Gays Celebrate Supreme Court Ruling on Marriage

The Supremes voted to stay out of the Gay Marriage fight opening the way for Gay Marriage in 30 more states. I am okay with that. Should be all about love anyway:
http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/26719635/same-sex-couple-in-nc-poises-for-marriage-following-supreme-court-ruling

"ASHEVILLE, NC (FOX Carolina) - Robert Carver and John Griffin have been a couple for 33 years, and they said they were "ecstatic" to learn they could soon make that union legally binding, possibly this week.

"I just wanted to cry," said Robert Carver.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to not hear appeals in five states covered in the 4th Judicial Circuit is opening the door for legalization of same-sex unions in North and South Carolina.

Carver and Griffin live in Buncombe Co., which officials said may start allowing same-sex marriages in a matter of days. ..."

Can we just let it go. These people that believe they have some right to tell other people what they can and can not do are insane. We are all just people we are not labels if two people want to get married what does it matter. If we don't just be good humans and take care of one another there wont be anybody to take care of.
My two cents
8

Many of the people that condemn it quote the Bible. Well the Bible also states that it is not up to us to Judge people

It's worth celebrating.

The ruling is a landmark decision, and one that tacitly makes gay marriage legal in all 50 states. From here on in the laws will fall like dominoes.

It was an ignorant argument to begin with - just like the justifications for a great many cases of oppression that find much of their greatest defense in the ranks of the religiously devout.

Technically there are still only 19 states in which gay marriage is legal, there are an additional 11 states in which this ruling (or lack of) made gay marriage not illegal. And there are still 20 states which have challenges pending.

Its a little hard for me to get excited about this until there is a law in place stating that same sex marriage is legal.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Technically there are still only 19 states in which gay marriage is legal, there are an additional 11 states in which this ruling (or lack of) made gay marriage not illegal. And there are still 20 states which have challenges pending.

Its a little hard for me to get excited about this until there is a law in place stating that same sex marriage is legal.

Well, yes and no. The Supreme Court has ruled that they have no issue to take up in the rulings of the lower courts. The rulings in the lower courts are that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional.

Insofar as the Supreme Court is ever clear on its intentions, this one's pretty clear. Anyone challenging a law on gay marriage bans will either have the bans thrown out by the lower courts (Circuit Courts) or, if the Circuit Court upholds the ban on gay marriage, the Supreme Court will hear that case (and subsequently rule against it).

The Supreme Court's ruling today is an affirmation that they concur with the lower court rulings - those from the Circuit Court that struck down such bans all across the country on the basis of constitutionality.

Sure, the laws are still on the books. Alabama still has a sodomy law too. Good luck enforcing it. The first person that gets prosecuted or denied any services because of it will result in the law being struck down.

The laws are technically still in place - but only because no one has challenged them yet.

In each instance where those laws still stand, they're fake laws. The first court challenge against them will see them stricken from the books.

Hell, the lawsuits (against the marriage bans) are probably being filed as we speak.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Technically there are still only 19 states in which gay marriage is legal, there are an additional 11 states in which this ruling (or lack of) made gay marriage not illegal. And there are still 20 states which have challenges pending.

Its a little hard for me to get excited about this until there is a law in place stating that same sex marriage is legal.

Then it will be depressing at best!!

The court could very well just be delaying taking this issue up for a few years. Four conservatives, four liberals, and one swing vote. The conservatives might just be waiting to see if a republican will be president next and try to appoint a far right winger to replace Ginsburg, who perhaps won't be on the court past the next president.

Or, maybe it is just a tacit acceptance of the lower courts rulings. But declining to take an issue up on appeal doesn't mean the higher court wouldn't reverse.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

Technically there are still only 19 states in which gay marriage is legal, there are an additional 11 states in which this ruling (or lack of) made gay marriage not illegal. And there are still 20 states which have challenges pending.

Its a little hard for me to get excited about this until there is a law in place stating that same sex marriage is legal.

I'd have to look again, but I think gay marriage is legal in 33 states. I thought that the courts various rulings went farther than saying a state couldn't explicitly ban gay marriage, but legalized it as well. Im tired, but I don't see the distinction right now between legal and not illegal. Indiana and Wisconsin are both issuing licenses for marriage to same sex couples.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

But declining to take an issue up on appeal doesn't mean the higher court wouldn't reverse.

True.

Though to be honest, even taking the issue up now and deciding it one way wouldn't prevent a future court from reversing that position. The Supreme Court struck down most labor laws for many decades remember, but later reversed its own rulings as we entered the 50s and 60s. The courts did the same in regards to civil rights issues.

It's not as though the Supreme Court has never gone back and changed previous rulings.

I don't believe the Supreme Court would put off hearing a case based on "maybe we'll get another Republican President."

I really don't think that would be enough of a potential prize to keep Supreme Court Justices from ruling on a case.

And remember, it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case. If the court was so split that they couldn't agree on the outcome of the case, they sure as hell wouldn't have agreed to vote it down.

Six justices - a majority - voted not to hear the cases. If the only motive they had for putting off a case was because they were waiting for a majority, they wouldn't need to wait. They had a majority - the majority voted not to hear the cases.

Based on what my "not at all an expert" observations are, I think that at least six, if not seven, of the current sitting judges would all have found bans on gay marriage to be unconstitutional. Just based on other cases such as Citizens United, among others.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

I'd have to look again, but I think gay marriage is legal in 33 states. I thought that the courts various rulings went farther than saying a state couldn't explicitly ban gay marriage, but legalized it as well. Im tired, but I don't see the distinction right now between legal and not illegal. Indiana and Wisconsin are both issuing licenses for marriage to same sex couples.

19 States have laws allowing sam sex marriage. An additional 13 (updated since my previous post) had had same sex marriage bans lifted. Bringing to total to 32...which is likely to move to 35 before the end of the week. I think its important to note the difference though. 19 Have allows legalizing it, 13 had laws making it illegal it struck down. While some may say there isn't a difference, there potentially could be. There is a difference between saying you're allowed to do it, and saying we're just not going to bother you if you do it.

Of course SC and NC will fight this battle until the bitter end costing tax payers a fortune in legal bills. SC has not given up fighting Obama Care

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

19 States have laws allowing sam sex marriage. An additional 13 (updated since my previous post) had had same sex marriage bans lifted. Bringing to total to 32...which is likely to move to 35 before the end of the week. I think its important to note the difference though. 19 Have allows legalizing it, 13 had laws making it illegal it struck down. While some may say there isn't a difference, there potentially could be. There is a difference between saying you're allowed to do it, and saying we're just not going to bother you if you do it.

While I frequently find semantics to be important, particularly in the context of gay marriage and civil rights in general, I don't see it in this one. If I were a member of the GLBTQ community, I anticipate I would feel more welcomed in a state like Minnesota (where the law was changed by the legislature) as opposed to a state like neighboring Iowa, where the law was changed by the state supreme court.

But the end result is the same - gay marriage is legal in both places. It isn't a matter of the states saying "we aren't going to bother you if you do it." It's a matter of it being legal, so they can't bother gay couples for staying within the law.

Tarquin - maybe that isn't the reason for the court holding off. It's all a bunch of guesswork. But I think the liberals and conservatives not trusting Kennedy enough to vote to hear the issue is one of the more common guesses. Of course the court could revisit the ruling years down the road, but that's no guarantee, the U.S. would have this ruling governing for years, and it would still be a hugely significant ruling one way or the other. Pro life advocates said for decades that roe v. Wade could be overturned. Still waiting.

While I don't know the reason for waiting, the conservative bloc absolutely may be kicking the can down the road to see what the court will look like with a new justice. And the liberal bloc could very well be kicking the can down the road because all the appeals courts are making gay marriage legal anyway, so there's no reason to risk Kennedy breaking from them on this issue.

Personally, I would be surprised if the supreme court would take one of these cases and find that banning gay marriage doesn't violate the constitution. But I've been surprised by the courts before.

Quote:

Originally posted by kylecook

...

While I frequently find semantics to be important, particularly in the context of gay marriage and civil rights in general, I don't see it in this one. If I were a member of the GLBTQ community, I anticipate I would feel more welcomed in a state like Minnesota (where the law was changed by the legislature) as opposed to a state like neighboring Iowa, where the law was changed by the state supreme court.

But the end result is the same - gay marriage is legal in both places. It isn't a matter of the states saying "we aren't going to bother you if you do it." It's a matter of it being legal, so they can't bother gay couples for staying within the law.

Im just saying that I think its better to have a law on the books that protects your right rather than have a ruling that says we aren't necessarily going to protect that right that you get in other states...or even acknowledge that it is a right; we just won't allow a law that stops you from exercising your right. And that is essentially what this ruling has done. Like I said before it doesn't technically make marriage equality legal in these states, it just makes it not illegal.

Don't get me wrong...its a huge step, and it opens the door for these states to actually pass marriage equality laws. It will also allow couples to get married, but I'm just worried that they'll have another trick up their sleeves to stop it; similar to what happened in California. I guess I just feel that until there is a law on the books allowing same sex marriage in these new states, that it could be taken away.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Im just saying that I think its better to have a law on the books that protects your right rather than have a ruling that says we aren't necessarily going to protect that right that you get in other states...or even acknowledge that it is a right; we just won't allow a law that stops you from exercising your right.

Part I:

The Supreme Court's ruling also means that states have to honor each others' marriages. Tennessee can't deny a married couple from obtaining all of their rights just because they were married in California. Since all marriages are equal (now), Tennessee also can't deny a gay marriage. It also can't deny an inter-racial marriage.


Part II:

You want a law that grants a right to a person.

I prefer the opposite.

Anything that is not a law, is left to a person's right. If we start saying that we have to have a law in order to make something legal, we're going to need a lot more laws - and the result will be that any right not granted in statute is by default, not allowed.

Besides, that's not the way it works.

We can't actually make something illegal until:

A) It happens.
B) A demonstrable harm to society or other individual rights results from it.

Laws are often struck down for being created "before the fact." For example, right now if one of the states passed a law against anyone using a teleport device to move themselves from home to work and back again, it would be struck down. The reason it would be struck down is because no one has used such a device in a way that harms others yet, and we have yet to establish that society or other individual rights would be harmed from its use.

If we start making laws to affirm our rights, instead of having to make laws to constrain our rights, we then concede that any right not specifically enumerated by a statute is illegal to exercise - and is not a right at all.

Right now, the default is that if there's no law against it, you can do it.

The desire you express in the part of your post that I quoted would change that default to one of "if a law doesn't say you can do it, you can't."

Your stance would change that default from one that allows individual actions to one that constrains it. That's really not very free at all, and is actually the contrary of what our founders intended, and what we as Americans fundamentally pride ourselves on - individual liberty.

If we can only do it after a law is passed that says we can, then we become far more constrained as a society, as well as individuals.

Right now, it takes a lot of work to create a law that can prevent or deter someone from taking any given action. If you got your wish, Sugarpie, it would require an awful lot of work to create a law so that someone could make a choice that really doesn't impact society or other people at all.

I believe that if you think your stance through, you'd agree that our current default is the more desirable one for our culture.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquin

...
Right now, the default is that if there's no law against it, you can do it.

Correct me if I'm mistake, but I believe that is because its written into the constitution.

Marriage itself is not a constitutional right, but the 14th amendment is used to defend the right to marry, and in 1967 it was used to over turn a ban on interracial marriage. Yet, even with this amendment, gays could not marry until recently, and until the state they lived in passed a law allowing it. So the "default" you talk about did not give gays the right to marry. Maybe its just because a gay couple never challenged it, but regardless, states for decades have denied marriages to gay couples despite what the 14th amendment says.
The 14th amendment is law, and hasn't protected gay couples in the past, so how is it different today?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

Correct me if I'm mistake, but I believe that is because its written into the constitution.

Partially. Substantially even. Part of it is a holdover from British Common Law as well.

That said, it's there nonetheless, and none of us want to live in a society of "prior restraint" where things are illegal by default until a law is passed that makes them legal.

Quote:

Marriage itself is not a constitutional right

Pretty much everyone who understands the basics of law would disagree with you. It's an individual liberty covered by several portions of the Constitution, actually, among other founding documents.

The pursuit of happiness, individual liberty, the right to enter contracts (marriage is a contract after all), the First Amendment certainly covers it in part (the right to self-expression - Free exercise), the part about "All rights not reserved for the nation are reserved for the states, and all rights not reserved for the states belong to the people" is pretty compelling as well. We also had it pretty firmly established from our imported Common Law when we started this shin-dig.

Marriage most certainly is covered by several portions of the Constitution.

Quote:

but the 14th amendment is used to defend the right to marry

Um... What?

The 14th Amendment is the Due Process Clause. I'm sure that at some point in our nation's history someone has challenged something about a marriage under pretty much every Amendment out there, but primarily marriage is established much more strongly in other portions of the Constitution.

Quote:

and in 1967 it was used to over turn a ban on interracial marriage.

Okay, that makes more sense. I could (and I'm guessing here because I don't know which case you're talking about) imagine that a court heard a challenge on gay marriage and the court found that the couple was being prohibited from exercising their legal right to marry without the couple having been found guilty of some crime that necessitated such restrictions, and thus the law violated their due process rights (suspension of personal liberty without having done anything to merit it - such as committing a crime and having been convicted in a court of law).

But it's hard to say without seeing the specific case and knowing more about it.

It wouldn't surprise me at all however, if at some point a judge said "Marriage is a right. This couple's right to marry is being infringed on by the state, but they didn't commit a crime and they didn't get a trial, so there's no justification for restricting their rights. This violates the 14th Amendment which guarantees that a person's rights, property and freedom will not be restricted without due process (a court system)."

Quote:

Yet, even with this amendment, gays could not marry until recently, and until the state they lived in passed a law allowing it. So the "default" you talk about did not give gays the right to marry.

Actually, you're mistaken. Most laws on the books of most states did define a marriage as being between a man and a woman, or the actual verbiage was ambiguous and had been interpreted to mean "between a man and a woman." So yes, there was a law on the books in most states.

Many states recently tried to pass gay marriage laws barring gays from being wed, as soon as that question started to become challenged. Proposition 8 is one such law. Colorado also had a law they passed. So did dozens of other states. In many states, it still says that marriage is between a man and a woman because it hasn't been corrected yet.

At the time most state laws were written - most people pretty universally agreed that marriage was solely the dominion of a man and a woman (and only of the same race I might add). But bear in mind those laws were put in place at a time when discussing such things (much less acting on them) would get you tossed into an iron maiden.

Over time the question of what defines marriage began to be discussed and debated more openly - but it's clear that at the time most marriage laws were written they almost accidentally wrote in (either explicitly or implicitly) that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.

In states where it truly was ambiguous, within the last 20 years there has been a rash of laws passed that outlawed gay marriage.

Sugarpie, if no law existed barring the marriage of two men or of two women, the Supreme Court wouldn't have anything to strike down (or a ruling to uphold after the Circuit Courts struck them down).

The laws are there. They've been there. For a long time.

You're mistaken. The law did prevent two same-gendered people from being married.

Quote:

The 14th amendment is law, and hasn't protected gay couples in the past, so how is it different today?

You have a misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment. It's the Due Process Amendment. It doesn't protect marriage and it doesn't protect gays. It protects your right to a trail, a fair trial, to have evidence presented, to be able to refute that evidence, to have an attorney, and prevents unlawful search and seizure of personal property and liberty.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Amendments, Sugarpie.

You should be focusing on the First Amendment. That's where most folks would say the strongest support for a right to marry is at.

Sugarpie, do you recall recently when 3d printers were found to be capable of making a gun?

Someone made a blueprint for a handgun such that anyone with a 3d printer could make a gun.

Link to article about the "Liberator".

Law enforcement agencies across the nation were in a complete panic just a few months ago because there were no laws on the books that prevented someone from printing a gun. They couldn't buy a gun under certain sets of circumstances, because laws prevented them from doing so. There are laws that impact whether or not we can give a gun to someone, but the idea of printing a gun had never been directly addressed in any laws.

This caused a panic throughout the law enforcement world.

Because the fact that there was no clear law preventing it, would mean that it's legal to do.

Now as the debate raged Congress and the courts did rule that commerce clauses, public safety clauses, and other laws on the books did implicitly make it illegal to print certain weapons, but it took time to come to that conclusion.

The reality is that initially there was a lot of panic about 3d printed guns, because the United States as a whole didn't have hardly any laws preventing it - and thus it was legal.

We live in a society where the default is empowerment. Unless a law says you can't do it, you can do it.

In the case of gay marriage, you're mistaken. Most of the laws in this nation either explicitly stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, or it was found to be inherent in the law at the time it was written (because it was clearly written at a time and with the understanding that marriage was to only be between two people of opposite gender).

I'd check on the List of Gay Marriage Laws in our nation. The laws being struck down almost always contain explicit language, or there was a court ruling that found the language to inherently mean that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Yes, the law most certainly did prevent marriage between a man and a woman.

Legally speaking, if there's no law against it, you can do it.

Bear in mind that a lot of laws are interpreted quite broadly, so I wouldn't exactly run out and test this against all good sense. But yeah, if there's no law against it, you can do it.

If I had the means to do so, I could teleport myself. Congress would probably get pissed if I was teleporting door to door to sell things though, and they'd probably say I was violating the State Commerce Clause by not paying transport fees - but they do in fact have to find a law that's been violated. They can't just say I'm violating the law if no such law exists to violate.

The debate between you both (Sugarpie and Tarquin) is very helpful, and I learn much in reading both of your commentaries. Thank you.

My bigger question (one of which I ponder among a very few friends) is the wisdom of government involvement in marriage at all. I can understand gov't involvement in civil unions, especially since they are formal contracts (hence the involvement of courts in divorce suits). But marriage has a deeper history in religion, and I wonder if it shouldn't stay there. I was challenged to think about this from some of my gay/queer friends (and I am fortunate to have much diversity among my friends). Many of them advocate that marriage isn't for them. It is a "straight" and religious concept, and they can develop something better through the process of civil unions.

However, in either case, it is more about control than it is about equality -- until the most recent history where equality is creeping into the concept. I think we are headed in the right direction (and I am happy that the USA is finally getting their act together about this) because denial of an opportunity (notice I didn't say "right" yet) to one group, when it is available to another group, is wrong (except when it comes to protecting public health and safety, such as denying access to firearms to violent criminals). If the federal government is worth anything, it is to support this concept -- that of a social contract only possible when there is a group focused on protecting that contract. Folks are finally starting to figure out the full implications of this concept, but it was supposedly with us from the beginning. It was even debated heavily before the adoption of the constitution, when the eastern provinces of Canada were being invited into the emerging federal union of states. They declined involvement, and in 1789 we adopted a constitution among 13 colonies, and have been struggling to live up to our values ever since.

Just wanted to thank you both for engaging in this debate, and for the opportunity to engage and learn from it.