Ash:
Blue Wolf II:
State? Yes. Federal? Aw hell naw. This is just like the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, in many respects. Yes, repealing DADT meant that gays could serve openly in the military, but it in no way entitled the partner of that member to receive the federal military benefits all spouses get, even if the couple are legally married. Additionally, the serving military member also doesn't receive their associated benefits for being married (such as separation pay and a shit ton of other monetary benefits). In the eyes of the military, and thus the federal government, that member is effectively single. Oh, and this somehow includes the National Guards of States that allow gay marriage. Don't ask how that works, no one wants to touch that and would rather you shut up and stop asking about it.
While we're on the subject of gays in the military, did you know sodomy is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Food for thought.
I sense you're indignant, BW.
::Cackles:: ::Raises right hand:: Let the hate flow through you.
You missed BW's point, in fact I think you entirely misinterpreted it. The point is that this SCOTUS decision will lead to a veritable constitutional and legal clusterfuck with all the bells and whistles.
How far does this decision go and what are the unintended consequences? Can religious houses of worship be forced by law to be required to officiate same-sex marriages in spite of their religious doctrine? Can religious tracts like the Bible be censored as "Hate Crimes" because the Bible considers homosexuality a sin? Can the government dictate to religious groups or private groups their particular beliefs? This type of stuff is already going on and a lot more in the works.
Then there's the issue of the SCOTUS disenfranchising an electoral majority in a state (California) on a legalistic technicality that over-rides the constitutional right of the people to amend their state constitutions as they see fit. Since the US Federal government cannot make a legal determination on the definition of 'marriage' constitutionally, how can they deny that reserved right (10th Amendment) to the states? Remember, we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the US Constitution detailing enumerated and reserved rights.
If the US federal government wants to extend marriage benefits, etc., to same sex couples, more power to them. It is well under the purvey of enumerated and reserved rights under the US Constitution. What the US Government cannot do is force individual states to permit same sex marriages.
What we have here is a severe misunderstanding of the very definition of "Rights". All rights exist prior to government. The Government cannot give you any rights because you already have those rights regardless of whether or not the government 'grants' you rights. Government cannot give you anything which it has not already taken from you.
Also, in California, you have a situation where the Governor and AG is required under their State Constitution to uphold and defend the law, which in the case of Prop 8 they did not do and that puts them in total violation of their state Constitution and therefore abdicating government. And the SCOTUS upon further examination on this matter has legislated from the bench and somehow given the Executive Branch of the government the authority to totally ignore their constitutional duty that requires them to uphold the law under their state's Constitution. This is not a power delegated to government and is therefore a scotched decision that is meaningless in the long run.
schweizweld:
I agree with the Supreme Court's rulings on gay marriage, but how will gay marriage get legalized in the 38 states where it is not legal? Rednecks and religious nutbars in places like the deep South and Utah will never legalize it on their own until the Supreme Court strikes down all anti gay marriage laws like they did with sodomy laws in the Lawrence vs Texas ruling around 2003.
The SCOTUS cannot strike down state laws concerning state legal and constitutional definitions of marriage as the US Constitution does in no way permit the federal government to define marriage except in some very narrow areas as it pertains to the federal government itself. Again, the principle of "Full Faith and Credit" principle doesn't apply here for the following reason which I stated before:
I have in my state a license and permit to carry a concealed firearm. Under full faith and credit, should not my permit to do so in my state allow me to carry a concealed firearm in another state that prohibits such behavior? What if someone comes in from East Bumfuckistan where it is legal to have a million wives? Should every state be required to recognize polygamy despite their state constitutions and legal codes because the US Constitution is silent on the issue?
This SCOTUS decision is going to be a lesson in unintended consequence like never seen before. I do have to applaud the decision because it reaffirms States Rights under all situations where the federal government is powerless to do anything which is is not specifically granted in detail under the Constitution. I applaud the decision because it now affirms a state's right to secede from the Union because the US Constitution in its specific articles has no granted privilege to prevent. It also allows people the right to move to a state in which the laws accommodate their style of living if they don't liek the laws in the state in which they live.
schweizweld:
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia is a real extremist just like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, someone like him doesn't belong on the court, he's 77 so let's hope he'll retire in the not too distant future. In Canada, Supreme Court judges must retire at 75. I think the U.S. should have a retirement age for judges too.
I know a few Liberal justices that would be removed under the Canadian rules too. But I agree, not on a maximum age limit of judges but on length of terms. I believe that appointing judges for life is just asking for trouble because it allows a given President to commit mischief long beyond his term of office.
I know, the idea of life time appointments for SCOTUS justices is designed to remove them from political interests but it in no way removes them from being the tools of political interests, if you catch my drift.
Here's an interesting take on this in keeping with Common Law theory:
Since Marriage is a civil issue and governed by law, one doesn't have the right to marry anyone. Marriage is a civil function, it is not a right. If it was a right, you could simply declare yourself married to anyone you like and the government would have to automatically recognize that marriage. But there are laws pertaining to marriage regulating it is as a social interest. Marriage is a statutory construct. If you lived on a desert island, not government, marriage would not exist. It would happen, but legally it would not exist because there were no laws. And remember, government can be defined as any state in which one person exerts their will over another.
Even back in the reformation, one big dispute in the Catholic/Protestant conflict was whether or not marriage was a 'sacrament'. The Papacy said yes; protestant and reformation forces said no: it was a civil matter independent of the church. And we had wars over it. Can you say King Henry VIII?
But going back to what BW said, we have a situation where a certain legal status is permitted yet the associated activities to such a status are illegal, it leads to a legal clusterfuck with a bunch of unintended consequences detrimental to the very people now celebrating the SCOTUS decision.
I think the next case that should be brought before the SCOTUS is Polygamy, Incestuous Marriages, and marrying inanimate objects. You know, just because I like anarchy!
But here's the crux of the issue:
If marriage of any kind or description offered no government goodies or benefits like tax deductions, etc., would same-sex marriage even be an issue?
Using the same logic as the SCOTUS in this recent decision:
Let's abolish all special benefits to all married couples of any configuration because it is unfair and unconstitutional to give special benefits to one class of people (married) and not give it to another class of people (Unmarried) because that would constitutionally be discrimination and preferential treatment because of social status!
Old cowboy saying: "I would marry my horse but I cannot afford the bridal".
