Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How can Massachusetts be held responsible for failing to call people married that aren't actually married?

It is a problem to have a couple that is considered to be married (or otherwise entitled to marriage-like benefits) in some states but not in others. But I don't see why it's New Jersey's responsibility to make sure that Massachusetts respects those benefits.Is there currently any federal legislation requiring each state to recognize marriages performed in other states? (If so, is the word "marriage" used?) Or is that something states have just decided to do on their own? I think that makes a difference. (Also, what are the IRS's rules for determining whether a couple may file jointly? Do they piggyback on state definitions of marriage -- and do they use the word "marriage"?)

I'm not sure what you think Massachusetts should do. If a couple isn't married, I'm not sure how Massachusetts could call them married. It's New Jersey's problem because they wouldn't be conferring identical benefits on gay couples as they are on straight couples. With respect to some things, that can't be helped. But with respect to "being considered married in Massachusetts", it can be helped.The federal government does not recognize gay marriages. Gay married couples in Massachusetts have to file their federal taxes individually and they don't get benefits from the federal government or any of that stuff.

Doesn't DOMA make the word marriage irrelevant here? Assuming wikipedia characterizes this correctly

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Doesn't DOMA make the word marriage irrelevant here? Assuming wikipedia characterizes this correctly

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

 

[The Commish]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

I believe that anyone with a valid license can drive in any other state. Even if they would have been ineligible to get a license there.

 

[The Commish]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

I believe that anyone with a valid license can drive in any other state. Even if they would have been ineligible to get a license there.

So, would this then be looked at the same way or would states have the ability to refuse recognition to people joined in one state that then moved to their state? An interesting question and something I had never thought of before.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Does anyone know what happens to a gay married couple if they move from Massachusetts to a civil union state like Vermont or Connecticut? Are they automatically considered to be civil unionized? What about a civil union couple moving from one civil union state to another?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

I believe that anyone with a valid license can drive in any other state. Even if they would have been ineligible to get a license there.

So, would this then be looked at the same way or would states have the ability to refuse recognition to people joined in one state that then moved to their state? An interesting question and something I had never thought of before.

See the cite above to DOMA -- The federal Defense of Marriage Act. It says explicitly that states do not have to recognize same sex marriages from other states. The Supreme Court has never considered whether DOMA is constitutional. I imagine they will some time in the next ten years.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Doesn't DOMA make the word marriage irrelevant here? Assuming wikipedia characterizes this correctly

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.

The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

I'm guessing now that because Massachusetts is ahead of the game with same sex marriage you are assuming/asserting that Massachusetts would automatically recognize any similar marriage from any state? And that because this might be called something else Massachusetts will have to decide if NJ same sex something other then marriages are recognized because Massachusetts only recognizes marriages. While if it was called marriage Massachusetts would have to do anything. Right?If so nevermind. I was thinking in terms of states other then Massachusetts.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I'm guessing now that because Massachusetts is ahead of the game with same sex marriage you are assuming/asserting that Massachusetts would automatically recognize any similar marriage from any state? And that because this might be called something else Massachusetts will have to decide if NJ same sex something other then marriages are recognized because Massachusetts only recognizes marriages. While if it was called marriage Massachusetts would have to do anything. Right?

Yeah, this is what I was getting at.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Here is my summary of the summary:

1. While opposite-sex marriage may be a fundamental right, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. Therefore, the court will not heighten its scrutiny on that basis.

2. The protection under the law being challenged as unequal is the protection afforded committed opposite-sex couples, on the one hand, and the protection afforded committed same-sex couples, on the other hand. (My preference is to cast it as the disparate treatment of males and females rather than the disparate treatment of straight couples and gay couples, but my preference has not caught on with any of the courts that I know of.) Since same-sex couples are not a protected class, the court will not heighten its scrutiny on that basis.

3. Since there is no basis for the court to heighten its scrutiny, it will apply the rational basis test.

4. There is no rational basis for giving different protections to committed opposite-sex couples and committed same-sex couples.

5. The court doesn't care about the word "marriage." It's not saying that gay people must be allowed to get married in New Jersey, although that would be one option.

6. The court is saying that, regardless of what word is used, committed same-sex couples must have the same substantive legal protections afforded to committed opposite-sex couples. It may be okay to use the word "marriage" in one case and "civil union" in the other as long as the substantive rights are the same.

7. The legislature shall go forth and figure out a way to make the equal protection thing happen.

Can you give us dummies the cliff notes version of the concept of heightened scrutiny? I get the impression that if we're not talking about a fundamental right or a protected class they won't heighten their scrutiny. Are these the only conditions for heightened scrutiny?

 

[bueno]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

I believe that anyone with a valid license can drive in any other state. Even if they would have been ineligible to get a license there.

It wasn't that way when the driving age in CT was 16 and it was 18 in NY.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Can you give us dummies the cliff notes version of the concept of heightened scrutiny?

Under Supreme Court precedent, different sorts of legislative acts are reviewed with different levels of scrutiny. For an everyday law or act, courts just look to see if there's a rational basis between the law and an objective the legislature is trying to acheive. But if the law or act involves an area where we're worried that the government might try to discriminate against a protected class (like, say, black people or Chinese people or mentally ######ed people), courts review it under either "heightened scrutiny" or "strict scrutiny" because we're suspicious of their motivations.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

I believe that anyone with a valid license can drive in any other state. Even if they would have been ineligible to get a license there.

It wasn't that way when the driving age in CT was 16 and it was 18 in NY.

Hmmm, I didn't know that. And I grew up in Connecticut. When was this?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Is this now going to be similar to people back in the day circumventing their state restrictions and/or requirements on marriage or divorce and running off to Vegas to get married or divorced?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is this now going to be similar to people back in the day circumventing their state restrictions and/or requirements on marriage or divorce and running off to Vegas to get married or divorced?

Probably not, because of the aforementioned Defense of Marriage Act. Unless there's a successful challenge to that statute.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's New Jersey's problem because they wouldn't be conferring identical benefits on gay couples as they are on straight couples.

New Jersey would be conferring identical benefits under New Jersey law.Back to the driver's license analogy, let's say that Massachusetts law allows females to drive at age 15 and males to drive at age 17 since males are more reckless, and that this has passed muster under both the Massachusetts and the federal constitution. Meanwhile, New Jersey's similar scheme had been struck down under the New Jersey constitution, so New Jersey must now make males and females eligible for licenses at the same age (and they choose age 15).

If Massachusetts recognizes New Jersey licenses for males at 17 and females at 15, that means New Jersey is giving a 16-year-old male different rights from a 16-year-old female under Massachusetts law when it gives them both New Jersey licenses. But it's giving them the same rights under New Jersey law. Isn't the latter all New Jersey is required to be concerned about? What Massachusetts does is Massachusetts's own business.

But with respect to "being considered married in Massachusetts", it can be helped.

Sure it can be helped. The question is whether it's unconstitutional not to help it.

The federal government does not recognize gay marriages. Gay married couples in Massachusetts have to file their federal taxes individually and they don't get benefits from the federal government or any of that stuff.

Is there a federal requirement that State A must recognize marriages performed in State B? If there is, then New Jersey would seem to violate this ruling by allowing straight marriages and gay civil unions since they would not be treated the same under that federal law. I think New Jersey has to confer the same benefits on gay couples as on straight couples under both New Jersey state law and under federal law.I just don't think that New Jersey has to make sure on its own that other states outside of New Jersey (or other countries for that matter) will confer the same benefits on New Jersey-married (or unionized) couples under their own state (or foreign) laws.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Can you give us dummies the cliff notes version of the concept of heightened scrutiny? I get the impression that if we're not talking about a fundamental right or a protected class they won't heighten their scrutiny. Are these the only conditions for heightened scrutiny?

All laws discriminate against somebody, but discrimination is allowed as long as the government has a sufficiently good reason. The question of what level of scrutiny is applied affects how good the reason must be in order to be sufficient.For a law that prohibits felons from riding in the front of a bus, the government doesn't really need all that great of a reason since felons are not a protected class, and riding in the front of a bus is not a fundamental right.

But for a law that prohibits felons from voting, or a law that prohibits black people from riding in the front of a bus, the government will need to provide a Really Good Reason (since voting is a fundamental right and blacks are a protected class).

Part of the legal argument in gay marriage cases concerns (a) whether marriage is a fundamental right, and (b) whether gay couples are a protected class.

It's been held that marriage is a fundamental right; but this case held that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right.

It's also been held, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that gay people are not a protected class. (I think certain states do treat gays as a protected class, California being one of them.)

So New Jersey treated the law prohibiting gays from gay-marrying as it would treat a law prohibiting felons from riding in the front of a bus, requiring that the state come up with merely some kind of rational basis for the law (instead of a Really Good Reason) -- but the state was unable to meet this burden.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Straight couples can get married. Gay couples can't. That's not equal.

Sure they can, just not to a same sex partner. I know, that is stupid - but a homosexual has the same treatment with regard to marrying a person of the opposite sex as does a heterosexual person.

James can marry Sally, but Tina cannot marry Sally. That's not equal.

A convicted felon, a person under 35 or a foreign born citizen can't be president. Is that equal treatment under the law?

Of course it's not equal.In both cases, the question isn't whether the law treats all people equally (no law does); the question is whether there's a sufficient reason for discriminating against whichever category of people the law in question discriminates against.

It's easy to come up with a legitimate reason for discriminating against convicted felons in their bid for the presidency.

What's the legitimate reason for discriminating against Tina in her bid to marry Sally?

If James marries Sally and Gina also wants to marry James, how is that fair to either James or Gina since they cannot marry?

WTF?Seriously,

Polygamy. I am not equating the two, merely pointing out that both Gina and Sally cannot both be married to James concurrently. So while Sally marries James, this nullifies Gina's ability to marry James. Even if James, Sally and Gina agree to a polygamous marital relationship.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is there a federal requirement that State A must recognize marriages performed in State B? If there is, then New Jersey would seem to violate this ruling by allowing straight marriages and gay civil unions since they would not be treated the same under that federal law. I think New Jersey has to confer the same benefits on gay couples as on straight couples under both New Jersey state law and under federal law.I just don't think that New Jersey has to make sure on its own that other states outside of New Jersey (or other countries for that matter) will confer the same benefits on New Jersey-married (or unionized) couples under their own state (or foreign) laws.

Do you think it would be OK for New Jersey to grant "portable" marriage licenses to tall people, allowing them to stay married even if they moved out of state, but only grant "non-portable" marriage licenses to short people, that explicitly said that the marriage license expires if they move out of state?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Polygamy. I am not equating the two, merely pointing out that both Gina and Sally cannot both be married to James concurrently. So while Sally marries James, this nullifies Gina's ability to marry James. Even if James, Sally and Gina agree to a polygamous marital relationship.

There's no equal protection problem there, though. Gina's best shot would be a due process argument. But even there, it's easy for the state to come up with a rational basis for prohibiting polygamy. (Undue complications w/r/t custody issues, for example.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is there a federal requirement that State A must recognize marriages performed in State B? If there is, then New Jersey would seem to violate this ruling by allowing straight marriages and gay civil unions since they would not be treated the same under that federal law. I think New Jersey has to confer the same benefits on gay couples as on straight couples under both New Jersey state law and under federal law.I just don't think that New Jersey has to make sure on its own that other states outside of New Jersey (or other countries for that matter) will confer the same benefits on New Jersey-married (or unionized) couples under their own state (or foreign) laws.

Do you think it would be OK for New Jersey to grant "portable" marriage licenses to tall people, allowing them to stay married even if they moved out of state, but only grant "non-portable" marriage licenses to short people, that explicitly said that the marriage license expires if they move out of state?

No, that'd be a difference under New Jersey law. I don't have to look at foreign laws to try to figure out whether those two marriage licenses are substantively unequal.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Can you give us dummies the cliff notes version of the concept of heightened scrutiny? I get the impression that if we're not talking about a fundamental right or a protected class they won't heighten their scrutiny. Are these the only conditions for heightened scrutiny?

All laws discriminate against somebody, but discrimination is allowed as long as the government has a sufficiently good reason. The question of what level of scrutiny is applied affects how good the reason must be in order to be sufficient.For a law that prohibits felons from riding in the front of a bus, the government doesn't really need all that great of a reason since felons are not a protected class, and riding in the front of a bus is not a fundamental right.

But for a law that prohibits felons from voting, or a law that prohibits black people from riding in the front of a bus, the government will need to provide a Really Good Reason (since voting is a fundamental right and blacks are a protected class).

Part of the legal argument in gay marriage cases concerns (a) whether marriage is a fundamental right, and (b) whether gay couples are a protected class.

It's been held that marriage is a fundamental right; but this case held that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right.

It's also been held, as a matter of federal constitutional law, that gay people are not a protected class. (I think certain states do treat gays as a protected class, California being one of them.)

So New Jersey treated the law prohibiting gays from gay-marrying as it would treat a law prohibiting felons from riding in the front of a bus, requiring that the state come up with merely some kind of rational basis for the law (instead of a Really Good Reason) -- but the state was unable to meet this burden.

Thank you very much. When I hit the lottery I'd like to retain you as my personal tutor to explain stuff to me. Seriously, awesome post.ETAsk: This ruling has no impact if the state constitution is amended to prohibit gay marriage, correct?

New Jersey Republicans, who are in the minority in the Legislature, said they would work to ban same-sex unions by enacting a constitutional amendment.

GOP Assemblyman Richard Merkt said he would seek to have all seven justices impeached. "Neither the framers of New Jersey's 1947 constitution, nor the voters who ratified it, ever remotely contemplated the possibility of same-sex marriage," Merkt said.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is there a federal requirement that State A must recognize marriages performed in State B? If there is, then New Jersey would seem to violate this ruling by allowing straight marriages and gay civil unions since they would not be treated the same under that federal law. I think New Jersey has to confer the same benefits on gay couples as on straight couples under both New Jersey state law and under federal law.I just don't think that New Jersey has to make sure on its own that other states outside of New Jersey (or other countries for that matter) will confer the same benefits on New Jersey-married (or unionized) couples under their own state (or foreign) laws.

Do you think it would be OK for New Jersey to grant "portable" marriage licenses to tall people, allowing them to stay married even if they moved out of state, but only grant "non-portable" marriage licenses to short people, that explicitly said that the marriage license expires if they move out of state?

No, that'd be a difference under New Jersey law. I don't have to look at foreign laws to try to figure out whether those two marriage licenses are substantively unequal.

Yeah you do. Maybe there are no states that recognize any New Jersey marriages.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is there a federal requirement that State A must recognize marriages performed in State B? If there is, then New Jersey would seem to violate this ruling by allowing straight marriages and gay civil unions since they would not be treated the same under that federal law. I think New Jersey has to confer the same benefits on gay couples as on straight couples under both New Jersey state law and under federal law.I just don't think that New Jersey has to make sure on its own that other states outside of New Jersey (or other countries for that matter) will confer the same benefits on New Jersey-married (or unionized) couples under their own state (or foreign) laws.

Do you think it would be OK for New Jersey to grant "portable" marriage licenses to tall people, allowing them to stay married even if they moved out of state, but only grant "non-portable" marriage licenses to short people, that explicitly said that the marriage license expires if they move out of state?

No, that'd be a difference under New Jersey law. I don't have to look at foreign laws to try to figure out whether those two marriage licenses are substantively unequal.

Yeah you do. Maybe there are no states that recognize any New Jersey marriages.

I was thinking that the non-portable marriage expires upon moving out of the state. That means that if two couples move out of state and then subsequently move back in state, one couple might still be married and the other couple not.If your hypothetical non-portable marriage only temporarily expires whenever the couple is out of state but then is automatically reinstated when the couple moves back in state, that's a different case.But the law still treats the couples differently on its face. It does not merely give different names to the two types of marriages. It also says different things about them -- namely, that one is legally (if not also factually) more durable than the other. That's unequal treatment on its face.

 

[bueno]

Let me first say, I am no lawyer. Perhaps this is a statement of the obvious, but I didn't want to take the chance. Isn't this issue the same issue that some states face with driving age? Weren't there some states that had a driving age of 18 and others 16? If so, how is the 16 year old handled in a state where they aren't old enough to drive? Or is this nothing like what I have described?

I believe that anyone with a valid license can drive in any other state. Even if they would have been ineligible to get a license there.

It wasn't that way when the driving age in CT was 16 and it was 18 in NY.

Hmmm, I didn't know that. And I grew up in Connecticut. When was this?

I got my license in 1968, I think it was (in CT). It was illegal for me to drive in NY. It may have been in part because the drinking age in NY was 18 and people just assumed that if you were driving you could legally buy liquor. Made lots of runs to Brewster when I was in HS.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So in 6 months YankeeFan can marry the man of his dreams?

 

[bueno]

So in 6 months YankeeFan can marry the man of his dreams?

No wonder Andy retired.

 

[Summer Wheat]

It should not be legal. It is not a natural act.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is there a federal requirement that State A must recognize marriages performed in State B? If there is, then New Jersey would seem to violate this ruling by allowing straight marriages and gay civil unions since they would not be treated the same under that federal law. I think New Jersey has to confer the same benefits on gay couples as on straight couples under both New Jersey state law and under federal law.I just don't think that New Jersey has to make sure on its own that other states outside of New Jersey (or other countries for that matter) will confer the same benefits on New Jersey-married (or unionized) couples under their own state (or foreign) laws.

Do you think it would be OK for New Jersey to grant "portable" marriage licenses to tall people, allowing them to stay married even if they moved out of state, but only grant "non-portable" marriage licenses to short people, that explicitly said that the marriage license expires if they move out of state?

No, that'd be a difference under New Jersey law. I don't have to look at foreign laws to try to figure out whether those two marriage licenses are substantively unequal.

Yeah you do. Maybe there are no states that recognize any New Jersey marriages.

I was thinking that the non-portable marriage expires upon moving out of the state. That means that if two couples move out of state and then subsequently move back in state, one couple might still be married and the other couple not.If your hypothetical non-portable marriage only temporarily expires whenever the couple is out of state but then is automatically reinstated when the couple moves back in state, that's a different case.But the law still treats the couples differently on its face. It does not merely give different names to the two types of marriages. It also says different things about them -- namely, that one is legally (if not also factually) more durable than the other. That's unequal treatment on its face.

This "on its face" argument seems to me to be a serious copout. A civil union is a "non-portable" marriage license. We know that. I'm not going to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend its a secret.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm for it. Not because I endorse the gay lifestyle, but to deny the freedom to do so just seems wrong.

 

[bigbottom]

I'm for it. Not because I endorse the gay lifestyle, but to deny the freedom to do so just seems wrong.

I endorse the gay lifestyle. So two consenting adults want to fall in love, have sex and/or get married. What's not to endorse?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I'm for it. Not because I endorse the gay lifestyle, but to deny the freedom to do so just seems wrong.

I endorse the gay lifestyle. So two consenting adults want to fall in love, have sex, get married. What's not to endorse?

Perhaps I'm not expressing my thoughts clearly. Gay man sex is nasty to me. Hot lesbian women sex is obviously not nasty to me since I'm a typical guy. Still, even if I find the behavior nasty, I feel the are free to engage in it like any heterosexual couple and get married if they so choose.

 

[dawgtrails]

I'm for it. Not because I endorse the gay lifestyle, but to deny the freedom to do so just seems wrong.

I endorse the gay lifestyle. So two consenting adults want to fall in love, have sex, get married. What's not to endorse?

Perhaps I'm not expressing my thoughts clearly. Gay man sex is nasty to me. Hot lesbian women sex is obviously not nasty to me since I'm a typical guy. Still, even if I find the behavior nasty, I feel the are free to engage in it like any heterosexual couple and get married if they so choose.

My folks having sex, I find that behavior nasty.Thank god I wasnt deciding who could have sex and get married based on nastiness...cause you know, i wouldnt be here now if they didnt have their nasty sex.I am glad I am from Massachusttes. Its kinda like being from The Netherlands...minus the legal hash and prostitutes...but with the whole gay folks getting married thing.

 

[zoonation]

Marriage as a religous contract . . .

How about marriage as a non-religious contract?

By not calling it marriage, you are telling gays that they are 2nd class and different. I'm pretty sure they already know they are different from the majority. There is no need to reinforce it through laws. What if we didn't allow marriages based on skin color? Is that really any different?What if the definition said, "Marriage is defined as a union between a white man and a white woman."? Why can't we have this definition: "Marriage is the legal union of two people."?

Because the legal definition of marriage is between husband and wife and the legal definitions of husband and wife are sex-based.Listen, if you really want to see this, you have to be a realist as to how it is pushed through. I have offered a perfectly reasonable alternative that even has a nice first amendment quality to it. I don't see the problem with what I'm suggesting.

But as usual, your explanation is sort-sighted and logically inconsistent.someone points out how your argument is unsound (atheists can get married) and you just keep digging a deeper hole.

 

[beavers]

Gay marriage is legal in Mass. until at least 2012.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3278497&page=1

 

[Kilgore Trout]

to the Massachusetts.

 

[Running with scissors]

to the Massachusetts.

Massachusetts, it's like a little Canada

 

[Uh-Huh]

All gay people should have equal rights.

 

[Uh-Huh]

Anyone in opposition is outmoded.

 

[Smoo]

to the Massachusetts.

Massachusetts, it's like a little Canada

Alberta, it's a little like Texas.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Gay marriage is legal in Mass. until at least 2012.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3278497&page=1

Gotta admit this is pretty amazing. Anti-gay marriage people only needed to get 25% of the legislature to put it on the ballot and they couldn't even get that. Proud to live in Massachusetts today.

 

[NCCommish]

Good.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This made me think of cocoagirl: Howard University filed a brief in the Supreme Court's Prop 8 case highlighting the similarities between the case against gay marriage and the case against interracial marriage:

In the Jim Crow era, the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples served as one of the most potent symbols of the less-than-equal status of African-Americans. As recently as 1967, sixteen states still had anti-miscegenation statutes on their books; the last such statute was not officially repealed until 2000. Opponents of interracial marriage justified criminal prohibitions against such unions by pointing to the purported detrimental effect of interracial births and parentage, the supposed destruction of society if people marry between the races, and the so-called natural law rationale for keeping the races separate.

While public debate over interracial unions has generally died since Loving v. Virginia, today the opposition to marriage for same-sex couples relies on arguments strikingly similar to those raised in opposition to interracial marriage. Without acknowledging the racial provenance of these discredited arguments, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples as a threat to American society, American families and heterosexual marriage, as an affront to the laws of God and nature, and as a menace to their children. ...

Like the identical argument that is presently used to oppose marriage for same-sex couples, past opposition to interracial marriage regarded interracial marriage as threats to social order and the institutions of marriage and family. The chief argument being used to oppose same-sex marriage is a recycled claim that was used to oppose interracial marriage and revolves around the assertion that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples risks weakening one of our most important tools for transmitting social values and maintaining social order.

For interracial marriage, the social order argument relied on the premise that “the underlying assumption … that the union of a man and woman of different races did not fit the concept of marriage.” Then, as now, traditionalists defended marriage as the fundamental building block of American society and feared the purported evil of extending marriage equality to those long denied its benefits. One court explained that it is through marriage that “the homes of a people are created,” that these homes “are the true officinæ gentium — the nurseries of States,” and that interracial marriages would introduce “into their most intimate relations, elements so heterogeneous that they must naturally cause discord, shame,disruption of family circles and estrangement of kindred.”…

Identical to the interracial argument, now, those who oppose same-sex marriage point to marriage and the family as the main social device to transmit values and beliefs across generations, and argue that value transmission can only be successfully accomplished in two-parent, mixed-gender households because marriage for same-sex couples does not fit the concept of marriage. The social order argument used by those who oppose same-sex marriage is just pervasive insidious discrimination and baseless stereotypes that are camouflaged as social order. ...

Judeo-Christian theological interpretations often have been invoked to challenge marriage for both interracial and same-sex couples.

The Bible served as a primary source in the debate against interracial marriage. Petitioners Amicus, Life, Liberty, and Law, invokes not only the Bible but centuries of religious teachings that it claims are contrary to same sex-intimacy.

Similar arguments were presented by anti-miscegenationists who insisted that the Bible directly addressed the mixing of the races in Leviticus 19:19: “You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind. You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.” In 1867, a white supremacist clergyman wrote “a man can not commit so great an offense against his race, against the country, against his God, in any other way, as to give his daughter in marriage to a negro — a beast — or to take one of their females for his wife.

To justify reinstatement and expansion of miscegenation laws, legislators, policymakers, and judges declared interracial marriage unnatural and contrary to God’s will. One court explained: “The natural law which forbids their intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures.” Another court declared that interracial marriages are “not only unnatural, but also productive of deplorable results. … They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good.” Still another court asserted, “[t]he natural law which forbids their intermarriage and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races,is as clearly divine as that which imparted to them different natures.” But perhaps the most famous religious apology for anti-miscegenation laws was articulated by the trial judge in Loving. Judge Leon Bazile of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, Virginia, explained the reason for Virginia’s law prohibiting interracial marriage thusly:

Almighty God created the races white,black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Even though reliance on religious doctrine as the basis for public policy is as improper today as it was in the days of anti-miscegenation laws, today opponents of marriage between two persons of the same sex use (their) Biblical interpretations to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural because it is against God’s will. Indeed, like their anti-miscegenationist counterparts, opponents of marriage for same-sex couples almost always attempt to clothe their arguments in literal and selective interpretations of the Bible. Opponents of marriage for same-sex couples often quote Leviticus 18:22—“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”—as Biblical support for anti-homosexual campaigns against marriage equality.Focus on the Family, perhaps the most vocal organization opposing both marriage and civil unions between persons of the same sex, argues that“[m]arriage is the first institution ordained by God and served from the beginning as the foundation for the continuation of the human race.” Referencing Adam and Eve, “God’s destruction of the city of Sodom for alleged homosexual depravity, … [and]Leviticus, opponents of marriage by same-sex couples assert that those who engage in homosexual sexual activity are sinners, [and] marriage should be constrained to Biblical description of marriage as between a man and a woman.”

Similarly, Proposition 8 proponent William Tam stated that if Proposition 8 were defeated states would then one-by-one to fall into Satan’s hands, and there would be “social moral decay.” A Proposition 8 ad even warned that “the devil wants to blur the lines between right and wrong when it comes to family structure”; “marriage is the symbol of our salvation and the symbol of our relationship with Christ”; that God is “giving America a second chance”; and implored voters to“stand up for Jesus Christ” and not deny Jesus like Peter did.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The Supreme Court has never considered whether DOMA is constitutional. I imagine they will some time in the next ten years.

This guy is really good at predicting stuff.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This thread is getting dumber by the page.

 

[Henry Ford]

I realize this thread is close to a decade old, but holy God is it disturbing to read.

 

[SacramentoBob]

This is how you bump a thread.

 

[timschochet]

The day is finally here. This week, the Supreme Court of the United States of America will examine for the first time the question of marriage between homosexuals.

 

[timschochet]

Here is an editorial against gay marriage, from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578374401098039218.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

This week the Supreme Court takes up same-sex marriage, amid shifting American mores and a healthy debate about equality. Yet the two cases before the High Court are less about the institution of marriage than the sanctity of democratic institutions and the proper role of the courts.

Over time, through popular consent, the law comes to reflect an evolving social consensus. On gay marriage, state by state, election by election, voters are extending to gay and lesbian couples the same rights and responsibilities that pertain to a union between a man and a woman. Those choices are the pith of self-government, even if fair-minded voters in other states preserve the traditional meaning.

If the Supreme Court now reads a right to gay marriage into the Constitution and imposes that definition on all states, it won't settle the debates Americans are conducting. It will inflame them and ensure they never end, prematurely aborting the give-and-take on contentious moral and social issues the Constitution is designed to encourage. Five Justices—or fewer, if they split into pluralities—could further polarize the body politic and make compromise more difficult.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court will review Proposition 8, a 2008 California referendum that overturned that state's supreme court ruling creating a right for gays and lesbians to have their relationships legally identified as marriage. The claim is that the one man, one woman definition violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. That is also among the claims in U.S. v. Windsor, which challenges the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 law that uses the traditional definition for federal law and says one state's definition cannot bind another's.Liberals do not merely contend that laws based on sexual orientation lack any "rational basis." They also claim the only motivation for such laws is prejudice against gays. They therefore want the Court to designate homosexuals as a legally protected group like minorities or women and apply to Proposition 8 the highest levels of constitutional protection, called strict or heightened scrutiny.

The Court has not used the equal protection clause to create a new category of people who need extra legal defenses in three decades, largely because doing so disrupts the ebb and flow of the ordinary political process. Such caution is prudent, especially here. Homosexuals are not disenfranchised like blacks in the mid-20th century, as the very progress of the gay rights movement shows.

Nine states and the District of Columbia now recognize same-sex marriages, up from zero less than a generation ago. Though the early states were ordered to do so by their courts, more recent gains came through legislatures, as in New York. Last year, proponents won three of three popular referenda in Maine, Maryland and Washington state. Through persuasion, gay marriage has come to enjoy a slight popular majority.

A mere 17 years ago the Defense of Marriage Act, or Doma, passed with bipartisan majorities in the House (342 to 67) and Senate (85 to 14). Only a year ago President Obama opposed gay marriage. Now gay marriage is the default position of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton is apologizing for signing Doma, and Mr. Obama's Attorney General not only refused to defend this federal statute but is urging the Court to overturn it. Growing numbers of Republicans endorse gay marriage as well.

The Court ought to conclude on the merits that marriage as historically understood does have a "rational basis." This version of the equal protection test properly defers to the deliberative judgment of voters and their elected representatives. Traditional marriage laws may support legitimate goals like promoting intact, reasonably stable wedlock between mothers and fathers for children, or simply stem from a desire to not experiment with a core unit of civil society.

Other states revise marriage arrangements to reflect new values and norms, but neither judgment is irrational. That's the genius of the U.S. federalist system. It would be an act of judicial imperialism to declare that the meaning of marriage that has prevailed across the Western world for millennia is suddenly unconstitutional because it is "irrational" and force the new concept on everyone.

A one-fell-swoop ruling would also contradict numerous precedents, in particular Romer v. Evans in 1995. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that a Colorado constitutional amendment forbidding local gay rights legislation lacked a rational basis because it singled out gays, but he expressly declined to establish gays as a class that needs special antidiscrimination treatment. In 2003 in Lawrence, the Court overturned Texas laws that criminalized certain forms of sexual behavior, but an infringement of individual liberty is not the same as a demand to create new individual rights.

Short of an outright resolution, the Court could honorably rule that the private parties who filed the case don't have Article III standing to sue. California declined to appeal when Proposition 8 was dissolved by a district court and thus there is arguably no longer a "case or controversy."

Mr. Obama's Justice Department is offering the Justices another legal off-ramp—at least for California and the seven other states that have created civil unions for gays. The argument is that because civil unions have essentially the same rights as marriages with a different label, the "marriage" label can no longer be denied in those eight states. At least this would not impose California's law on all 50 states.

Which brings us to the Defense of Marriage Act, which liberals and some libertarians argue is an affront to federalism. We disagree.

Under their police powers, the states govern domestic arrangements—marriage, divorce, child custody, etc.—and for two centuries the federal government borrowed the state definitions. This was unsettled in 1993 when the Hawaii supreme court legalized gay marriage, confronting Washington and the states with the possibility of many competing interpretations.

In this unprecedented context, refusing to take a position was itself taking a position, so Congress decided to clarify a uniform national standard for the purposes of the 1,100 federal laws that rely on marriage. For example, Doma's Section 3 defines who is a spouse for Social Security benefits and which couples can file joint tax returns.

Doma doesn't usurp state prerogatives or outlaw experimentation, or else those nine states could not have legalized gay marriage since Doma passed. In the Constitution's system of dual federal-state sovereignty, each coequal sovereign has the power to define marriage for its own sphere.

Some scholars of federalism claim Doma was meant to express a policy judgment about gay marriage that is not supported by the federal government's enumerated powers. But Doma embodies federalism at its best by keeping the channels of democracy open. Section 2 says one state does not have to accept another state's definition under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause, preserving each sovereign's right to decide for itself.

In 1996 it was rational for Congress to choose for itself the definition that prevailed in most states. If more states redefine marriage, then Doma's constitutionality as a way-station could be in doubt. The law will probably be repealed soon enough anyhow, though recognizing all gay marriages would constitute a multibillion-dollar shock to the federal fisc. For now, however, Congress still has compelling reasons to retain a uniform approach across the federal government.

The marriage debate has often been difficult, but it also affirms America's political tolerance and adaptability. The best tradition of U.S. democracy is to mediate controversies, giving all sides a fair hearing. Not everyone will like the results at the ballot box, but at least they can accept them as legitimate.

A same-sex marriage ukase would achieve that rare thing, harming advocates and opponents and everyone in between. Since marriage is more than an intimate relationship but an expression of legitimacy in the eyes of society, Supreme Court-mandated marriages would confer fewer benefits on gays and lesbians than would popular acceptance. Meanwhile, the Court would tell millions of Americans that their deep moral convictions are artifacts of invidious bigotry.

<a name="U90994246476L2B">The Supreme Court does not have a good record legislating cultural change. A ruling on behalf of same-sex marriage could enshrine Hollingsworth and Windsor with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision that imposed a judicial diktat even as laws in many states were liberalizing. Instead of finding a rough consensus inside the political mainstream, abortion became an all-or-nothing combat that still rages.

The same-sex marriage cases are an opportunity for the Court to show it has learned from that mistake. Justice Kennedy and his colleagues can incite another Forty Years War or they can return their social jurisprudence to the measured, incremental approaches the Constitution intends.

 

[Henry Ford]

The day is finally here. This week, the Supreme Court of the United States of America will examine for the first time the question of marriage between homosexuals.

And then wait several months before issuing an opinion that makes it unclear which side won.