SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated

[TheCount]

Robert's dissent already mentioned polygamy, stating that the exact arguments the 'majority' are using to justify the decision could be interchangeable with those proponents of polyamorous/polygamous legality...

So what?


It's interesting that the discussion here is about states' "right" to prevent people from entering into a private contract that has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Where, exactly, does that "right" come from?

 

[timosman]

So what?


It's interesting that the discussion here is about states' "right" to prevent people from entering into a private contract that has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Where, exactly, does that "right" come from?

Circular logic: Access to the state benefits needs to be controlled. It seems the state itself is best suited for the purpose..

 

[wizardwatson]

Anyway, getting off for the weekend.

Got my kid this weekend and if I follow this all day it'll just put me in a rotten mood when I go get him.

Be safe. Hope the angels are watching over you guys.

Be on the lookout for shifting fault lines, pyroclastic flows, hot ash clouds and hyrdrothermal explosions.

 

[dannno]

I sorta see this like the CRA. Rand and some libertarians have said they are ok with the CRA with regard to discrimination of public institutions. As long as the Federal Govt. is enforcing states treating people equally under the law I don't think this is much different. It might not be the way I would prefer to go about it, but I don't think it is any bigger of a hit against states rights than the section of the CRA regarding public institutions.

If bakeries are forced to bake gay wedding cakes in the shape of genitalia and churches are forced to host nude gay weddings then this is a big problem.

 

[juleswin]

Polygamous marriage has also been common throughout history.

And it's dying in places even where it is legal because it is more difficult and expensive to pull off in modern society. Govt has no right to get in the middle of a contract between 2 or more consenting adults.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)

 

[Christian Liberty]

Which parts of marriage traditions, which Walker points out are THOUSANDS of years old, should we honor?
Should husbands be allowed to rape their wives? That's a tradition.
Should divorce be illegal? It is in most traditions.
Should dowries come back? They're pretty traditional.
Should the wife's property (and body) become her husband's property? That is, after all, the oldest tradition in marriage.


No. It's the 21st freaking century. I don't want my laws based on archaic traditions if they are anti liberty.


That being said, this SHOULD be a state issue. But of all the things for the feds to 'power grab' on, this is the LEAST scary. The scary stuff is already happening.

I don't care if its "traditional", but if its Biblical.

I sorta see this like the CRA. Rand and some libertarians have said they are ok with the CRA with regard to discrimination of public institutions. As long as the Federal Govt. is enforcing states treating people equally under the law I don't think this is much different. It might not be the way I would prefer to go about it, but I don't think it is any bigger of a hit against states rights than the section of the CRA regarding public institutions.

If bakeries are forced to bake gay wedding cakes in the shape of genitalia and churches are forced to host nude gay weddings then this is a big problem.

So, let me ask you this. If churches were forced to host non-nude gay weddings, and bakeries were forced to bake gay wedding cakes that aren't shaped like anything crude, would you say that this is no worse than the CRA?

If so... you've explained EXACTLY why there can be no peace between Christian libertarians and secular libertarians.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I don't care if its "traditional", but if its Biblical.

Why do those who urge a bible-based objection to same-sex marriage always refer to "marriage" as a union of one man and one woman, when in fact many biblical marriages were polygamous?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why do those who urge a bible-based objection to same-sex marriage always refer to "marriage" as a union of one man and one woman, when in fact many biblical marriages were polygamous?

Polygamy is discouraged by scriptures.

Mind you, that's not to say the religious right is really logically consistent, but they aren't off here.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

For the record, I don't believe in state right when it affects the freedom of the individual. States to me are just mini federal govts. but I sometimes support state rights when it comes to inconsequential/ceremonial things like to fly or not to fly flags on state houses but that's it.

Also, Rand Paul doesn't have it right all the time and this is one area where we disagree. Why the fuck is polygamy illegal in the US? this stuff has been with humanity since recorded history and all of a sudden the US makes it illegal. And for some reason everybody is cool with it cos polygamy is not for them.

Is polygamy banned at the Federal or State level?

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's interesting that the discussion here is about states' "right" to prevent people from entering into a private contract that has absolutely nothing to do with the government.

But it's not a private contract that has "abosolutely nothing to do with the government." (Would only were it so!)

It is a "public" contract - that is, it is a government-issued license that is routinely endowed by the state with special privileges (such as tax breaks, among other things) that are not granted to others (such as polygamists or, until recently, gays).

Where, exactly, does that "right" come from?

There is no right to prevent people from entering into (voluntary) private contracts. But government-issued marriage licenses are not certifications of private contracts - they are endowments of special privileges. That is precisely why many gays (quite understandably) want them.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

So what?

It's interesting that the discussion here is about states' "right" to prevent people from entering into a private contract that has absolutely nothing to do with the government. Where, exactly, does that "right" come from?

The issue is not private contracts, but government conferred legitimacy to a version of a private institution (and imposed on everybody) that runs contrary to the preponderant understanding of that private institution. Are gay baptisms or communions valid, if somebody gets a government license saying they are? The government does not have the right to treat a government marriage license (a privilege, that is dependent on the state's approval) as if it is a right (something human beings have that is recognized to derive from outside or beyond the state).

Nor should the state have the power to use its issuance of a privilege (a license) to fraudulent convey or curry legitimacy for gay marriages that could not be obtained by the culture or history. The decision today confuses or conflates individual rights with group privileges, and is in essence a back door statement that the state recognizes no source or authority for rights outside of itself. As I wrote months ago:

Nothing in the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to marry, be it heterosexual or homosexual, making the question of what is or is not allowed state to state moot. At the time of the amendment's passage, marriage itself was understood to be a private institution or sectarian ritual, much like baptism or communion, thus not a matter of law.

And the 14th amendment protects individual rights, not the privilege claims of a group that they need to be treated as a protected class. Gay advocates want a government privilege (a government marriage license) extended to them as a group as if it was an inalienable right, based on collectivist claims of being a civil rights category (which is itself disputed, since half of us do not agree they are born that way).

 

[dannno]

So, let me ask you this. If churches were forced to host non-nude gay weddings, and bakeries were forced to bake gay wedding cakes that aren't shaped like anything crude, would you say that this is no worse than the CRA?

You completely missed the point of my post.

I was exaggerating a bit because I would assume that if a bakery has to bake a cake for a gay wedding then they would have to succumb to all of their demands or else they could be sued. Even if they won, it would be easier just to bake the penis cake to begin with. So obviously I'm for the freedom of churches to have or not have any weddings they choose and for bakers to bake or not bake any cakes they want.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Time to dust this off again. Marxists and totalitarians on the Court...

Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

 

[TheCount]

...

What a horrendous mismash of garbage.

The issue is not private contracts, but government conferred legitimacy to a version of a private institution (and imposed on everybody) that runs contrary to the preponderant understanding of that private institution.

If the Rainbow Church of Fabulous Jesus gives someone a gay marriage license, is that license more or less legitimate than a marriage license from a Baptist Church? Which should the government accept?

Are gay baptisms or communions valid, if somebody gets a government license saying they are?

Newsflash: There are churches that do gay baptisms, gay communions, and gay marriages.

The government does not have the right to treat a government marriage license (a privilege, that is dependent on the state's approval) as if it is a right (something human beings have that is recognized to derive from outside or beyond the state).

Why is it the government's marriage license at all? You need to decide if you think that this is a private institution, or a government institution. It cannot be both.

If private: Gays will just form gay-friendly churches and do it anyway.

If government: It's just a contract, and as stated, government has no "right" to interfere in the creation of private contracts which have nothing to do with the government.

could not be recognized by the culture or history.

Recognized by history? Does a marriage certificate travel back in time for approval?

At the time of the amendment's passage, marriage itself was understood to be a private institution or sectarian ritual, much like baptism or communion, thus not a matter of law.

That was before certain religious conservatives forced a government takeover of the private institution of marriage in order to outlaw interracial marriages. They made it a government institution so that they could decide which private institutions were approved and which were not.


That's what you are trying to uphold here: You want public enforcement of one particular flavor of private institution which just so happens to coincide with your preferences.

 

[Ender]

You completely missed the point of my post.

I was exaggerating a bit because I would assume that if a bakery has to bake a cake for a gay wedding then they would have to succumb to all of their demands or else they could be sued. Even if they won, it would be easier just to bake the penis cake to begin with. So obviously I'm for the freedom of churches to have or not have any weddings they choose and for bakers to bake or not bake any cakes they want.

Most people are missing the point.

The POINT is that government has no business in marriage and what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

The license came about to stop interracial marriage; it has been justified by adding "perks" that the gov has no right to even engage in.

 

[jllundqu]

I am more interested in the false constitutionality of this "ruling" (god I hate that term) than gay marriage. I could give a rat's ass if gays and lesbians want to marry. I really don't care. It has zero effect on my marriage, my family, and what I teach my children. I do believe in "liberty and justice for all" and that we get our rights as individuals, not because we belong to a certain group.

This is a serious ripple in the pond that is the United States. Could this be the straw the broke the camel's back? Highly doubtful...

 

[Sola_Fide]

Our country is gone. I mean that seriously.

 

[timosman]

Our country is gone. I mean that seriously.

Thinking with the gut has long been the norm. Most decisions are being made in the context of "now" without taking a historical perspective into account. We are finally principle free. We just do what feels right at the moment.

 

[RabbitMan]

This is a serious ripple in the pond that is the United States. Could this be the straw the broke the camel's back? Highly doubtful...

I am a little surprised by the responses here.

I guess the issue here is that some of us see people as people with rights based on us being 'men' or 'women'.
As humanity moves forward, the trend is to see gender definitions as outdated and rooted in a tradition that current generations don't belong to.
So really this is just about equality of access to institutions for two consenting adult individuals.

Sorry social conservatives, but the country is moving forward. There will be no civil war. There will be no secession.
The vast majority of the country, especially millennials, is okay with this. It sucks to be a minority, but that's just the way it is from here on out.

And for what it's worth, I don't understand the obsession with people thinking that homosexual couples are suddenly going to demand that cake makers start churning penis cakes. It's like saying, "If those darn heteros get to marry, they are going to start getting all the cake makers to have vagina cakes!" That just doesn't happen.

I hope Rand doesn't put his foot in his mouth on this one. It's going to be really interesting to see how this hits the GOP primary.