4 ms·

Sorry, but as a lawyer totally in favor of gay marriage, Roberts, at least, is completely right on the legal theory. There has been basically nothing, in the h

Sorry, but as a lawyer totally in favor of gay marriage, Roberts, at least, is completely right on the legal theory. There has been basically nothing, in the history of our country, considered more of a state right than defining marriage. The supreme court is not a ruling council. Our constitution is about freedom from government intervention, not guaranteed government benefits. The debates over everything in the past that led to amendments looked roughly the same as the debate over same sex marriage. For example, people beat each other on the floor of the senate chamber over slavery. The only difference to this debate is that a court ended it by deciding to change the constitution. This is not how the process is supposed to work. The fact that the majority of the US may be tired of a broken political system does not change this.

techpeace 11y ago
As a lawyer, could you explain how denying over 1,000 federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples would be offering them equal protection under the law?
- yourapostasy 11y ago
  For others who were also interested, the "over 1,000 federal marriage benefits" figure comes from a United States General Accounting Office report to Congress, updated as of 2004. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
- DannyBee 11y ago
  First, this is not what laws were challenged. The laws that were challenged are very specific. As roberts says, "petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically" Had they challenged benefits laws, that would change the equal protection analysis significantly. But in this lawsuit, given what they've actually challenged, the normal precedent would be to apply the rational basis test, and nothing stronger. Again, i'll quote roberts, who quotes lawrence: "In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”" Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585. (Now, you could argue this isn't a legitimate state interest, but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue :P) The majority doesn't even bother to argue otherwise. Second, the vast majority of the opinion does not rest on any equal protection claim, and not even the majority takes that argument seriously on these facts given the above. In fact, the majority doesn't even explain how their argument that this is correct works. They don't even spend a paragraph explaining it, just make a conclusory statement. So to answer your question, i don't claim what you are stating would in fact, be offering equal protection, but will point out A. This isn't actually the case before the court B. Resolving that case does not require declaring states must issue same sex marriage licenses. It would probably require that those validly marriage be given the same benefits. SCOTUS is supposed to go out of it's way to not resolve questions not before it, and when they do resolve questions, they generally resolve them in the least sweeping way possible.
  - techpeace 11y ago
    > "but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue " So, I assume you're leaving Loving v. Virginia out of that figure? [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
    - csallen 11y ago
      All of the precedent on the issue of "marriage" was made with the understanding that marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in today's decision acknowledged this fact. Loving v. Virginia was struck down because it sought to arbitrarily hinder this right. However, gay marriage is a very different issue, because it seeks to expand the right to more people.
      - techpeace 11y ago
        Well, as the history of this country has been one of expanding the scope of rights to encompass more people, rather than one of limiting rights to only apply to folks that think and act like the majority, I'm for it. The only time we tried to limit rights with a Constitutional amendment (prohibition), things didn't go so well. I would also take issue with your framing of this case. I view gender as just as arbitrary a hindrance as race, especially given that the "Biblical definition of marriage" also dictates things like how one should treat their sex slaves. It's also worth noting that it was religious conservatives that were also raging against the decision in Loving v. Virginia, because it violated "traditional" notions of marriage. So, what's the difference between an "arbitrary hindrance" and an "expansion of rights"? Who gets to decide? Which one is allowed, in your view?
0x5f3759df-i 11y ago
>There has been basically nothing, in the history of our country, considered more of a state right than defining marriage. Sorry, this statement just isn't true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia >The debates over everything in the past that led to amendments looked roughly the same as the debate over same sex marriage. For example, people beat each other on the floor of the senate chamber over slavery. The only difference to this debate is that a court ended it by deciding to change the constitution. So you are saying that every social issue must end with a constitutional amendment? The 14th amendment is already there. Why must we repeat the mistakes of the past every time a new issue comes along? Are you suggesting we should go to war to settle same sex marriage? >This is not how the process is supposed to work. You have not established this conclusion with anything you said. Nothing in this comment strikes me as from a "lawyer" but what do I know, I'm just an astronaut doctor lawyer in space.
- chc 11y ago
  The Loving v. Virginia parallel is interesting, but the ad hominem and sarcasm against DannyBee are uncalled-for.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  " Sorry, this statement just isn't true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" I'm aware of loving, which said nothing different? Loving basically said the same thing i did - they need a legitimate state interest. Race based discrimination is not a legitimate state interest. Therefore, Loving falls. That is sane legal theory. But it doesn't change this case? "So you are saying that every social issue must end with a constitutional amendment? The 14th amendment is already there. Why must we repeat the mistakes of the past every time a new issue comes along? Are you suggesting we should go to war to settle same sex marriage?" So what is your view on the 14th amendment. What do you think equal protection means? Because what you've said here essentially implies you think the 14th amendment swallows the rest of the constitution, when instead, the 14th amendment has very specific application. "You have not established this conclusion with anything you said. Nothing in this comment strikes me as from a "lawyer" but what do I know, I'm just an astronaut doctor lawyer in space." You haven't actually refuted any point i've made. If you are arguing i am not a lawyer, that's fairly easy to verify. Past that, why actually listen to a lawyer, when you can cite that great legal authority, wikipedia. If you want to make a legal argument, make one. Simply saying "Loving", does not work, because Loving is different.

techpeace 11y ago

As a lawyer, could you explain how denying over 1,000 federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples would be offering them equal protection under the law?

yourapostasy 11y ago
For others who were also interested, the "over 1,000 federal marriage benefits" figure comes from a United States General Accounting Office report to Congress, updated as of 2004. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf
DannyBee 11y ago
First, this is not what laws were challenged. The laws that were challenged are very specific. As roberts says, "petitioners’ lawsuits target the laws defining marriage generally rather than those allocating benefits specifically" Had they challenged benefits laws, that would change the equal protection analysis significantly. But in this lawsuit, given what they've actually challenged, the normal precedent would be to apply the rational basis test, and nothing stronger. Again, i'll quote roberts, who quotes lawrence: "In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”" Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585. (Now, you could argue this isn't a legitimate state interest, but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue :P) The majority doesn't even bother to argue otherwise. Second, the vast majority of the opinion does not rest on any equal protection claim, and not even the majority takes that argument seriously on these facts given the above. In fact, the majority doesn't even explain how their argument that this is correct works. They don't even spend a paragraph explaining it, just make a conclusory statement. So to answer your question, i don't claim what you are stating would in fact, be offering equal protection, but will point out A. This isn't actually the case before the court B. Resolving that case does not require declaring states must issue same sex marriage licenses. It would probably require that those validly marriage be given the same benefits. SCOTUS is supposed to go out of it's way to not resolve questions not before it, and when they do resolve questions, they generally resolve them in the least sweeping way possible.
- techpeace 11y ago
  > "but that's a pretty resolved question at this point, and would require overruling about 200 years of precedent on the issue " So, I assume you're leaving Loving v. Virginia out of that figure? [1] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
  - csallen 11y ago
    All of the precedent on the issue of "marriage" was made with the understanding that marriage meant a union between a man and a woman. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in today's decision acknowledged this fact. Loving v. Virginia was struck down because it sought to arbitrarily hinder this right. However, gay marriage is a very different issue, because it seeks to expand the right to more people.
    - techpeace 11y ago
      Well, as the history of this country has been one of expanding the scope of rights to encompass more people, rather than one of limiting rights to only apply to folks that think and act like the majority, I'm for it. The only time we tried to limit rights with a Constitutional amendment (prohibition), things didn't go so well. I would also take issue with your framing of this case. I view gender as just as arbitrary a hindrance as race, especially given that the "Biblical definition of marriage" also dictates things like how one should treat their sex slaves. It's also worth noting that it was religious conservatives that were also raging against the decision in Loving v. Virginia, because it violated "traditional" notions of marriage. So, what's the difference between an "arbitrary hindrance" and an "expansion of rights"? Who gets to decide? Which one is allowed, in your view?

0x5f3759df-i 11y ago

>There has been basically nothing, in the history of our country, considered more of a state right than defining marriage. Sorry, this statement just isn't true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia >The debates over everything in the past that led to amendments looked roughly the same as the debate over same sex marriage. For example, people beat each other on the floor of the senate chamber over slavery. The only difference to this debate is that a court ended it by deciding to change the constitution. So you are saying that every social issue must end with a constitutional amendment? The 14th amendment is already there. Why must we repeat the mistakes of the past every time a new issue comes along? Are you suggesting we should go to war to settle same sex marriage? >This is not how the process is supposed to work. You have not established this conclusion with anything you said. Nothing in this comment strikes me as from a "lawyer" but what do I know, I'm just an astronaut doctor lawyer in space.

chc 11y ago
The Loving v. Virginia parallel is interesting, but the ad hominem and sarcasm against DannyBee are uncalled-for.
DannyBee 11y ago
" Sorry, this statement just isn't true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia" I'm aware of loving, which said nothing different? Loving basically said the same thing i did - they need a legitimate state interest. Race based discrimination is not a legitimate state interest. Therefore, Loving falls. That is sane legal theory. But it doesn't change this case? "So you are saying that every social issue must end with a constitutional amendment? The 14th amendment is already there. Why must we repeat the mistakes of the past every time a new issue comes along? Are you suggesting we should go to war to settle same sex marriage?" So what is your view on the 14th amendment. What do you think equal protection means? Because what you've said here essentially implies you think the 14th amendment swallows the rest of the constitution, when instead, the 14th amendment has very specific application. "You have not established this conclusion with anything you said. Nothing in this comment strikes me as from a "lawyer" but what do I know, I'm just an astronaut doctor lawyer in space." You haven't actually refuted any point i've made. If you are arguing i am not a lawyer, that's fairly easy to verify. Past that, why actually listen to a lawyer, when you can cite that great legal authority, wikipedia. If you want to make a legal argument, make one. Simply saying "Loving", does not work, because Loving is different.