4 ms·

>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 tru

>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.
- chc 11y ago
  > 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, this falls. How is sex-based discrimination in marriage a legitimate state interest but not race-based discrimination in marriage? I'm having trouble seeing how Loving — which overrode states' control over marriage when it was unnecessarily discriminatory — can be a good ruling while Obergefell is a bad ruling because it overrode states' control over marriage when it was unnecessarily discriminatory.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    This is easy: Race based discrimination is held to a heightened standard. Sex based discrimination is also. However, the majority in this case did not hold that this was sex based discrimination (despite arguments that it was). That would, in fact, have been valid legal reasoning. Holding that it is sex based discrimination and subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection would be perfectly reasonable. Instead, they said that the equal protection clause and the substantive due process clause combine in a magical way to give a new right.
  - csallen 11y ago
    Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, and I am 100% in favor of gay marriage. I read Roberts' dissenting opinion pretty closely, and he discusses Loving several times. His argument doesn't read like a states' right argument at all. His basic point is that, for better or for worse, the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, and that the laws were written with this interpretation in mind. (I agree there, as he provides some good primary sources, and Kennedy's majority opinion acknowledges this fact as well.) We'll call this opposite-sex definition "Marriage" with a capital "M". Roberts also demonstrates that Marriage is a guaranteed right. (The majority agrees there, too.) In the cases in question, states sought to restrict some people from Marriage, e.g. interracial couples, convicts, etc. These decisions were struck down by the court, because they violated the right to Marriage as it was guaranteed. The gay marriage issue, however, is different. It does not seek to prevent restrictions on Marriage, but to redefine it to include more people (specifically, opposite genders). Roberts argues that creating rights is not the responsibility of the court, but should instead be handled by the legislative branch. The majority argues that, even though past litigation and legislation only protected opposite-sex Marriage with a capital "M", it is okay to ignore their intentions if they are harmful or misguided. I think the dissenting justices were wary of doing that, because it goes beyond interpreting the law and wades into writing the law. It's not up to the court to determine what the law should be, only to determine what it is. Otherwise, they're usurping the power of the legislative branch, and thus of we, the people, who elect them.

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.

chc 11y ago
> 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, this falls. How is sex-based discrimination in marriage a legitimate state interest but not race-based discrimination in marriage? I'm having trouble seeing how Loving — which overrode states' control over marriage when it was unnecessarily discriminatory — can be a good ruling while Obergefell is a bad ruling because it overrode states' control over marriage when it was unnecessarily discriminatory.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  This is easy: Race based discrimination is held to a heightened standard. Sex based discrimination is also. However, the majority in this case did not hold that this was sex based discrimination (despite arguments that it was). That would, in fact, have been valid legal reasoning. Holding that it is sex based discrimination and subject to heightened scrutiny under equal protection would be perfectly reasonable. Instead, they said that the equal protection clause and the substantive due process clause combine in a magical way to give a new right.
- csallen 11y ago
  Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, and I am 100% in favor of gay marriage. I read Roberts' dissenting opinion pretty closely, and he discusses Loving several times. His argument doesn't read like a states' right argument at all. His basic point is that, for better or for worse, the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman, and that the laws were written with this interpretation in mind. (I agree there, as he provides some good primary sources, and Kennedy's majority opinion acknowledges this fact as well.) We'll call this opposite-sex definition "Marriage" with a capital "M". Roberts also demonstrates that Marriage is a guaranteed right. (The majority agrees there, too.) In the cases in question, states sought to restrict some people from Marriage, e.g. interracial couples, convicts, etc. These decisions were struck down by the court, because they violated the right to Marriage as it was guaranteed. The gay marriage issue, however, is different. It does not seek to prevent restrictions on Marriage, but to redefine it to include more people (specifically, opposite genders). Roberts argues that creating rights is not the responsibility of the court, but should instead be handled by the legislative branch. The majority argues that, even though past litigation and legislation only protected opposite-sex Marriage with a capital "M", it is okay to ignore their intentions if they are harmful or misguided. I think the dissenting justices were wary of doing that, because it goes beyond interpreting the law and wades into writing the law. It's not up to the court to determine what the law should be, only to determine what it is. Otherwise, they're usurping the power of the legislative branch, and thus of we, the people, who elect them.