This was unconstitutional

[beenherebeforeagain]

The supreme court far as I know is empowered to interpret the law. Not legislate it.

What do you think "legislate" means?
The SC reviewed the laws in question, and interpreted them. It interpreted them as being in violation of the Constitutional protections of the 14th Amendment, and ruled all such laws as void because they were unconstitutional. That is not legislating; that's Judicial Review.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why not?

It should be a federal matter if it involves the whole population. The definition of marriage involves the whole population.

It does apply, but only within terms by which federal and state recognises any marriage for legal purposes. It should never be enforced on religious grounds using governmental power. At least that is my take.

If the Catholic Church bans gay marriage for instance, it shouldn't be legally forced to perform gay marriages in scope of it's religious disposition just because the law dictates it.

I think the decision was a good one btw insofar as legality is concerned, but not in a religious context if the law forces the hand of religions.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Looking at Yahoo News just now, I saw this extract from Justice Roberts' dissent:

"The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

That ancient social institution (which was actually different for every culture cited, or that ever existed) became a part of US Common Law with the adoption of the US Constitution. It's supposed hallowed history then ceases to give it, or any interpretation of it, any support under common law--it becomes one of the body of laws of our nation, and has to meet the same tests: is there a compelling governmental reason to have this law, and to implement it in this way? If the answer is yes, the law can stand; if no, it must be voided. And indeed, the SC historically looks down on legal interpretations from other nations, since they have nothing to do with our system of laws.

Four of the justices thought that there is a compelling governmental reason for states to discriminate against same-sex couples in the matter of marriage; Five found that argument unconvincing. Therefore, the law was voided.

We still have marriage; as it did historically in many cultures, and as it does presently in many nations and cultures, it now includes same-sex couples. So, it's a little different than it was a few days ago, and a few decades ago--but then, we already changed marriage to allow people of different races to marry, of different ethnicity, of different RELIGIONS...things that were found to have no legal basis, even if some believe there is a religious basis.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Huh?

Nothing, man.

 

[Levite]

Funny how gays talk of getting married, but a lot of them are promiscuous and wouldn't stay married. Anyone who's known gay people knows it doesn't usually last long. Also there are gays that even spoke out against homo marriage and having them adopt children, but you don't see the news report that, do you? It ends up ruining the family because both a mother and father are needed to balance things out. Again, not to many children with homo parents turn out well. Diseases are spread more because they tend to be more promiscuous. Lots of strippers and porn stars are gay or at least bi. AIDS was more common in gays than hetero couples. That and with messing up the family, THAT is the reason why religions were against it, not just because it's disgusting and weird.

This is just homophobic nonsense.

Everyone is entitled to marry the person they love, regardless of sex/gender. If you don't approve, don't marry someone of the same sex as you are. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the laws. If you don't like it, move to a country without equal protections.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Nothing, man.

I think I got it, man. There is a theory out in political-science land that says just that.
Not going to nerd out about it, though.
Unless you want...

 

[Forever_Catholic]

That ancient social institution (which was actually different for every culture cited, or that ever existed) became a part of US Common Law with the adoption of the US Constitution. It's supposed hallowed history then ceases to give it, or any interpretation of it, any support under common law--it becomes one of the body of laws of our nation, and has to meet the same tests: is there a compelling governmental reason to have this law, and to implement it in this way? If the answer is yes, the law can stand; if no, it must be voided. And indeed, the SC historically looks down on legal interpretations from other nations, since they have nothing to do with our system of laws.

Four of the justices thought that there is a compelling governmental reason for states to discriminate against same-sex couples in the matter of marriage; Five found that argument unconvincing. Therefore, the law was voided.

We still have marriage; as it did historically in many cultures, and as it does presently in many nations and cultures, it now includes same-sex couples. So, it's a little different than it was a few days ago, and a few decades ago--but then, we already changed marriage to allow people of different races to marry, of different ethnicity, of different RELIGIONS...things that were found to have no legal basis, even if some believe there is a religious basis.

But as to the debate on whether this was a constitutional action or not, some who know constitutional law say yes, and some say no. One thing we have seen for sure in the Obama empire is that he will get what he wants one way or the other no matter what the constitution says. There is a pattern in which the will of the people and the will of the states has been overridden, and laws have been either ignored or enacted as needed for that.

 

[Willamena]

It does apply, but only within terms by which federal and state recognises any marriage for legal purposes. It should never be enforced on religious grounds using governmental power. At least that is my take.

Hopefully, it never will be, or we'd have another federal matter. The law only kicks in when someone has a complaint.

If the Catholic Church bans gay marriage for instance, it shouldn't be legally forced to perform gay marriages in scope of it's religious disposition just because the law dictates it.

Sounds like we need a treaty with the Catholic Church.

What's wrong with that picture?

I think the decision was a good one btw insofar as legality is concerned, but not in a religious context if the law forces the hand of religions.

 

[Jainarayan]

It does apply, but only within terms by which federal and state recognises any marriage for legal purposes. It should never be enforced on religious grounds using governmental power. At least that is my take.

If the Catholic Church bans gay marriage for instance, it shouldn't be legally forced to perform gay marriages in scope of it's religious disposition just because the law dictates it.

I think the decision was a good one btw insofar as legality is concerned, but not in a religious context if the law forces the hand of religions.

Religions cannot and will not be forced to perform same sex marriages. The courts will not permit it. People need to stand down red alert on this one. It's the anti-ssm camp propagating this.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't see how this matter might be treated on a State rather than Federal level.

It is a civil rights matter, and one that by its very nature transcends state boundaries. Unlike, say, gun carry permits, a marriage must be duly recognized even outside the State were it was taken.

The only way out would be to redefine that matter discussed as being not the right to marry proper, but rather the right to disown marriages.

It could work if marriage were understood to be a duty towards the community instead of a right of the citizens... but it seems to me that such an understanding is terribly backwards and oppressive.

 

[columbus]

Sounds like we need a treaty with the Catholic Church.

Well, the Vatican is a State after all.
Maybe what we need is for this State to stop setting up tax-exempt embassies and funding political movements and agendas in foreign countries like the USA.
Tom

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I just don't see how this matter might be treated on a State rather than Federal level.

It is a civil rights matter, and one that by its very nature transcends state boundaries. Unlike, say, gun carry permits, a marriage must be duly recognized even outside the State were it was taken.

The only way out would be to redefine that matter discussed as being not the right to marry proper, but rather the right to disown marriages.

It could work if marriage were understood to be a duty towards the community instead of a right of the citizens... but it seems to me that such an understanding is terribly backwards and oppressive.

Yes, it would be contrary to US law, where community has virtually no standing. In the US, the states created the federal government, and only a limited number of powers were delegated to it (including one that Congress has the power to pass any law "necessary and proper" to carrying out any of its other duties). The states retained the right to do things like regulate individual behavior--like get married, get a driver's license, own property, punishment for violation of most criminal laws, and so on. Up until fairly recently, only male-female couples could get a marriage license, even after both state and federal law recognized domestic partnerships. Then some states passed same-sex marriage, requiring that state actors empowered to conduct marriages conduct such weddings for same-sex couples. Other states refused to recognize through "full faith and credit" the legal marriages created in others states. (The same thing happened when interracial marriage was the challenge to the institution of marriage here in the US.) The states, following this decision, are still responsible for setting and enforcing the laws regarding marriage--they simply can no longer discriminate against same-sex couples because it is a violation of civil rights to do so--and that is NOT a state choice.

Under US law, the rights of a minority cannot be infringed upon simply because the majority believes that it's okay--the whole idea behind the Constitution was to protect a very specific minority (the white property-owning males who created the Constitution). Since then, those protections have been extended to most everyone else either through Constitutional Amendments or laws citing those Amendments as a basis.

 

[BSM1]

I considered this too.
Marriage is pretty clearly a right.
Why?
Because were it denied, everyone would be up in arms.
The question is about who is entitled to it.
I can see polygamy & incestuous marriages being rights too, but that would be a much harder sell to the Supremes.
The only rights we have legally are the ones recognized by enuf people for gov to do the same.

Makes sense.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, the Vatican is a State after all.
Maybe what we need is for this State to stop setting up tax-exempt embassies and funding political movements and agendas in foreign countries like the USA.
Tom

that will happen just as soon as the USA stops doing the same in foreign countries!

 

[freethinker44]

It still is a state issue. Why don't you point out a part in the Constitution where the Federal Government has a say of who can be married and who can't.

How about article 4, section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Religions cannot and will not be forced to perform same sex marriages. The courts will not permit it. People need to stand down red alert on this one. It's the anti-ssm camp propagating this.

I suspected as much, but sometimes it gets difficult to muck through the smoke and mirrors to actually find the truth of the matter.

 

[Baladas]

Not to put to fine a point on it but where did you get the idea that marriage is a right? How would you explain laws against polygamy or incestual marriages?

I see nothing wrong with consensual polygamous and incestuous relationships or marriages.
Why should I?

 

[columbus]

that will happen just as soon as the USA stops doing the same in foreign countries!

It's different when we do it.
We elect the leader of the Free World.

Sigh....
the burden....
Tom

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I love the smell of religionists whining in the morning.

It smells like Victory.
Tom

It smells like crap which is what you are full of. I know anyone who supported this will regret it. I've read history too many times. You don't study it, you repeat it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I disagree, but if you will, how or why would anyone come to regret this decision, @Theweirdtophat ?