Marriage Equality

[myDeaconmyhand]

Say what? The comparison of the two movements did not stem from Republicans. It stemmed from gay activists making the comparison.

I disagree. From my experience, homosexual people have labeled their movement as a civil rights movement, grouping it together with previous civil rights movements in America. I've personally never heard or seen any homosexual person or representative compare(in the positive) the difficulty of their civil rights movement to the black civil rights movement. The only people i've ever seen compare the two movements are those attempting to use it as a political maneuver. I consider the difference between grouping and comparing very important.

 

[Junebug]

I like how we all just moved past JuneBug's assertion that the state has a vested interest in fertility. Like it was unquestioned fact. I would love to hear these arguments.

How is this not self-evident? Whether you agree male-female relations are the best way to promote child producing/rearing is another matter entirely, but surely you agree with the premise that this is a legitimate interest?

 

[EatLeadCommie]

I disagree. From my experience, homosexual people have labeled their movement as a civil rights movement, grouping it together with previous civil rights movements in America. I've personally never heard or seen any homosexual person or representative compare(in the positive) the difficulty of their civil rights movement to the black civil rights movement. The only people i've ever seen compare the two movements are those attempting to use it as a political maneuver. I consider the difference between grouping and comparing very important.

It is called a civil rights movement for a reason. That isn't an accident.

 

[RJKarl]

No! No one here believes that other than you. The government has no right to set up such conditions for marriage.

If they do, then gay couples with children must be treated as being married like straight couples are.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

It is called a civil rights movement for a reason. That isn't an accident.

Yes, "civil" meaning civilians, citizens, civilization, citizenship, etc., and "rights" meaning...legal rights; There is nothing inherently racial in the term.

 

[Deacfreak07]

I was talking with someone today about their grandparents who got married when he was 27 and she was 16. It got me thinking about what % of the greatest generation were in comparable relationship situations? Aren't many of these same folks some of the biggest voting blocs in opposition to marriage equality?

 

[tjcmd]

Civil war vets were bad to do this:


After Mary Triplett's death in the 1920s, Pvt. Triplett married Elida Hall, nearly 50 years his junior. She was a distant relation of Thomas Dula, whose 1868 hanging for his girlfriend's murder was recounted in the folk song " Tom Dooley, " which was made popular by the Kingston Trio in a 1958 recording.

Such May-December marriages weren't uncommon. Jay Hoar, a Civil War researcher, found 72 couples where the age difference between the veteran and his wife was at least 19 years. The biggest spread was between a 93-year-old Virginia cavalryman and his 26-year-old bride.


Many of the marriages took place during the Great Depression, when veterans' pensions offered some financial security. About a third of the wives were nurses, offering security for aged veterans, as well, according to Mr. Hoar.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579493830954152394

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Would have to read Romer again, but what you quoted is unnecessarily broad. Technically, it could be applied to any group feeling oppressed. And of course, what Junebug considers a "legitimate government interest" and what lbE08 does seem far apart.

What I quoted is the entire crux of Romer and the turning point of the decision. It goes beyond the rational basis test and applies one with teeth.

 

[Junebug]

What I quoted is the entire crux of Romer and the turning point of the decision. It goes beyond the rational basis test and applies one with teeth.

There is no "test" in Romer (or in Windsor, for that matter). It's all just Kennedy saying laws that distinguish on the basis of sexual orientation are unconstitutional. I mean, he reached the result in Windsor by saying Bill Clinton hated homosexuals. He's just making it all up as he goes. None of it makes any sense from a legal reasoning standpoint.

The interesting case is going to be when Kennedy's federalism bumps up against his love for homosexuals. I suspect the latter wins, but who the hell knows.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Lol his "love for homosexuals?" At least be accurate and call it his "love" for social liberalism.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

And there definitely is a "test" applied in Romer. He says that rational basis is fine insofar as the basis is one that is actually rational, i.e. not based in an animus against of group of people.

 

[Junebug]

And there definitely is a "test" applied in Romer. He says that rational basis is fine insofar as the basis is one that is actually rational, i.e. not based in an animus against of group of people.

Right, but his definition of "animus" is so malleable as to be both without content and biting whenever he says so. I]See[/I] Windsor. He just asserted DOMA fell within the rule of Romer, and moved on as if it was no big deal. This despite the fact DOMA clearly satisfies the rational basis test, faithfully applied anyway.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Sure but not within any test with actual teeth.

IMO the test should be based on the actual reason the bill was passed. DOMA was passed as a reactionary measure to prevent states from legalizing same sex marriage. It was prompted by the Hawaii decision

 

[ONW]

There is no "test" in Romer (or in Windsor, for that matter). It's all just Kennedy saying laws that distinguish on the basis of sexual orientation are unconstitutional. I mean, he reached the result in Windsor by saying Bill Clinton hated homosexuals. He's just making it all up as he goes. None of it makes any sense from a legal reasoning standpoint.

The interesting case is going to be when Kennedy's federalism bumps up against his love for homosexuals. I suspect the latter wins, but who the hell knows.

"Love for homosexuals?"

 

[Junebug]

Sure but not within any test with actual teeth.

IMO the test should be based on the actual reason the bill was passed. DOMA was passed as a reactionary measure to prevent states from legalizing same sex marriage. It was prompted by the Hawaii decision

Oh, god, can we please avoid meaningless concepts like the "intent" of a legislative body? Congress's "intent" was to pass DOMA. That's all we can ever know. The rest is pure conjecture.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

Oh, god, can we please avoid meaningless concepts like the "intent" of a legislative body? Congress's "intent" was to pass DOMA. That's all we can ever know. The rest is pure conjecture.

We have legislative histories. Let's not act like it's an absurd abstract concept that we can't even begin to attempt to pin down.

If we're going to have tests gauging animuses then I think we need to pin down what the purpose was.

 

[Junebug]

We have legislative histories. Let's not act like it's an absurd abstract concept that we can't even begin to attempt to pin down.

If we're going to have tests gauging animuses then I think we need to pin down what the purpose was.

The purpose is expressed in the text. Nothing more; nothing less. Anything else is soothsaying and, thus, judges who are hell-bent on a result can just make it up. This is why the analysis in Romer (and Windsor) is so disingenuous. Kennedy is such a pussy. If you want to make homosexuals a protected category, fine. I disagree, but do it. But he knows they shouldn't be, so he creates this hand waving nonsense about "animus" and "purpose" and "hatred" that causes--nay, requires--him to conclude Bill Clinton is a bigot. And all the other liberal justices sign on--holding their noses, no doubt--because they want to present a unified front. It all is so disingenuous. The reasoning really is beneath the dignity of the Court.

 

[Ball State Deac]

I see junebug is opposed to gay marriage. Let me pick myself up off the floor.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

The purpose is expressed in the text. Nothing more; nothing less. Anything else is soothsaying and, thus, judges who are hell-bent on a result can just make it up. This is why the analysis in Romer (and Windsor) is so disingenuous. Kennedy is such a pussy. If you want to make homosexuals a protected category, fine. I disagree, but do it. But he knows they shouldn't be, so he creates this hand waving nonsense about "animus" and "purpose" and "hatred" that causes--nay, requires--him to conclude Bill Clinton is a bigot. And all the other liberal justices sign on--holding their noses, no doubt--because they want to present a unified front. It all is so disingenuous. The reasoning really is beneath the dignity of the Court.

In this context, Clinton was a bigot. He was also just politically inclined to make the decision based on advice from "political experts" around him.

I think Romer is one of the most interesting opinions and decisions in recent memory for the Court. I think it serves, and quite effectively, to add something to the rational basis test where there is something substantive attached to the "rational" portion. These are just judicially created tests in the first place, so I don't have any problem with tweaking them.

The Colorado amendment had no "rational basis" whatsoever:

"The amendment provided in part that neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions "shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination"

I suppose that this could have been struck down on the traditional rational basis test, as there is legitimately no rational basis that can even be read into this by the Court since the express purpose, admittedly by proponents, was discrimination against minorities of all kinds. I just don't have a problem with Kennedy adding to the decision by making it an overarching concept that a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, or an amendment/legislation solely aimed at stripping rights to a specific group, can never be "rational."

I'm not even entirely sure that it changed the test that much, it just added clarification on how far "rational" would extend. And if you look at the definition of the word, can it be "rational" to ensure that minority groups cannot use the political process to enact change?

Just curious, what would decision on Romer had been?

 

[Junebug]

I see junebug is opposed to gay marriage. Let me pick myself up off the floor.

If you are going to be a snark, at least be honest about it:

"I see Junebug is opposed to gay marriage but in favor of homosexual unions with every attendant right of marriage except married couples receive preference in adoption placements. Let me pick myself up off the floor."