Newest Gay Marriage Ruling - 6th Circuit

[smackaholic]

Holy crap. I agree with shmick.

[poptart]

Get rid of all governemt affiliation with the term "marriage" so there is no legal benefit to gays or straights to go to a church and get married.

What if the people of a given state want marriage to be sanctioned by the state?

[poptart]

lol

What the hell are you talking about?

That may be your opinion, but there is no "separation of church and state" which can be cited which prohibits people in a state from deciding that they want marriage sanctioned by their state.

[Diego in Seattle]

lol

What the hell are you talking about?

That may be your opinion, but there is no "separation of church and state" which can be cited which prohibits people in a state from deciding that they want marriage sanctioned by their state.

But there is in the Constitution a clause which prohibits the establishment of religion. And that clause was written in by Thomas Jefferson to establish "a separation of church and state" (Jefferson wrote this in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802).

Nice try, Thumper.

[poptart]

Nice try? lol

You know how to read, yes?
Just checkin'.

Did you read schmick's wack take, to which I responded...


there is no "separation of church and state" which can be cited which prohibits people in a state from deciding that they want marriage sanctioned by their state

- poptart



What part of that is not clear to you?


And beyond that, the establishment clause placed a limit on CONGRESS, preventing IT from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion.

How on earth is CONGRESS establishing religion if the people of a given STATE decide that they want their state to sanction marriage?

Good grief.

[BSmack]

To take discriminate against a citizen, the state must cite a compelling reason. What is the compelling reason to do so in this case? Over half the country is allowing gays to marry. The sky has not fallen. m2 is not rounding up straight men to take to bath houses. The 49ers are not sponsored by Astro Glide. What is the reason for the holdouts to continue to hold out?

[smackaholic]

Most people do not like having things shoved down their throats.

Well, most straight people, anyway.

[mvscal]

To take discriminate against a citizen, the state must cite a compelling reason.

There is no discrimination. Any man can marry any woman.

[Diego in Seattle]

To take discriminate against a citizen, the state must cite a compelling reason.

There is no discrimination. Any man can marry any woman.

Where does the Constitution require that marriage must be between two different genders instead of anyone of a person's choosing?

[Left Seater]

To take discriminate against a citizen, the state must cite a compelling reason.

There is no discrimination. Any man can marry any woman.

Where does the Constitution require that marriage must be between two different genders instead of anyone of a person's choosing?

Care to link us up to any mention of marriage in the Constitution? Thought so. States issue.

[Diego in Seattle]

Care to link us up to any mention of marriage in the Constitution? Thought so. States issue.

Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that states are free to create their own laws that deprive citizens of rights & privileges w/o a compelling reason (14th Amendment).

[nostra]

Well, 88, just from the responses in this thread you can tell who read the opinions and who did not.

Probably some of the most compelling logic occurs when he addresses original meaning:

All Justices, past and present, start their assessment of a case about
the meaning of a constitutional provision by looking at how the provision was understood by the
people who ratified it. If we think of the Constitution as a covenant between the governed and
the governors, between the people and their political leaders, it is easy to appreciate the force of
this basic norm of constitutional interpretation—that the originally understood meaning of the
charter generally will be the lasting meaning of the charter. When two individuals sign a
contract to sell a house, no one thinks that, years down the road, one party to the contract may
change the terms of the deal. That is why the parties put the agreement in writing and signed it
publicly—to prevent changed perceptions and needs from changing the guarantees in the
agreement. So it normally goes with the Constitution: The written charter cements the
limitations on government into an unbending bulwark, not a vane alterable whenever alterations
occur—unless and until the people, like contracting parties, choose to change the contract
through the agreed-upon mechanisms for doing so. See U.S. Const. art. V. If American lawyers
in all manner of settings still invoke the original meaning of Magna Carta, a Charter for England
in 1215, surely it is not too much to ask that they (and we) take seriously the original meaning of
the United States Constitution, a Charter for this country in 1789. Any other approach, too
lightly followed, converts federal judges from interpreters of the document into newly
commissioned authors of it

and when he addresses rational review:

A dose of humility makes us hesitant to condemn as unconstitutionally irrational a view
of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our
ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. Hesitant, yes; but still a
rational basis, some rational basis, must exist for the definition. What is it? Two at a minimum
suffice to meet this low bar. One starts from the premise that governments got into the business
of defining marriage, and remain in the business of defining marriage, not to regulate love but to
regulate sex, most especially the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse.
Imagine a society without marriage. It does not take long to envision problems that might result
from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effects of male-female intercourse:
children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is
responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have? How does
one decide which set of mates is responsible for which set of children? That we rarely think
about these questions nowadays shows only how far we have come and how relatively stable our
society is, not that States have no explanation for creating such rules in the first place.

Once one accepts a need to establish such ground rules, and most especially a need to
create stable family units for the planned and unplanned creation of children, one can well
appreciate why the citizenry would think that a reasonable first concern of any society is the need
to regulate male-female relationships and the unique procreative possibilities of them. One way
to pursue this objective is to encourage couples to enter lasting relationships through subsidies
and other benefits and to discourage them from ending such relationships through these and other
means. People may not need the government’s encouragement to have sex. And they may not
need the government’s encouragement to propagate the species. But they may well need the
government’s encouragement to create and maintain stable relationships within which children
may flourish. It is not society’s laws or for that matter any one religion’s laws, but nature’s laws
(that men and women complement each other biologically), that created the policy imperative.
And governments typically are not second-guessed under the Constitution for prioritizing how
they tackle such issues. Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486–87 (1970).

No doubt, that is not the only way people view marriage today. Over time, marriage has
come to serve another value—to solemnize relationships characterized by love, affection, and
commitment. Gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of sharing such
relationships. And gay couples, no less than straight couples, are capable of raising children and
providing stable families for them. The quality of such relationships, and the capacity to raise
children within them, turns not on sexual orientation but on individual choices and individual
commitment. All of this supports the policy argument made by many that marriage laws should
be extended to gay couples, just as nineteen States have done through their own sovereign
powers. Yet it does not show that the States, circa 2014, suddenly must look at this policy issue
in just one way on pain of violating the Constitution.

The signature feature of rational basis review is that governments will not be placed in
the dock for doing too much or for doing too little in addressing a policy question. Id. In a
modern sense, crystallized at some point in the last ten years, many people now critique state
marriage laws for doing too little—for being underinclusive by failing to extend the definition of
marriage to gay couples. Fair enough. But rational basis review does not permit courts to
invalidate laws every time a new and allegedly better way of addressing a policy emerges, even a
better way supported by evidence and, in the Michigan case, by judicial factfinding. If
legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
Beach Commc’ns, 508 U.S. at 315, it is hard to see the point of premising a ruling of
unconstitutionality on factual findings made by one unelected federal judge that favor a different
policy. Rational basis review does not empower federal courts to “subject” legislative line-
drawing to “courtroom” factfinding designed to show that legislatures have done too much or too
little. Id.

What we are left with is this: By creating a status (marriage) and by subsidizing it (e.g.,
with tax-filing privileges and deductions), the States created an incentive for two people who
procreate together to stay together for purposes of rearing offspring. That does not convict the
States of irrationality, only of awareness of the biological reality that couples of the same sex do
not have children in the same way as couples of opposite sexes and that couples of the same sex
do not run the risk of unintended offspring. That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to
allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning.

To take another rational explanation for the decision of many States not to expand the
definition of marriage, a State might wish to wait and see before changing a norm that our
society (like all others) has accepted for centuries. That is not preserving tradition for its own
sake. No one here claims that the States’ original definition of marriage was unconstitutional
when enacted. The plaintiffs’ claim is that the States have acted irrationally in standing by the
traditional definition in the face of changing social mores. Yet one of the key insights of
federalism is that it permits laboratories of experimentation—accent on the plural—allowing one
State to innovate one way, another State another, and a third State to assess the trial and error
over time. As a matter of state law, the possibility of gay marriage became real in 2003 with the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Goodridge. Eleven years later, the clock
has not run on assessing the benefits and burdens of expanding the definition of marriage.
Eleven years indeed is not even the right timeline. The fair question is whether in 2004, one year
after Goodridge, Michigan voters could stand by the traditional definition of marriage. How can
we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years
of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a
new definition of marriage? A State still assessing how this has worked, whether in 2004 or
2014, is not showing irrationality, just a sense of stability and an interest in seeing how the new
definition has worked elsewhere. Even today, the only thing anyone knows for sure about the
long-term impact of redefining marriage is that they do not know. A Burkean sense of caution
does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, least of all when measured by a timeline less than a
dozen years long and when assessed by a system of government designed to foster step-by-step,
not sudden winner-take-all, innovations to policy problems.

and finally:

Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis
test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the
country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little
because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or
four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and
commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to
boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must
be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have
no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or
community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of
marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about
the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is
free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making
all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails.

I'm pretty sure that the legal scholars here like Diego and Bri will be able to refute this Judge's opinion in under 20 words each though.
They are both pretty good like that

[Jay in Phoenix]

Blimey, a nostra sighting! Good show. How goes it nos?

[Left Seater]

Care to link us up to any mention of marriage in the Constitution? Thought so. States issue.

Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that states are free to create their own laws that deprive citizens of rights & privileges w/o a compelling reason (14th Amendment).

Privileges are which of the following:

Life
Liberty
Property

Marriage is none of those.

[nostra]

Blimey, a nostra sighting! Good show. How goes it nos?

you stalking me, homo?

all is well. most of the time I hang out with David in Tulsa and BT over at the other place and engage in mindless drivel, but from time to time I'll come over here for some "intellectual" insight into the world's problems

[nostra]

I'll come over here for some "intellectual" insight into the world's problems

you seen the rest of the internet?

fucking class full of Mensan here

[Diego in Seattle]

Care to link us up to any mention of marriage in the Constitution? Thought so. States issue.

Just because something isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean that states are free to create their own laws that deprive citizens of rights & privileges w/o a compelling reason (14th Amendment).

Privileges are which of the following:

Life
Liberty
Property

Marriage is none of those.

Wrong.

A single example....

If you died tomorrow, would your wife be able to take possession of your house w/o a huge tax bill? A partner in a same-sex relationship wouldn't have the same privilege to transfer property sans inheritance taxes that you can. This is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

[nostra]

Here is the counter-argument by the dissent:

Today, my colleagues seem to have fallen prey to the misguided notion that the intent of
the framers of the United States Constitution can be effectuated only by cleaving to the
legislative will and ignoring and demonizing an independent judiciary. Of course, the framers
presciently recognized that two of the three co-equal branches of government were representative
in nature and necessarily would be guided by self-interest and the pull of popular opinion. To
restrain those natural, human impulses, the framers crafted Article III to ensure that rights,
liberties, and duties need not be held hostage by popular whims.

More than 20 years ago, when I took my oath of office to serve as a judge on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I solemnly swore to “administer justice without
respect to persons,” to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich,” and to “faithfully and
impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution
and laws of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 453. If we in the judiciary do not have the
authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority
of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as
the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams.

The majority in this opinion view their role as judges as making sure that the original contract, the Constitution ratified by the States with the consent of the People, is interpreted as was originally agreed, and that any changes that are to be made to the law must be done so in accordance with its terms by the people or the legislature(s) empowered to enact laws on behalf of the people.

The dissent in this opinion view their role as judges as the ultimate arbiters of fairness and justice, and believe they are empowered to twist old laws into saying anything they believe would be fair in today's climate to right whatever injustice or wrongs the judges believe is the case. The judge absolutely believes she is empowered to force the majority of citizens to accept new laws that she deems to be fair, whether they consent to that or not.

Someone ought to read her the definition of tyranny.

I saw that too, and was a little taken back by the hubris in the opinion especially this

If we in the judiciary do not have the
authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority
of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as
the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams

He isn't granted that authority or that responsibility as a district court judge. He has the authority and responsibility to follow precedent set by the SCOTUS. Until precedent is changed he's obligated to follow it. If he believes himself to be a co-author of the constitution then he's thinking a little too highly of himself, at least at this point. Now, should he be appointed as a Justice to the SCOTUS, I'll retract my remarks and show him the respect he then deserves

"She" rather. I read all opinions in case law in my own voice

[Jay in Phoenix]

you stalking me, homo?

all is well. most of the time I hang out with David in Tulsa and BT over at the other place and engage in mindless drivel, but from time to time I'll come over here for some "intellectual" insight into the world's problems

Fag. :grin:

By other place, you aren't talking about .net iz ya? Kinda stinky over there. Glad to know all is well. Say hi to two of seven for me.

[nostra]

don't you have some french law to go practice?

[Left Seater]

Wrong.

This is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

Ok, if that is what the 14th says then most of the Blue states are violating it by not recognizing my Texas CC permit. If one state has to recognize something clearly not mentioned in the constitution, then others have to recognize my ability to carry something that is clearly allowed by the Constitution.

If you died tomorrow, would your wife be able to take possession of your house w/o a huge tax bill? A partner in a same-sex relationship wouldn't have the same privilege to transfer property sans inheritance taxes that you can. This is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

You couldn't be any more incorrect. This is a tax code issue not a Constitutional issue. Change the tax code and this is a non issue. But hey we found something we agree on, that same sex partner should get the inheritance tax free. Why don't you lead the charge on eliminating all inheritance taxes.

[Goober McTuber]

Holy crap. I agree with shmick.

Not much of a surprise. You're both wet-brained fucktards.

[Dinsdale]

If one state has to recognize something clearly not mentioned in the constitution

You've used this concept multiple times.

If you want to talk about the Constitution, might I suggest you give it another read? You might pay particular attention to the part that has a 9 in front of it.

Just because something isn't specifically mentioned, that doesn't mean it isn't a fundamental right. When it comes to marriage, the SCOTUS has ruled on multiple occasions through multiple centuries that marriage is very much a fundamental right.

And they WILL rule that the gays have a right to get married.

And I'm in favor of it. They're not hurting anyone, so there's no compelling reason for the government (state or federal) to interfere.

If you want to live in a free country with guaranteed rights, you take the bad with the good.

[smackaholic]

Holy crap. I agree with shmick.

Not much of a surprise. You're both wet-brained fucktards.

mighty white of me to tee it up nice and high for ya, huh goobs?

now fuck the fuck off. you'll get no more charity from me, douche. and say high to YOUR governor for me .....and tell him to stop begging me for money by email. I think I sent dude like 50 cents back the first time you tried to run him off.

so, how long before you fukks try to run him again? you oughta be tired of him wiping his dick on your curtains by now.

[Moving Sale]

Marbury was decided in 1803 so the authors of the 14th Am. knew it was going to be interpreted by justices and expected that to happen. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a Consitutional democratic republic so asking the people or even the peoples' representatives to vote on everything is stupid. Mix that in with the fact that the majorities' "what about the children" argument is not rational because married gays are better for the kids from failed hetero couplings that they are caring for and you have a majority opinion that is "good" only to morons and right wing hacks.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Dude, cool it with the GIF obsession. If you've got a take, post it. If not, please stop tarding up every forum and wasting bandwidth.

[Wolfman]

What gets me is the twisting of language by certain groups. For example, back in my younger years the word gay meant happy, carefree. No mention in a dictionary of an alternative sex life. Also looking back the word marry (marriage) referred solely to the wedding of a man and woman. No mention of two guys or two ladies. Now if you want to start calling cows horses, knock yourself out.It's the same way with marriage to me. Words used to have meaning. It's that easy to me. Guess not so much anymore.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

What gets me is the twisting of language by certain groups. For example, back in my younger years the word gay meant happy, carefree. No mention in a dictionary of an alternative sex life. Also looking back the word marry (marriage) referred solely to the wedding of a man and woman. No mention of two guys or two ladies. Now if you want to start calling cows horses, knock yourself out.It's the same way with marriage to me. Words used to have meaning. It's that easy to me. Guess not so much anymore.

Yeah, language evolving over time? I mean, what's the deal with that?

Sincerely,

the dawn of man through today

[poptart]

Yeah, language evolving over time? I mean, what's the deal with that?

Sincerely,

the dawn of man through today

Yeah, Wolfie.
You dinosaur.

Definitions evolve.


Border: a line separating two political or geographical areas, especially countries; or, an optionally observed line with which by crossing, a person may be entitled to a job, schooling, health care, a driver's license, and perhaps even citizenship.

Serve with honor and distinction: Perform for a nation with diligence, dedication, patriotism, and heroism; or, dessert a unit, hang out with the enemy, and place other members of your unit in grave danger as they look for your stupid, selfish @ss.

Keep (your doctor): have or retain possession of; or, lose, and be reassigned to a stranger at a higher cost

Caused (by a youtube video): make (something, typically something bad) happen; or, not have jack fucking shit to do with it. What difference does it make?

Birth Certificate: an official document issued to record a person's birth, including such identifying data as name, gender, date of birth, place of birth, and parentage; or, a multi-layered pdf freaking file with many multiple inexplicable and laffably impossible irregularities.

[poptart]

lol

I have zero frustration over the issue, Jsc.

People will do what people do.

God created marriage.
You (or any of the so-called "religious people" promoting homosexual "marriage") can read it for yourself.
Genesis 2:20-24.

No man will ever alter that, despite whateverthehell they decide to do.

[R-Jack]

What gets me is the twisting of language by certain groups.

So what group of people changed the meaning of faggot?

Don't say young punks, because that meant something way different back then too.

[War Wagon]

Why do you care what the Pope says or believes?

Not that you need explain, anything that suits your agenda is reason enough.

[poptart]

The pope said...


And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh
Genesis 6:3


I think the people of a given state ought to decide what marriage is in their state.

[War Wagon]

The Constitution governs us.

If only it could.

No, it's a broad set of guidelines that can be interpreted by however the reader, or 9 people in black robes, choose.

The Bible is also a broad set of guidelines that experience hath shown are wise to heed.

[nostra]

Even the Pope says that the Big Bang and evolution are real.

Big bang has to do with the formation of the universe not the formation of Earth.

Evolution: Genesis Day 5.

for a smart guy you sure are fucking stupid, like, schmick stupid.

[poptart]

pop, Genesis is fiction. Quit trying to take it literally.

It is definitely written in a direct manner -- and relays that it's intention is to be taken literally.
People (Pope? Hello? ) have to twist and distort in order to make the Words of Genesis mean something that they don't say.

But people can read it and think whatever they want about it.
Their call.

It's not a central issue to me, because belief in "literal Genesis" is certainly not a requirement for salvation.

But I really do place a very strong emphasis and wish on having people realize the point of the Bible.
That is, man very much needs a Savior, and Jesus is the Christ.
Belief and acceptance of this is necessary.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

-- and relays that it's intention is to be taken literally.

Which language? Which transcription?

[poptart]

Which language? Which transcription?

Genesis in any language is the same thing.
There are no significant transcript differences.

The point of the bible, when it was written by the elites 1500 years ago

"The elites" did not write the Bible.
Overwhelming manuscript evidence shows that what we read now is what was written... then.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, contain Old Testament manuscripts written long before Jesus lived.

[poptart]

pop, Jesus never lived