It’s really, really trivial, but he’s kinda right. The 19th amendment guarantees the right to vote to all women (in the U.S.) But some women had already been given the vote, by other legislative processes. So the 19th amendment was only part of “giving women the vote.”
It wasn’t really worth making a post about, but nitpicking over minuscule details is what the SDMB excels at.
I think this is off point. The Court’s decision had nothing to do with SSM being legal in some parts of the country but not others.
I am not claiming that all polyamorous couples are terrible people. And I agree that there are many decent families living this lifestyle at this very moment, who also have lawyers that can assist them with their unique legal issues.
Just saying that there is a government interest for preventing such marriages. Whereas no similar interest exists for denying same sex marriage.
Loving v. Virginia was a civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Question. Did the Supreme Court bow to public pressure, or interpret the Constitution?
Note: Beginning in 2013, it was cited as precedent in U.S. federal court decisions holding restrictions on same-sex marriage in the United States unconstitutional, including in the 2015 Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges.
It’s pretty sad that you think this is about popularity and not equality and Justice, Habeed. Because that’s what those of us on the right side of this believe it to be about.
Ah, but not that long ago the argument was that there was indeed strong governmental reasons for denying same sex marriage; at least in the minds of lawmakers and the majority of Americans. Many of those reasons, back then, as well revolved around the children, complications around divorce, and like concerns. The only conceivable form a family could take, legally, was a man and a woman. Luckily we evolved beyond that.
Who is to say where the next phase of evolution in thought will bring us? Fifty years ago Same Sex Marriage was unthinkable except to a very few. What will fifty years from now look like? My personal bet is that any union of consenting adults will be accepted as “legally married”. My only regret is that I won’t be here to see which of us is right.
Wow, I’ll definitely need to take a read now. The idea of settling the legality of gay marriage without even touching the level of scrutiny analysis (on either side) is mind-boggling to me.
Though, kopek does raise a good point - it’s not unthinkable that a judge would say “there are compelling reasons to define marriage as only a man/woman.” Anyone who’s paid attention to studies on child-rearing by gay couples knows that there’s no difference, but, many people believe otherwise. Including, no doubt, judges.
I support polyamourous relationships, but I do recognise that it is more complex to legally support polygamy than monogamy, while in some ways same-sex marriage is easier to implement than heterosexual marriage.
I do not think the reasons for denying SSM were the same as the ones that can be used to deny polyamorous marriages.
No one was saying that legalizing SSM would be legally complicated. SSM works perfectly within the current legal system. Polyamorous marriages would not. If a Court ruled that you must allow a person to marry more than one person, most of the legal system regarding marriage and divorce would not work. The States would have to come up with entire new systems overnight to accommodate Polyamorous marriages.
And the evidence for the potential of abuse in polyamorous marriages is still much stronger than the evidence that SSM is detrimental to the couple or their children.
I suppose if most States came up with a suitable legal structure for such marriages and we later realize the evidence we have against poly-marriages has been wrong all along, then we might get a court ruling in favor of it.
There are tax implications. It may sound trivial, but it isn’t. Tax laws are a powerful policy tool, where the government can choose advance both social and economic agendas. One of the problems with refusing gays the right to marriage is that it denies them the tax advantages that are available to straight people. Refusing to allow poly-amorous marriage has no such impact. Further, the government has a legitimate interest in limiting the amount of people that can enter into tax-altering relationships,both for general revenue purposes and for ease of enforcement. Since this desire is legitimate, there is, at minimum, a rational basis for the limitation.
Immigration would also be a tricky issue. I’m not sure we want an American woman marrying a Nepalese man and all of their brothers and giving them all the right to move here as a result (even though this was a traditional form of marriage in Nepal). If that could be done with Nepalese, would it be discriminatory not to allow someone to marry entire families from other countries?
Does the court hand out rulings on their own initiative, or do they only hand out rulings for cases brought before them?
Only those brought before them, within their authority, and that are ripe for adjudication.
Yet as TriPolar noted succinctly early on, and as the October 2014 NYT article I cited points out, the actual answer seems to be both.
If the circumstance was not that a majority of states now defined marriage as inclusive of gay marriages it is improbable the court would have ruled in this way.
You’d be surprised how many people think getting a case heard before the Supreme Court is as easy as ordering a hamburger in the McDonald’s drive-thru. It’s exceedingly difficult and rare.
Correct, the Supreme Court only hears cases through writs of certiorari, which requires 4 votes from the justices. They typically hear around 100 cases per year, denying upwards of 10,000.
The lower courts, however, are open to everyone and must hear every case properly brought. A ruling from them has as much force as a ruling from the Supreme Court (except with respect to judicial review). Any case from lower courts can work its way up to the position where it can request cert, and a denial from SCOTUS leaves the lower court ruling intact, with the full force of the law.
The point is I can trivially name dozens of cases where the outcome was hugely unjust. Umm, recently, they decided that a man kept on death row from decades wouldn’t get a dime. If they can do this for gays, why can’t they decide that when state governments declare that all their state employees (prosecutors, etc) are totally immune from responsibility no matter what, that isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. It’s fundamentally unjust for state prosecutors to knowingly send innocent people to prison and then get to hide behind a shield of immunity.