Supreme Court to Decide Whether Gays Nationwide Can Marry

[StrangeSox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/supre...WT.nav=top-news

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether all 50 states must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry. The court’s announcement made it likely that it would resolve one of the great civil rights questions of the age before its current term ends in June.

[cabiness42]

Just came down. Immediately legal in all 50 states. Haven't seen the breakdown on the vote yet.

 

EDIT: It was 5-4, with the obvious 4 dissenting.

Edited June 26, 2015 by HickoryHuskers

[pettie4sox]

Just came down. Immediately legal in all 50 states. Haven't seen the breakdown on the vote yet.

 

Congrats America on getting with the times.

[illinilaw08]

Every single one of the dissenting justices wrote their own dissent which is kind of crazy. Glad Kennedy got this one right...

[Soxfest]

Gay rights vs religious freedom will be next issue.

[cabiness42]

All I will say is this: What people won today was the right to obtain a piece of paper. I don't begrudge them that right, but a marriage is a relationship that goes far beyond and is not defined by that piece of paper. I would encourage everybody who spent so much time and effort on both sides of this issue to refocus that time and effort into educating themselves about and working on economic and national security issues that will have a much bigger impact on everybody's well-being than a piece of paper.

[Jenksismyhero]

So if this is the basis for the decision:

 

""No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.""

 

Basically there should be no rules to marriage between consenting adults, right?

 

 

[LittleHurt05]

Sad day for some guys out there.

 

Partner 1: "Why won't you marry me?"

Partner 2: "I'd love to get married, but you know, it's not really legal, so I don't think we can, sorry"

 

There goes that excuse!

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am going to open this up for debate, and please be civil and respectful. I heard this idea a few days ago, not saying I endorse it - just opening it up for debate, that marriage should be banned as a governmental concept. There should be civil unions issued by the government for all couples (same-sex, or traditional) and "marriage" is a religious form of civil unions.

[cabiness42]

I am going to open this up for debate, and please be civil and respectful. I heard this idea a few days ago, not saying I endorse it - just opening it up for debate, that marriage should be banned as a governmental concept. There should be civil unions issued by the government for all couples (same-sex, or traditional) and "marriage" is a religious form of civil unions.

 

I've been saying this for a long time. There should be no government recognition of marriage. People can enter into whatever legal contracts they want that provide any or all of the arrangements that come automatically with a marriage.

[NorthSideSox72]

If one were to reinvent the country and its laws from scratch, ideally, marriage should never enter into it. Marriage is a social construct, and government should neither endorse or interfere with any of it. People can then do whatever they'd like in their relationships.

 

But as the country did not start that way, you have to make a decision from where we are. And this was the right, best decision available under the circumstances.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

If one were to reinvent the country and its laws from scratch, ideally, marriage should never enter into it. Marriage is a social construct, and government should neither endorse or interfere with any of it. People can then do whatever they'd like in their relationships.

 

But as the country did not start that way, you have to make a decision from where we are. And this was the right, best decision available under the circumstances.

 

I sort of agree. I'm happy that same sex marriages can be recognized, but I'm not a fan of how it was done. It would have been preferable for the states to do it. I'm in total agreement with the dissenters that the SC overstepped its bounds here, created a right out of thin air and basically told the American people what to think/do. It's a Lochner decision and that's some dangerous territory. Great when you agree with the Court on an issue, not so great when you don't.

[StrangeSox]

Also Scalia is again the worst

[StrangeSox]

I am going to open this up for debate, and please be civil and respectful. I heard this idea a few days ago, not saying I endorse it - just opening it up for debate, that marriage should be banned as a governmental concept. There should be civil unions issued by the government for all couples (same-sex, or traditional) and "marriage" is a religious form of civil unions.

 

"Now that gays can marry let's just blow the whole thing up" is a pretty awful response

 

[Balta1701]

I've been saying this for a long time. There should be no government recognition of marriage. People can enter into whatever legal contracts they want that provide any or all of the arrangements that come automatically with a marriage.

The idea that the government should not interact in the least with the existence of marriage is just silly. From tax purposes to hell, immigration, it's kinda important. Should the government not recognize that if one member of a family receives a lawful immigration status the spouse should be able to accompany them?

 

Should the government not grant immunity against testifying against a spouse?

 

Come on.

[RockRaines]

Real bad week for the deep south.

[Big Hurtin]

Real bad week for the deep south.

And northerners with the "deep south" ideology.

 

/inner monologue

"That 4th of July family get-together is gonna be a real hoot."

/inner monologue

 

 

[pettie4sox]

Real bad week for the deep south.

 

You would think one of those events would have them brimming with glee.

 

/green

[cabiness42]

I sort of agree. I'm happy that same sex marriages can be recognized, but I'm not a fan of how it was done. It would have been preferable for the states to do it. I'm in total agreement with the dissenters that the SC overstepped its bounds here, created a right out of thin air and basically told the American people what to think/do. It's a Lochner decision and that's some dangerous territory. Great when you agree with the Court on an issue, not so great when you don't.

 

That can of worms got blown wide open in January of 1973 and is probably never changing.

[cabiness42]

The idea that the government should not interact in the least with the existence of marriage is just silly. From tax purposes to hell, immigration, it's kinda important. Should the government not recognize that if one member of a family receives a lawful immigration status the spouse should be able to accompany them?

 

Should the government not grant immunity against testifying against a spouse?

 

Come on.

 

It's silly now because those things are already in existence. I'm not actually advocating eliminating the existence in marriage at the Federal level because it's pretty much impossible now, but it really never should have been a Federal thing to begin with.

 

The tax stuff is easy to fix in other ways, and don't get me started on the massive abuses of the immigration and immunity protections for spouses that occur.

[Balta1701]

It's silly now because those things are already in existence. I'm not actually advocating eliminating the existence in marriage at the Federal level because it's pretty much impossible now, but it really never should have been a Federal thing to begin with.

 

The tax stuff is easy to fix in other ways, and don't get me started on the massive abuses of the immigration and immunity protections for spouses that occur.

So your perspective is that we should not allow spouses into this country in immigration cases. I think that's a good example of why I describe the perspective of "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" as silly. There is no way that even in an imaginary hypothetical you can make that idea work.

 

The government has an interest in adoption rites and the responsibilities of children, the government would be the one deciding any contract-related disputes, the government needs to have people to handle death related matters, and on and on. These are standard government functions and that leaves government with a substantial interest in checking the approval box and having things filed with them far beyond any private contract.

 

Even in some case of a crazy "marriage is just a private contract" case, the government would have to regulate what is in that contract so that clauses like "how to dissolve the contract" "responsibilities of dealing with children" are actually dealt with in the contract and not left out. So even in that sense, the government would force its way in because you can't have a contract signed that doesn't meet those standards.

[cabiness42]

So your perspective is that we should not allow spouses into this country in immigration cases. I think that's a good example of why I describe the perspective of "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" as silly. There is no way that even in an imaginary hypothetical you can make that idea work.

 

The government has an interest in adoption rites and the responsibilities of children, the government would be the one deciding any contract-related disputes, the government needs to have people to handle death related matters, and on and on. These are standard government functions and that leaves government with a substantial interest in checking the approval box and having things filed with them far beyond any private contract.

 

Single people adopt children now, and wills handle death-related matters.

[Balta1701]

Single people adopt children now, and wills handle death-related matters.

I see. And there are no government regulations of wills. .

[cabiness42]

I see. And there are no government regulations of wills.

 

I didn't say that.

[southsider2k5]

I've been saying this for a long time. There should be no government recognition of marriage. People can enter into whatever legal contracts they want that provide any or all of the arrangements that come automatically with a marriage.

 

What other contract law should the government ignore?