# What is going on with the SSM bill in the New York Senate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2011, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622 "2011-06-23T22:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/81 "2011-06-26T17:21:34Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The immediate distinction between Jim Crow laws and SSM is the intent behind the 14th amendment. The 14th was specifically enacted to protect the rights of former slaves and to give black men equality in political and social life. That was the impetus behind it, sure, but the amendment nevertheless refers to “any person”, with no exceptions. Over the following century and a half, we have come to accept that that’s what it does mean, and that that’s what it has to mean. Jurisprudence has been in alignment with that view as well, sometimes leading and sometimes following, as is natural. > [@](#): > > As far as SSM, to say that the authors of the 14th amendment even conceived of such a thing is absurd. Not to mention that it’s a strawman. > [@](#): > > To say that the Constitution confers such a right requires such a dishonest slight of hand to be almost laughable. Which is why the only people claiming that that’s what the argument is are its opponents. The Constitutional right is not to gay marriage, but to equal protection. That the writers of the 14th could even conceive of integrated classrooms and housing as a reasonable possibility is no less far-fetched, ya know. > [@](#): > > Now, it is becoming more accepted, and the way to show this acceptance of an emerging approval is through the legislative process and it is beginning to work. I’ll ask you, then: If the SC hadn’t ruled that the 14th means what it says, would we or would we not have Jim Crow laws today? :dubious: > [@](#): > > To force it on states like Mississippi and Alabama by judicial fiat perverts the wording, spirit, and intent of the 14th amendment. I begin to see your answer. And it’s not a good one, either. > [@](#): > > If the 14th protects SSM, then what new thing to come down the pike does it NOT protect? That’s such a broad reading to give the equal protection clause almost no boundary whatsoever. Then where, in your world, should the right to equal protection of the laws be limited? What are some of the “new things” you foresee that frighten you so? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/82 "2011-06-26T17:48:22Z")
Hoary for Libertarians! And now without government regulation NY will descend into chaos, or so I’ve been lead to believe. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/83 "2011-06-26T17:50:14Z")
And here’s that view from another source that many on this board find authoritative: > [@](#): > > Look at these three words written larger than all the rest, and with special pride never written before or since – tall words, proudly saying “We The People” .. these words and the words that follow … must apply to \*everyone \*or they mean _nothing_! > > - Captain Kirk to the Yangs in “The Omega Glory” ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/84 "2011-06-26T18:03:11Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > NYS isn’t the first to legalize SSM via it’s legislature. [Vermont](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Vermont), [New Hampshire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Hampshire), the [District of Columbia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia), and the [Coquille Nation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_under_United_States_tribal_jurisdictions#Coquille_Tribe) all legalized SSM legislatively with Vermont being the first to do so. NYS also isn’t the first state to not have any kind of residency requirment involved. Only Massachusetts ever had such a law and it was [repealed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_law) in 2008; 4 years after SSM was legalized. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Connecticut passed SSM by legislation and it was actually signed by a Republican governor. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/85 "2011-06-26T18:19:26Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but Connecticut passed SSM by legislation and it was actually signed by a Republican governor. Not exactly. [Connecticut](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut) passed _civil unions_ by legislation (& unlike Vermont there was no court case obliging them too) and had it signed by a Republican governor. Full marriage equality was the result of a Supreme Court (of Connecticut) ruling, Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, that civil unions weren’t enought and that same-sex couples had the same legal rights to the word “marriage” as opposite-sex couples. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/86 "2011-06-26T18:51:59Z")
It happens all the time that a law is passed that has implications that weren’t envisioned at the time. When those implications come up, you follow the law, and if the newly-apparent implications are intolerable, you change the law. It’s true that the drafters of the 14th Amendment probably didn’t anticipate gay marriage. And if one wants the law to reflect that intention, then the proper route would be a new Constitutional amendment counteracting part of the 14th, and explicitly prohibiting it. Absent that, the Unites States Constitution, as ratified by the people of this country, allows same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/87 "2011-06-26T19:13:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It happens all the time that a law is passed that has implications that weren’t envisioned at the time. When those implications come up, you follow the law, and if the newly-apparent implications are intolerable, you change the law. It’s true that the drafters of the 14th Amendment probably didn’t anticipate gay marriage. And if one wants the law to reflect that intention, then the proper route would be a new Constitutional amendment counteracting part of the 14th, and explicitly prohibiting it. Absent that, the Unites States Constitution, as ratified by the people of this country, allows same-sex marriage. You’re tossing around “law” and “constitutional amendment” as if they were the same thing. They’re not. I’m sure you know the difference, but not all the readers of this thread will. There are certainly some mainstream schools of constitutional interpretation that would agree with your analysis. And there are some that would not. I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect your argument would not be upheld by the SCOTUS. And those guys do know a thing or two about the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/88 "2011-06-26T21:14:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re tossing around “law” and “constitutional amendment” as if they were the same thing. They’re not. I’m sure you know the difference, but not all the readers of this thread will. _For the purposes of his point_, the distinction is irrelevant. So why bring it up? > [@](#): > > There are certainly some mainstream schools of constitutional interpretation that would agree with your analysis. And there are some that would not. And what might those ones be? What **Chronos** is pointing out, and it’s astounding that it’s even necessary, is pretty elementary stuff. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/89 "2011-06-26T21:16:16Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > The immediate distinction between Jim Crow laws and SSM is the intent behind the 14th amendment. The 14th was specifically enacted to protect the rights of former slaves and to give black men equality in political and social life. For over 100 years many southern states defeated the intent behind this amendment by having Jim Crow. Finally, the constitution was upheld when this system was dismantled. Good thing for us that your selectively historical reading of the debates surrounding the 14th Amendment are ignored by the courts. It was written expansively and there’s ample evidence that some of the framers intended it to be expansive. If we were to use your ludicrous approach to legal analysis, we’d have such absurdities as the Federal government being allowed to implement Jim Crow in DC and Federal territories. On the other hand, the next time someone argues that Federal affirmative action programs are unconstitutional, I can just point them to you, and I’m sure you will be happy to argue that Federal affirmative action programs are completely constitutional. > [@](#): > > As far as SSM, to say that the authors of the 14th amendment even conceived of such a thing is absurd. To say that the Constitution confers such a right requires such a dishonest slight of hand to be almost laughable. Hell, even way back in the 1990s the most liberal people I knew thought that SSM was a bridge too far. Even the most liberal President in our history opposes SSM. Not just a judicial fiat SSM, but presumably even a legislative enactment. Talk about dishonest slight of hand. Your strawmen and misconstruing of the legal arguments in favor of SSM is the real culprit here. > [@](#): > > Now, it is becoming more accepted, and the way to show this acceptance of an emerging approval is through the legislative process and it is beginning to work. To force it on states like Mississippi and Alabama by judicial fiat perverts the wording, spirit, and intent of the 14th amendment. No, it perverts your selective interpretation of the 14th Amendment. > [@](#): > > If the 14th protects SSM, then what new thing to come down the pike does it NOT protect? That’s such a broad reading to give the equal protection clause almost no boundary whatsoever. We can’t recognize some rights because the universe might collapse into a black hole? This is basically what your argument is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/90 "2011-06-26T21:25:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > _For the purposes of his point_, the distinction is irrelevant. No, it is not. > [@](#): > > And what might those ones be? > > What **Chronos** is pointing out, and it’s astounding that it’s even necessary, is pretty elementary stuff. He was stating his personal opinion. An opinion that is not objectively true. You can believe that your interpretation of the 14th is the only valid one, but that isn’t true, either. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/91 "2011-06-26T21:52:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it is not. Third door on the left, good morning! OK, you might try explaining \*how \*it matters, then. Go ahead, enlighten us all. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > He was stating his personal opinion. An opinion that is not objectively true. You can believe that your interpretation of the 14th is the only valid one, but that isn’t true, either. Did \*you \*skip middle-school Civics class _too_? 😃 Now, how about enlightening us further about these “other schools of thought” you assert exist? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2011, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/92 "2011-06-26T23:09:53Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To say that the Constitution confers such a right requires such a dishonest slight of hand to be almost laughable. This is also oversimplifying the issue. The original intent of the authors of a law or constitutional provision is far less important than what they were able to get passed. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/93 "2011-06-27T15:28:37Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Third door on the left, good morning! > > OK, you might try explaining \*how \*it matters, then. Go ahead, enlighten us all. :rolleyes: > > Did \*you \*skip middle-school Civics class _too_? 😃 > > Now, how about enlightening us further about these “other schools of thought” you assert exist? In what way does the 14th amendment so clearly permit same sex marriage that you can make a statement like this? Its a matter of opinion at this point until it become s a matter of law. Frankly, if I were working on contingency I don’t know which side I would want to represent. Laws aren’t normally required to be narrowly drafted to fulfill a compelling state purpose unless youa re talking about protected classes and while some states recognize homosexuals as a protected class, theya re not recognized as such by federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/94 "2011-06-27T15:34:10Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Hoary for Libertarians! While a couple of Republicans seemed to have adopted the ‘government shouldn’t interfere in marriage’ argument - something liberals tried to sell them on for years - I don’t see any libertarians in the NY legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/95 "2011-06-27T15:41:05Z")
Yes, I know that “Constitutional amendment” and “law” are not synonymous. But a Constitutional amendment _is_ a law (albeit a very important sort of one), and should be construed according to the same principles as other laws. An amendment, like any other law, can see implications emerge which were not immediately apparent. And allowing some people to marry, but not others, is clearly a violation of equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/96 "2011-06-27T16:27:00Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > As far as SSM, to say that the authors of the 14th amendment even conceived of such a thing is absurd. To say that the Constitution confers such a right requires such a dishonest slight of hand to be almost laughable. I am willing to bet they found the notion of interracial marriage absurd too. Do you think the Constitution conferred the right to marry inter-racially or do you think _Loving v. Virginia_ overreached and it should have been left to the states to decide? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/97 "2011-06-27T16:29:26Z")
Saying the constitution can be read to grant the right is not the same as saying it _must_ be, which is the claim **jtgain** is responding to. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/98 "2011-06-28T00:46:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In what way does the 14th amendment so clearly permit same sex marriage that you can make a statement like this? Here: “No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Any person. Equal protection of the laws. If straights have it, which they do, then there has to be a good reason to deny it to gays, which there isn’t any. How can that not be clear to you by now? > [@Chronos](#): > > But a Constitutional amendment _is_ a law (albeit a very important sort of one), and should be construed according to the same principles as other laws. I’m going to have to differ with you a bit on that. The Constitution, while it does constitute law, is a bit more than that - it’s a statement of principles and purposes which underlie the law derived from it. To try to read it as such only when it suits the end you wish to reach, and narrowly, loophole-searchingly, contortedly when it’s inconvenient (as we so often see from the Second Amendment cultists) undermines its very reason for existing and its very power to get the people to respect it and their society. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/99 "2011-06-28T05:01:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Saying the constitution can be read to grant the right is not the same as saying it _must_ be, which is the claim **jtgain** is responding to. I can’t tell if you are defending **jtgain** here or not, but **jtgain** is making the claim that his interpretation is the only possible interpretation, and all others are “perversions” of the 14th Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622/100 "2011-06-28T05:08:19Z")
Never mind. Ignore the previous post, please. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-going-on-with-the-ssm-bill-in-the-new-york-senate/586622.md?page=6)