• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS to rule on marriage equality

Junebug said:
I appreciate your question, but I've written it out so many times on this board I'm not going to do it again in any detail. Basically, as a policy matter, I support homosexual unions (though I don't think it should be called "marriage") with all of the consequent rights (other than a preference for opposite sex couples in adoption). From a jurisprudential perspective, however, I think the claim that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry is an utter and complete farce.
Click to expand...

Do you have a right to marry?
 
I think June is gonna say "Marriage by definition is between a man & woman."

Which sure, as its defined in its original terms, but in 2015, a marriage is a committed relationship between 2 people that is recognized by the government.
 
Go said:
Btw, Tuffalo continues to neg rep me when I give my opinion on the frickin Politics board. What do you guys do about this kind of situation? I don't really care, but what a weirdo
Click to expand...

Point received! Thanks friends
 
Let's make heterosexual marriage illegal.
 
Your entire viewpoint is outdated and pathetic.

YOUR definition of marriage is between man and woman, that doesn't mean it should be everyone else's.

There is no single valid argument against same-sex marriage. Period.
 
If you don't have a "right" to marry, then no one should.

I don't think people are arguing that it should be an inborn right to marry whoever you want, just that you shouldn't be able to disallow someone to marry because of their biological preference. Outlawing homosexual marriage is no different than outlawing persons of different eye color or hair color from marrying.

You should not be able to dictate someone else's life choices.


If it's the term "marriage" that is bugging you, then choose a faith or church that doesn't allow religious "marriages" between same sex couples. Otherwise, any two adult people should be able to obtain the same benefits of a registered union (insurance, tax, etc etc etc) as any other adult persons.

Remove all designations of "marriage" from any official government processes and make it so legal unions are the norm, and if you want to bind yourself religiously to someone (i.e. marriage in your "traditional" sense) then do so at your own freely chosen religious entity.

Otherwise shut the fuck up and stop trying to control other peoples' lives based on your own choices.
 
Last edited:
Should infertile people be allowed to have a "marriage"?
 
North Carolina's gotta be stoked for Alabama. Thought the whole Amendment One fiasco would have been the last embarrassing skid mark on the road to marriage equality, but Alabama bailed out North Carolina.

How did Roy Moore get re-elected Chief Justice after being removed and having been trounced in the GOP primaries for Governor twice? 'Pubs want to defund Homeland Security because Obama bypassed Congress on immigration, but it's OK for Alabama's Chief Justice, Attorney General, and Governor refuse to follow federal courts. Alabama can now hope that Mississippi throws a childish tantrum once the Supreme Court weighs in a few months and takes them off the hook.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
How did Roy Moore get re-elected Chief Justice
Click to expand...

Because Alabama.

bym051d said:
I don't see how SCOTUS can come down against gay marriage if they won't even stay the lower ruling in Alabama. Why not just issue a quick statement to bind all states to the rulings? Oh, and screw Thomas and Scalia.
Click to expand...

If for nothing other than practical reasons, I don't see how SCOTUS can reverse its course now. Permitting licenses to issue only to rule the state can revoke them 17 months later would cause problems in several large industries, much less government. Look for a 6-3 decision.
 
Junebug said:
I've already said (in this thread, no less) that I think homosexuals should have the ability to obtain a civil union with all the same rights of marriage (except 1: opposite sex couples should be given preference in adoptions). But same sex unions should not be given the designation "marriage" because it isn't "marriage." That's not a religious view in the least; it's a cross-cultural, historical one that is based on real differences in same sex and opposite sex unions: potential for procreation. Be it based on God, gods, the Good, nature, evolution, happenstance, or anything else is immaterial to me. Society has a legitimate interest in promoting/giving favored status to relationships that, in the mine run of cases, can propogate the species.

So get outta here with this notion that I'm trying to control people's lives. I'm advocating for same sex unions, for crying out loud. I just don't think they are required by the constitution--and the question really isn't close--particularly if, as you seem to claim, homosexuality is based on "life choices."
Click to expand...

posrep because your sensible view is probably going to be negrepped to death by the ninnies on this board.
 
What is the legal premise behind marriage being a state promotion of procreation?
 
GOP made a strategic blunder by not accepting civil unions with all the benefits of marriage earlier. They ended up fighting a polarizing losing battle that alienated younger voters. They also made a similar mistake with the repeal of don't ask don't tell, but they pivoted quickly away from it and their 2012 platform had muted language on gays in the military which will be even more watered down in 2016. Will be interesting to see what they say about marriage equality in their 2016 platform. No doubt they'll still be pushing for a constitutional amendment, but can't see still fighting this tooth and nail by 2020. They do have to muzzle the most stridently anti-gay voices like Roy Moore and Huckabee between now and 2016.
 
deacz said:
If for nothing other than practical reasons, I don't see how SCOTUS can reverse its course now. Permitting licenses to issue only to rule the state can revoke them 17 months later would cause problems in several large industries, much less government. Look for a 6-3 decision.
Click to expand...

That was the California excuse. Poor legal reasoning, but I think you're right about the decision. 6-3 with Kennedy writing the majority decision and Roberts a concurring opinion that is critical of the reasoning of the majority opinion, but ultimately agrees on narrower grounds.
 
deacz said:
Because Alabama.



If for nothing other than practical reasons, I don't see how SCOTUS can reverse its course now. Permitting licenses to issue only to rule the state can revoke them 17 months later would cause problems in several large industries, much less government. Look for a 6-3 decision.
Click to expand...

A family friend just joined the faculty at Northwestern. She and her partner have been together for over a decade and had a commitment ceremony a few years ago, but hadn't gotten married yet. When she went to sign up for benefits at Northwestern, she was advised that the paperwork was too cumbersome for unmarried domestic partners and recommended they get married since they were already in a committed long-term relationship. Without any fanfare they got married in a civil ceremony within a week. Same woman had been heavily recruited by UNC, but passed because they perceived North Carolina as being too openly hostile to gays and lesbians.
 
TownieDeac said:
What is the legal premise behind marriage being a state promotion of procreation?
Click to expand...

And if there is a legal premise, should unmarried people be prevented from procreating?
 
Junebug said:
I've already said (in this thread, no less) that I think homosexuals should have the ability to obtain a civil union with all the same rights of marriage (except 1: opposite sex couples should be given preference in adoptions). But same sex unions should not be given the designation "marriage" because it isn't "marriage." That's not a religious view in the least; it's a cross-cultural, historical one that is based on real differences in same sex and opposite sex unions: potential for procreation. Be it based on God, gods, the Good, nature, evolution, happenstance, or anything else is immaterial to me. Society has a legitimate interest in promoting/giving favored status to relationships that, in the mine run of cases, can propogate the species.

So get outta here with this notion that I'm trying to control people's lives. I'm advocating for same sex unions, for crying out loud. I just don't think they are required by the constitution--and the question really isn't close--particularly if, as you seem to claim, homosexuality is based on "life choices."
Click to expand...

I agree. It's irrelevant to this discussion though.

That would be a legitimate interest if we were talking about laws that promoted/gave favored status to procreational sex.

Insofar as marriage laws represent a legitimate state interest in procreation it is in 1. increasing the likelihood of procreation (idea is that if two people marry they will be more likely to procreate. This is becoming less true) and 2. providing a stable environment for children after procreation (idea being that a married couple provides a more stable family than a non-married one)

Laws defining marriage as between a man and a women are not rationally related to either purpose. They do not increase the likelihood of procreation in a stable environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top