Oh. In which case I'd expect it back in SCOTUS though I would eventually anyway.
An ever increasing number of States have legalised it now though right? And the Federal government recognises them now too if done in a State it's legal in?
Printable View
Oh. In which case I'd expect it back in SCOTUS though I would eventually anyway.
An ever increasing number of States have legalised it now though right? And the Federal government recognises them now too if done in a State it's legal in?
It's a red herring argument anyway; some people will always be against certain changes in society. Should the Supreme Court have waited with a ruling on interracial marriage untill the last member of the Aryan Nation had given up his resistance? And what exactly is the point where a Court handles in line with society? Is it when society in majority is in favour of something? Is it when 67% is in favour? And if 67% is the number, why is there such a fundamental difference with 66%?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What Ginsburg does, and Dread condones is absolving the Courts of their responsability to hold up the rights of everyone, including small minorities, even against the desires of the majority. If this is the way she thinks she is a disgrace for the high office she holds.
I don't think it will happen within ten years. After that, who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And Hazir, the justices of the Court are all too well aware of the limits of their power. They've been fighting the pushback on their rulings regarding race and equal protection for fifty years and they're still getting cases. It may have been necessary to deal with it that way, but the courts were and remain a poor tool for changing society. It really is something that should and ought to be dealt with legislatively.
Yes, courts are indeed a poor tool to change society, that does not mean that they don't have an obligation to those sectors of society who are deprived of their rights. That is the fundamental reason why we want our courts to be independent; not just so that they won't do the bidding of the executive, but also because they won't do the bidding of the sovereigns every whim.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
One has to presume the Justices also know these numbers; recent polls People opposing equality are outnumber by a large margin now. The Ginsburg argument isn't only disingenuous, it's also based in a wrong understanding of what society is opining on the issue. I think we're looking at 5 years tops for bans to either disappear or being voided of any relevance.
Justices aren't politicians though. Justices should void bans because its the right thing to do, even when unpopular. Politicians should do so because its the right thing to do AND popular.
So, you agree with President Obama....and prefer using legislatures as change agents (aka socially engineered public policy)?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Actually, I prefer to see a more active Court in general. I just understand why the justices don't care for it and I can sympathize with their reasons even when I think they should get over them. But I don't agree with President Obama. The Executive has significantly more power and authority than the Courts and past Presidents have led the way with some pretty significant changes just via influence using the bully pulpit. Obama trying to duck things and say "leave it to the legislatures" is a big fat "screw you, you're not my constituency" to the community and he should be castigated for it. His direct power over legislation passed years before his administration is limited and it's practically nonexistent when it comes to the actions of the states, but he could do plenty indirectly, or on the edges, and he has mostly refused to do so.
Sounds like a distinction without a difference (or the other way around). Obama has consistently said he prefers legislative activism, beginning at local/state levels. FFS, that's practically "Republican". :mong:
Courts are meant to uphold rights. Defining and creating new rights is a substantially more difficult and potentially alienating task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I'm not Republican. And legislative activism may be preferable but then it's not happening or going in the wrong direction, he is not absolved by saying "that should be legislative." The Court can, it's in a different position with radically different powers and means of influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I would imagine that the right to equal treatment before the law has been around for a while. Please explain why you would call its application novel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Are Justices like Ginsberg not guilty of the same? She's giving people a big 'fuck you' as well by placing public opinion over what is in the Constitution. The dishonesty in her position is gobsmacking; equality in rights to marry are either right or they are not right. They shouldn't be right only if the polls are favorable. Unless of course you want to give up the notion that the rule of law is something that actually matters, even in the face of democratic decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
This kind of dishonesty very often makes me understand why lots of people dislike liberals. With people like Scalia at least you know who's the enemy. When you debate with them you know positions are never going to meet, but at least you don't have to be ready for the moment they turn and stab you in the back.
What right is new in your eyes? Marriage? Equal protection (aka the 14th Amendment)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Because groups entitled to legal equality at the constitutional level have to be defined in fairly specific ways. Homosexuals as a protected group is a fairly novel concept both historically, culturally and legally.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And yes, I think the legal/constitutional "right" to marriage is a new concept. One that I don't support, both in terms of my principles of avoiding the creation of too many "rights" as well as my skepticism in the value of state-defined marriage.
I thought the point of legal equality was that it applies to everyone, not just certain groups? :noob:
But it has been so defined already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
New? Does a unanimous SCOTUS decision in 1967 fall as new?Quote:
And yes, I think the legal/constitutional "right" to marriage is a new concept. One that I don't support, both in terms of my principles of avoiding the creation of too many "rights" as well as my skepticism in the value of state-defined marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Of course not, otherwise people would demand "equality" as often as a Berlin socialist for any variety of things. Equal protection under the law is generally applied in situations that improperly impact/specifically target certain protected groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I also don't think the environment around Loving v. Virginia is really anything remotely like the environment today. That's a political argument to me, not a legal argument. And it's a political argument that I agree with. But that doesn't mean I think judges should be meddling in laws on this issue.
There are two distinct questions.
1: Are gays a protected group like blacks etc
2: Is marriage a right.
On number 2 Loving is completely relevant. You claimed marriage as a right "is a new concept" but in Loving the Supreme Court unanimously decided nearly half a century ago that: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man" ... To deny this fundamental freedom ... etc.
The fourteenth amendment is specifically invoked. That destroys any notion that marriage is somehow exempt or not a "right". It is unanimously a fundamental right and has been so for nearly half a century. So the only issue is do we accept gays as a protected group or not, not whether if they are it applies to marriage. If they are then precedent says it must apply to marriage.
This kind of false reasoning is exactly why i have always and vehemently opposed the term gay marriage. The question if there is or is not a constitutional right to marry is utterly irrelevant. The relevant question is if a state has the right to regulate marriage in a way that excludes people of the same gender from entering into it. It all the way up just a question of equality and equality alone. The fact that a particular minority was persecuted only quite recently should never be an excuse to put their rights on hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm not a Republican, either. ;) I'm asking you to explain your position between state and federal legislative activism. I'm a bit confused --- because your previous posts seemed to advocate the long slog, with referendums and ballot initiatives, using legislatures state-by-state, appellate courts, district courts....moving through the legal processes gradually and painfully slow.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I got the impression that you didn't want the Executive or Judicial branches of government making these decisions, even though it's clearly within their power to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
I've made no distinction between state and federal legislative action in this thread that I am aware of, and I was also fairly plain that I think the Executive can and ought to be working more proactively on this issue. It's the Court I'm more wary about about.
And yes, at this point I think the best approach is slow. There is a solid minority group of states which are permitting marriage, the feds have been told they have to recognize it when a state marries people even if they're of the same sex, and many/most of the others are opening up legal avenues to get the various legal rights, privileges, etc. that are usually provided in one big lump with marriage, via somewhat more painstaking means. I think it would be better to get the areas coming around on their own to trying to make one or two sweeping strokes across the entire nation judicially because I'm very much afraid if that happens we're going to end up with either marriage or gay rights in general getting fought over and picked at for another forty to sixty years, as has happened with desegregation and abortion. The Courts have problems getting states and lesser jurisdictions to actually toe the line when the topic involves this sort of strong cultural divide, even when its getting supported by Congress and/or the Executive.
My thinking is mostly in line with Fuzzy's on this, but...
I think it's plainly obvious that homosexual marriage was not at all being considered in the 1967 Loving case on interracial marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Once again, if the state has the "right" to regulate marriage, than is gay marriage really a "right"? I would prefer this be out of the sphere of government. But if it is going to be a government function, we Amerikans may as well benefit from the kind of legal experimentation that our system affords to push us towards gay marriage via our political process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I meant your posting history, and debates on DADT, Prop 8, DOMA, etc. How could the Executive could be more pro-active than it's been already? The Obama administration has been key in changing military policy, not defending DOMA, extending federal benefits to same-sex couples....Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
In other words, you want to wait for more states to legally recognize marriage equality....because it would make things "easier" for SCOTUS? I can appreciate your fears (in bold), but not sure I understand your rationale. :confused:Quote:
And yes, at this point I think the best approach is slow. There is a solid minority group of states which are permitting marriage, the feds have been told they have to recognize it when a state marries people even if they're of the same sex, and many/most of the others are opening up legal avenues to get the various legal rights, privileges, etc. that are usually provided in one big lump with marriage, via somewhat more painstaking means.
I think it would be better to get the areas coming around on their own to trying to make one or two sweeping strokes across the entire nation judicially because I'm very much afraid if that happens we're going to end up with either marriage or gay rights in general getting fought over and picked at for another forty to sixty years, as has happened with desegregation and abortion.
The Courts have problems getting states and lesser jurisdictions to actually toe the line when the topic involves this sort of strong cultural divide, even when its getting supported by Congress and/or the Executive.
One main reason we fought over desegregation was rooted in public education, and state 'rights' vs federal funding. That was long after non-whites and females had constitutionally recognized and protected "equal status". We've fought about abortion services over the same funding reasons, even though abortion is protected as an individual right.
This goes well beyond strong cultural divides....and gets into religious vs individual rights and freedoms. I'm surprised you prefer to wait, and endure the long slog, when politics has contaminated our judicial processes. Marriage is being used as a proxy, to get constitutionally recognized and protected rights for individuals that happen to be homosexual. Isn't that backward? :confused:
Well, that's why I'd prefer sexual preference/orientation be deemed on par with race, ethnicity, gender -- "born that way". Loving v Virginia was more about race than marriage, and Brown v Board of Education was more about racist bigotry than education. Millions of people were denied their rights....waiting for the political process to experiment state-by-state....not such a good precedent. :sour:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Any comments about Arizona's senate bill to deny service to homosexuals, by calling it a right to "religious freedom"? It will probably by vetoed by the governor, but that it was even passed as law is just....crazy. :mong:
The right is equality, marriage is the material issue. If you give people the right to marry then you better have damned good reasons to withhold that right from others. As far as I am concerned to strife for gay marriage would fly in the face of equality. Nobody I know is in favor of gay marriage. A lot of people I know support the idea that witholding equality before the law is a violation of very basic rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I also very much doubt you think 'like fuzzy' because the clear line under his incrementalism is that he supports any means of undermining a practise that runs counter to your own Constitution. He has no problems whatsoever with the route via the courts to throw statutes out, he merely worries about the potential for a backlash. You on the other hand are taking the position that it should be dealt with through the political system; as if minorities should only have rights that the majority allows them.
Well, not quite. I'm not certain I'd support federal legislation abrogating state authority over and/or regulation of marriage or the Courts backing the Feds up on that, I think that's just not how the flow of powers in our federalist system should play even if it involves the Feds forcing the same-sex marriage issue in our favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
But that's not the 'methodology' we used to accord minorities (non-white men, women) equal status, with rights to own property or vote. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Oh, I never considered the option of federal legislation. It seems self-evident that the federal government doesn' t have that right. That's what makes DOMA such an abomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I think the US needs to re-visit an Equal Rights Amendment to our Constitution that includes sexual preference/orientation/identity. That would go a long way in recognizing, and protecting, human rights as civil rights.
Unfortunately....many Americans believe that's undermining their 1st Amendment Rights and "religious freedoms". :(
BTW, I think there's "mission creep" stemming back to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...estoration_Act
and *some* legislators mangling the law's intent.
Fuzzy, excuse me for being blunt and personal, but your position sounds like cognitive dissonance. You shouldn't have to wait through slow, legislative processes, state-by-state, to have your rights recognized or legally protected, as a gay man. I'm perplexed by your trust and patience in the legal system, at the expense of your own identity, and living as a 2nd class citizen. Can you explain this to me, so might understand where you're coming from? :confused:
There are a number of states where I can legally marry (or the full legal equivalent, which is not what I'd prefer but which is not, at present, worth making waves about) and as of last June, the Feds have to recognize it, even if I then move to a state like Texas. And even in Texas, a number of the legal factors like medical proxies can be gained individually, though it's more work to gain them individually. At this point in time we're mostly talking about convenience and/or de jure recognition compared to the present de factop recognition, in those states which haven't already turned our way. Insisting on getting everything immediately is not worth the potential political cost or decades-long headache, given what we already have. Getting everything is still desirable, it's still something we should be pushing for and advocating, but we're at a point where we can afford to do it right. It's not a question of whether or not we should have to wait, GGT. The world isn't perfect, it's never going to be perfect, and it's IDIOTIC to act like an ideal world is the starting point rather than the goal. I am many things, pedantic, fussy, and so on but one thing I am not is an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
A federal judge has struck down Texas' ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday it has no "rational relation to a legitimate government purpose." :o
Once again, I don't believe in a "right" to "equality". That's enormously vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Also, Fuzzy pretty clearly outlined his problems with using the courts because of the backlash, which is also one of my positions. :weird:
Everyone has to work through the political process to change most state practices, that's the point of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The point is that the government is providing a significant economic advantage to a group of people for reasons that have no public interest behind them.
Yeah, but that's like XX% of what the government does.
And when you combine that with treating different groups of people (defined in terms of traits and not their actions) systematically different, it's a pretty good reason for the courts to step in.
Sounds like a good reason to end heterosexual marriage, affirmative action, preferential tax rates for contractors or minority-owned businesses and the entirety of disparate impact analysis. And yet our political system has produced all of these.
Government being hypocritical?
Say it ain't so.
I could make pretty good public interest arguments for each of those. I can't think of any public interest in discriminating against gays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught