Whatever your position, ...

Post #402,891 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 10:51:48 AM Reply	Whatever your position, ... You've got to admit that Kennedy is senile and should retire. "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family," Kennedy wrote. "In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were." Either that, or he's spending his final years reading Harlequin romance novels and basing his decisions on what he learns from them.
Post #402,892 by drook 6/26/15 11:06:16 AM Reply	And there's nothing in that quote that requires the union to involve specific genders -- Drew
Post #402,893 by malraux 6/26/15 11:09:19 AM Reply	Hmm. No, actually, I don't. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #402,894 by Another Scott 6/26/15 11:18:49 AM Reply	Cosign. Also, a bit of levity. Balloon-Juice: 95. Omnes Omnibus says: June 26, 2015 at 11:03 am @Betty Cracker: It’s not compulsory. You should read the full opinion before you say that. I am a more little upset that I recently found a woman I like and now I have start looking for a dude. rofl. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,895 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 11:48:11 AM Reply	To all above. Read Roberts' dissent. The issue was not decided on the law. If you support this Court's decision, you must not, cannot logically, become upset the next time they select a President for us.
Post #402,897 by rcareaga 6/26/15 12:03:37 PM Reply	the Farce is strong in this one You are my favorite Confederate Marxist homophobe, mmoffitt. affectionately (in a decent, manly fashion),
Post #402,901 by Another Scott 6/26/15 12:39:31 PM Reply	Meh. From the Opinion of the Court: Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. Last Term, a plurality of this Court reaffirmed the importance of the democratic principle in Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___ (2014), noting the “right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times.” Id., at ___ – ___ (slip op., at 15–16). Indeed, it is most often through democracy that liberty is preserved and protected in our lives. But as Schuette also said, “[t]he freedom secured by the Constitution consists, in one of its essential dimensions, of the right of the individual not to be injured by the unlawful exercise of governmental power.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 15). Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, “the Constitution requires redress by the courts,” notwithstanding the more general value of democratic decisionmaking. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17). This holds true even when protecting individual rights affects issues of the utmost importance and sensitivity. Fundamental rights of everyone need to be protected, independent of restrictive laws and regulations passed by legislatures. That you see this as similar to Bush v. Gore is, er, weird. Roberts writes: In the face of all this, a much different view of the Court’s role is possible. That view is more modest and restrained. Says he who gutted the Voting Rights Act. Yeah, sure, Roberts is the go-to guy when it comes to modesty and restraint. [rolls eyes] Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,903 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 1:29:10 PM Reply	I think you just made my point. The clip of the decision you quoted speaks of "the rights of persons" being violated, but as Roberts properly points out in his dissent, this "right of same-sex marriage" is purely conjecture, or will, on the part of the majority. That "right" has no basis in law - the majority assumed it without explaining from whence it came. They assumed the existence of a right in order to prove that right was violated. I have one criticism of Roberts' dissent, though. He writes: Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? See Bennett, Polyamory: The Next Sexual Revolution? Newsweek, July 28, 2009 (estimating 500,000 polyamorous families in the United States); Li, Married Lesbian “Throuple” Expecting First Child, N. Y. Post, Apr. 23, 2014; Otter, Three May Not Be a Crowd: The Case for a Constitutional Right to Plural Marriage, 64 Emory L. J. 1977 (2015). I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis. But if there are, petitioners have not pointed to any. When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 2, p. 6. But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either. It's most emphatically *not difficult to see* how this court could fail to make the baby step after making the giant leap. You see, the rule of law no longer applies. They're making this up as they go, so anything they want to say becomes law.
Post #402,911 by Another Scott 6/26/15 2:13:28 PM Reply	You (and Roberts) don't acknowledge the "right to marry" for those who 'don't fit'. That's what it comes down to. Marriage isn't, contra-Roberts, about the state saying which couples are worthy. Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share. It's not about procreation, it's not about keeping blood lines pure, it's not about not offending Chuthlu or Odin or Zeus or the FSM. It is, in the USA in 2015, about two adult people (not any other hypothetical set) making a commitment to each other that is recognized by the state and conferred with certain rights and responsibilities. See my other reply below in the thread. Society isn't static. The interpretation of the law isn't static either. SC justices decide what the law means - that's their job. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,913 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:15:27 PM Reply	Re: Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share. I agree with you, now. That right was just created out of thin air by the majority.
Post #402,946 by drook 6/26/15 4:37:24 PM Reply	Finally figured out how to put this Gay marriage and interracial marriage are equivalent. Multiple marriage is not. Here's why. There are three people, Alex, Chris and Jordan. None has ever been married. Alex wants to marry Jordan. The state agrees that Alex may do that. But what if Chris wants to marry Jordan? If Alex is allowed, by what law can you deny Chris the same right that Alex has? Try to answer without naming a protected class. Now, what if Alex already has married Jordan? The state says that Chris is not allowed to marry Jordan. The reason why is simple: Jordan is already married. Jordan has taken a voluntary action that has legal consequences. If you say that Alex can't marry Jordan because of who Jordan is - gender, color, age, etc. - then you're discriminating. If you say that Alex can't marry Jordan because of what Jordan has done - already got married - then it's fair game for legislation. Note that this doesn't say anything about whether gay marriage, interracial marriage or multiple marriage are good things, or what position the state should take with regards to any of them. Simply pointing out that there is a very clear difference between prohibiting marriage on the basis of gender (or race) and prohibiting marriage on the basis that you are already married. -- Drew
Post #402,954 by Another Scott 6/26/15 5:29:49 PM Reply	Good! I wonder if Alito got an answer like that (but am too disinterested now to check. ;-)
Post #402,961 by Another Scott 6/26/15 7:58:28 PM Reply	Sullivan returned to blogging, for today. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2015/06/26/it-is-accomplished/ Worth a read, even if you know what he's going to say. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,973 by Another Scott 6/27/15 4:57:10 PM Reply	Richard Posner's take Slate: It was no surprise that the Supreme Court held Friday that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It is very difficult to distinguish the case from Loving v. Virginia, which in 1967 invalidated state laws forbidding miscegenation. There was, as an economist would say, a “demand” (though rather limited) for biracial marriage, and it was difficult, to say the least, to comprehend why such marriages should be prohibited. In fact the only “ground” for the prohibition was bigotry. The same is true with respect to same-sex marriage. No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such a marriage. The prohibition of same-sex marriage harms a nontrivial number of American citizens because other Americans disapprove of it though unaffected by it. John Stuart Mill in On Liberty drew an important distinction between what he called “self-regarding acts” and “other-regarding acts.” The former involves doing things to yourself that don’t harm other people, though they may be self-destructive. The latter involves doing things that do harm other people. He thought that government had no business with the former (and hence—his example—the English had no business concerning themselves with polygamy in Utah, though they hated it). Unless it can be shown that same-sex marriage harms people who are not gay (or who are gay but don’t want to marry), there is no compelling reason for state intervention, and specifically for banning same-sex marriage. The dissenters in Obergefell missed this rather obvious point. I go further than Mill. [...] A good read. Cheers, Scott.
Post #402,982 by a6l6e6x 6/27/15 6:34:44 PM Reply	You have to admit John Stuart Mill lays it out clearly. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #402,989 by drook 6/27/15 8:32:58 PM Reply	I don't have to admit ANYTHING! Oops, sorry. -- Drew
Post #403,004 by mmoffitt 6/28/15 10:38:12 AM Reply	Re: No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such Reinstate the marriage penalty in the tax code, and I'd agree. My wife and I paid it for seven years and I always understood that the so-called penalty was just. I argued for continuing it with my married friends who (like everyone on this board apparently) could not understand the soundness of my position. Now more than ever it should be a part of the tax code.
Post #403,006 by malraux 6/28/15 10:51:16 AM Reply	You just don't get this, do you. Or you're just clothing bigotry in sophistry. "No more than." If one group of people has it, every group should. That's the Fourteenth Amendment. How does gay marriage harm people who don't have it or want it MORE THAN any other sort of marriage does? Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,033 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 8:42:02 AM Reply	You're right. I won't ever "get" this. I won't ever get it because I'm not a six year old little girl dreaming of her prince who rides in on a white stallion, sweeps her off her feet, marries her and rides away to the palace with her in a gold carriage. To me, "marriage" has always been an entirely a State construct. The State license my wife and I got nearly 32 years ago has never said anything about how much love is present in our relationship nor how committed we are to one another. I've never cared what the State thought of my relationship with my wife. I do not grant the State the power to dictate what my relationship with my wife is nor what it means to either of us. Marriage was the legal relationship a couple entered into because they wished to have their children recognized as legitimate and not in any way castigated for the marital status of their biological parents at the time of their births. The State rightly believed that children who grow up in a household with their biological parents fair better, on average (which is what you write legislation for) than children who are not afforded that opportunity. If marriage had nothing to do with procreation, how then did the State arrive at the classification of children born out of wedlock as illegitimate (or illegal)? And by what means were children born to a couple considered legal? By the issuance, prior to their births, of a marriage certificate to their biological parents, right? I've already heard (even from an idiot Justice) that "we allow infertile couples to marry, so ..." So what? So, let's correct a mistake by compounding it? Although truth be told, there used to be some measure of correcting this particular error codified in the tax code. You want the benefits of laws pertaining to marriage (written to encourage biological parents to remain with their offspring) in the absence of a desire or ability to have children? The State said, "Fine. But it's going to cost you." Why? Because such marriages do not result in the benefit to the State of a new generation. That was true until, IIRC, around the year 2000. It should be corrected and I sincerely do not see how same-sex marriage advocates (or non child producing opposite-sex marriage advocates) could be opposed to a re-instatement of that tax. For doing so would indicate that their position is far from "wanting equal dignity" and is more a desire to get something for nothing.
Post #403,042 by pwhysall 6/29/15 9:48:46 AM Reply	Marriage is not. About. Children. It's about: 1. Who gets my shit when I'm dead, and I couldn't be arsed to do the paperwork. 2. Who gets to say "turn the fucker off" to the doctor. Serious, important stuff. Honestly, the whole "kids" thing is a massive red herring. And don't bring up history. Sure, blah blah blah was different in the 15th century. People in the 15th century didn't go to the hospital where their husband is, to find a doctor going "I can keep this wanker alive for as long as you want. Or I can switch his face right the fuck off. What do?"
Post #403,047 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 11:58:37 AM Reply	Re: Marriage is not. About. Children. So, it's about ... 1) Greed that survives sloth. 2) Inability to plan properly. Thanks for that.
Post #403,068 by pwhysall 6/29/15 2:22:04 PM Reply	Not even wrong.
Post #403,043 by malraux 6/29/15 9:58:07 AM Reply	Red herring. Answer the question as posed. i didn't ask about children or love or any of the other things. Nor do I see any same sex marriage proponents railing against reinstating the marriage tax. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,038 by crazy 6/29/15 9:05:19 AM Reply	Any tax benefit anyone else gets harms him financially. Remember, he feels (in the depths of his nonexistent Communist soul) that he IS the state. So, once he has it set in his mind that some benefit will chip away at his totallity, he will fight it. Even if it costs him just a 1/10 of a cent, he hates it. Happy MM? You are no longer a homophobic bigot!
Post #403,039 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 9:13:48 AM Reply	s/him/State
Post #403,041 by crazy 6/29/15 9:48:37 AM 6/29/15 9:50:58 AM Reply	Which makes no difference in the meaning of the post Since it states they are the same thing to you. Which you didn't argue against. Did I summarize your view correctly, or did I miss anything? After all, you have argued a bunch of side points, but it all boils down to this, or so it seems. You feel pain when the state feels pain. Of course, since the state doesn't actually feel anything, it is up to you to determine it. Edited by crazy June 29, 2015, 09:50:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #403,044 by malraux 6/29/15 10:01:47 AM Reply	No, he still could be. Because whether or not there is a tax benefit, it should be equally applied to everyone/no one. And since marriage isn't going to be abolished, his wishful thinking (?) aside, the 14th Amendment applies. It's really starting to smell like a pseudo-rational cover for bigotry. Paraphrased: "I don't like the institution of marriage, therefore I'm going to fight against allowing this last little bit of society to have it." Seems like quite a stretch to me. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,048 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 12:04:45 PM Reply	Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. I think you're asking me "In what way has altering the definition of marriage injured the marriages entered into before the definition changed?" Is that it? If so, (and again, I'm speaking here of the perspective of the State) I'd say that the definition has been so altered as to make the definition ambiguous and without purpose. I don't know that I'd say that really injures pre-existing marriages, but I would say that it makes them at best undefined, at worst irrelevant.
Post #403,049 by drook 6/29/15 12:10:01 PM Reply	Nope Inheritance is not undefined. Medical decision-making authority is not irrelevant. Neither of those things changed. This decision didn't make my marriage one iota different from what it was before. -- Drew
Post #403,050 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 12:12:46 PM Reply	But you got that because of an expectation that you'd reproduce.
Post #403,051 by Another Scott 6/29/15 12:16:06 PM Reply	An expectation by whom? Legal cites, please.
Post #403,052 by drook 6/29/15 12:36:36 PM Reply	You didn't make a claim about retroactive meaning You said, "that it makes them at best undefined, at worst irrelevant." That's "makes", present tense. That this decision changes something in the present meaning of my marriage. It doesn't. -- Drew
Post #403,062 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 1:29:24 PM Reply	I was trying to answer a question posed to me. Although I admittedly don't yet completely understand the question's full implications. Our everyday language is (or was at least at one point) full of expressing the idea that marriage results in children. Surely you've heard at some point in your life, "Get married and start a family." Does that not imply the expectation that children will result from marriage? I think it indisputable that most opposite-sex marriages do, in fact, result in the births of children. I recall the scuttlebutt about the hospital where my wife and I worked being that we "would never have children" because my wife wasn't pregnant in the first two years after we got married - like everyone else who was our age who'd gotten married. I'm finished with this topic here because everyone apparently rejects my premise that State issued marriage licenses only make sense in the context of an expectation of a new generation arising from those relationships and that expectation is the basis for all codified preferential treatment under law those relationships receive. I think rejecting that premise is being dishonest of (at least) the history of marriage in the United States. But, if you can't agree on the premises, you can never agree on the arguments. And that's where we are. And I'm weary. ;0)
Post #403,054 by malraux 6/29/15 1:00:40 PM Reply	Re: Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. In responding to "No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such" you said, Reinstate the marriage penalty in the tax code, and I'd agree. Here's the question I asked again, for reference: How does gay marriage harm people who don't have it or want it MORE THAN any other sort of marriage does? Because the decision last week was about the 14th Amendment, from the viewpoint of the State. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!