individual states by their respective constitutions. Indeed, these are precisely the powers alluded to in the Tenth Amendment that are reserved to the states.

Claims on the Left that all citizens have a Constitutional right to get married (to people of the same gender) are preposterous, but irrelevant. In fact, if this logic were to be adopted by the USSC it would lead to the very real possibility of nullification of laws prohibiting incest (between adults) and "plural marriages."

And how could the USSC possibly support DOMA? Marriage is none of the Federal government's business. They must give full faith and credit to the states in this area.

And how can the Federal government possibly defend its discrimination against SOME legitimate state marriages (for inheritance, social security, and other purposes) and not others?

Is this a slam dunk or what?

[MajGenl.Meade]

In my personal view, the States should be free to create whatever sorts of civil relationships they like, provided they go through the legislative processes that are called for in those individual states by their respective constitutions.

I think they are already, are they not? And I agree that they should be.

Meade

[Long Run]

The reasons these cases go to the Supreme Court is they present difficult issues. Whatever one's view of judicial review, the question centers on whether the California prohibition on gay marriage or DOMA deny equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The DOMA question at issue relates only to its application for federal benefits or rules, not for its impact on state law (i.e., whether one state has to recognize a gay marriage from another state). There are principles of historical consistency in the definition of marriage, equal protection fairness principles, state's rights (in California).

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would enter the national debate over same-sex marriage, agreeing to hear a pair of cases challenging state and federal laws that define marriage to include only unions of a man and a woman.

One of the cases, from California, could establish or reject a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The justices could also rule on narrower grounds that would apply only to marriages in California.

The second case, from New York, challenges a federal law that requires the federal government to deny benefits to gay and lesbian couples married in states that allow such unions.
* * *

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place. It could affirm it on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.
* * *

The second case the court agreed to hear, United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, challenges a part of the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. Section 3 of the law defines marriage as between only a man and a woman for the purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs. (Another part of the law, not before the court, says that states need not recognize same-sex marriages from other states.)

The case concerns two New York City women, Edith Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer, who married in 2007 in Canada. Ms. Spyer died in 2009, and Ms. Windsor inherited her property. The 1996 law did not allow the Internal Revenue Service to treat Ms. Windsor as a surviving spouse, and she faced a tax bill of about $360,000 that a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage would not have had to pay. * * *

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/su ... ml?hp&_r=0

[dgs49]

A constitutional "right" to marry someone of the same gender is preposterous. There is no equal protection or due process issue, nor a privacy issue - nobody is denying these people the right to associate with anyone or to have congress with them in any way they choose. Rights are for INDIVIDUALS, not COUPLES.

[Long Run]

A constitutional "right" to marry someone of the same gender is preposterous.

But that is not the question before the SCOTUS. The question is whether the voters of a state can single out same gender couples and say they have no right to marry. Not just semantics. Someone (i.e., legislators or a state court interpreting state law) still will have to say same gender couples have the right to marry.

[Gob]

A constitutional "right" to marry someone of the same gender is preposterous. There is no equal protection or due process issue, nor a privacy issue - nobody is denying these people the right to associate with anyone or to have congress with them in any way they choose. Rights are for INDIVIDUALS, not COUPLES.

Couples consist of two individuals Dave.

[Joe Guy]

Sometimes a person or group's personal prejudices have the effect of blinding them from the real issue.

That is what causes arguments & wars.

[TPFKA@W]

It is preposterous to deny gays the right to marry, just as it was to deny whites and blacks to marry.

The moral imperative here is get things set right. It does not matter what the dinosaurs think, it will happen. Meanwhile those opposed get to look ridiculous.

[rubato]

The SC decision will only change slightly the path to the future. But the future itself is inevitable.

Same-sex marriage will prevail. If it is state-by-state then the higher-functioning states will change first and the backwards states last. If it is by a change in the federal law then it will be a little faster.

The troglodytes will be making excuses for their behavior, calling it 'states rights', or lying and pretending they never opposed it just like they do today about civil rights.

yrs,
rubato

[Grim Reaper]

perverted social/sexual/civil relationships commonly referred to as "gay marriages."

I like how dgs49 has to weigh his hatred of people who have different sexual preferences against his love for the tenth amendment.

[oldr_n_wsr]

My wife an I engage in some things that others might call "perverted". But I'll shoot the first person who comes through MY door trying to stop/outlaw us.

Others and what they do is not my concern, as long as it doesn't affect me. Of course the lady next door we used to call "Horsey" (sounds made) was a little much.

[Lord Jim]

My wife an I engage in some things that others might call "perverted".

Okay oldr, that will do....

No further elaboration will be necessary...

[oldr_n_wsr]

My wife an I engage in some things that others might call "perverted".

Okay oldr, that will do....

No further elaboration will be necessary...

Are you suuuurrrre?
Want some notes?
I am a year older and wiser than you.
Plus, my children are 27 and 23, so that means a few (many) more years of "fun" rather than taking care of the youngens.
Let me know when you need some "tricks".

[Lord Jim]

Are you suuuurrrre?

Absolutely positive...

In fact, I can't recall a time I was more positive....

[dgs49]

The issue is not whether one favors such relationships, but whether the United States government can rightly pre-empt the rights of the states to create alternative legal/civil relationships that displease the Congress.

And whether the U.S. Federal government can be forced to recognize such relationships within its tax laws, entitlement programs, and so forth.

And apropos of nothing in particular, I occasionally wonder whether it is stupidity, immaturity, or simple perverseness that leads some people to the conclusion that disapproval of a person's behavior or lifestyle equates to "hate." Honestly, I reserve what little "hate" I care to generate for those who seek to harm me or the significant others in my life (2 or 3 people, in total). I couldn't care less how other people get their rocks off.

[Grim Reaper]

I occasionally wonder whether it is stupidity, immaturity, or simple perverseness that leads some people to the conclusion that disapproval of a person's behavior or lifestyle equates to "hate."

You have repeatedly stated that you want to deny people basic rights because of how they think differently from you. So, yes. You do fall under the "hateful" category quite easily.

Honestly, I reserve what little "hate" I care to generate for those who seek to harm me or the significant others in my life (2 or 3 people, in total). I couldn't care less how other people get their rocks off.

You apparently do care, or you wouldn't call same-sex marriages a "perversion". So saying you don't care is just a feeble protestation that would only work if I ignored everything you have ever said on this subject in the past.

Oh, and since we're on the topic. Here's a question you have steadfastly refused to answer every other time:

If fertility is such an important aspect of marriage, so much so that you used it repeatedly as a reason to deny same-sex marriages, then why do you not also campaign against infertile people marrying?