Discussion for article #229911
No reason to go out and vote if you are a young person who is either gay or has gay friends, no reason at all.
12 Likes
I guess it depends on whether or not it is appealed to the full court. However if it makes it to the supreme court, how will it impact businesses should be the question, since the US SC is clearly PRO business, if it is good for business, especially BIG business, then …
1 Like
Of course not. They’re all the same! No difference between the parties at all.
16 Likes
“[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist,” Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.
Ignoring the following 14 Supreme Court Rulings, dating back to 1888:
1.Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2.Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4.Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5.Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6.Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7.Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8.Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9.Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “[I]t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
10.Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
11.Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
12.Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
13.M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
14.Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
16 Likes
“Rush” is a relative term when you’re talking about the Supreme Court. Given that there are only a few months left in which to assemble all the documents and filings and counter-filings required before SCOTUS even talks about taking a case, there’s a good chance this won’t be heard before the 2015-16 session, which means we wouldn’t have (or not have) marriage equality throughout the land until the end of June 2016.
I’m lucky enough to live in a state where our marriage got state recognition a month ago. Many more couples in about a third of the states may end up having to wait longer.
(Damn! I wish I could vote on the rights of people I don’t like!)
1 Like
I guess these wingnut judges have never heard of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment… really… what are guys like this, so ignorant of the Constitution, of what the constitutional issues are with gay marriage, doing on a Circuit Court… unbelievable… what a joke…
well, the SC will decide, I suppose… I don’t suppose they will ignore the 14th Amendment…
2 Likes
“[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist.”
So the right to mixed-race marriages, mixed religion marriages, non-Protestant marriages, Protestant mariages, atheist marriages and so on and so forth can be banned on a state level. Interesting. And by “interesting,” I mean “stupid.”
13 Likes
Like many “conservatives” they only recall that part of the Constitution when it applies to them.
8 Likes
The Constitution is a floor to rights not a ceiling.
10 Likes
Mrs. Clarence Thomas, what say you? Less than 50 years ago your marriage to Clarence would have been ILLEGAL…
8 Likes
You’re sick old woman, RETIRE.
Watch the crazies in the Senate renew their call for a Constitutional amendment.
This is what you get when you don’t vote.
5 Likes
And if she does, the Turtle and the Cubanadian will block any decent person the President tries to nominate.
5 Likes
And so, the Bush Mandate Crumble II…
Mark Stern of Slate for all intents and purposes called this decision in early August. Well worth a read:
1 Like
10 of 15 judges there were appointed by GOP Presidents, 8 by George W alone.
Wikipedia says that the decisions of the 6th were overturned 24 out of 25 times by the Supreme Court in the last 5 years. Some high-quality legal thinking from the W appointees, I suspect.
12 Likes
There you go, getting all fact-y on us. This isn’t about precedent; it’s about preventing Adam and Steve from destroying society as we know it!
4 Likes
Indeed. If only the thinkers behind our Constitution had thought to phrase rights in more general terms that would serve to cover specific cases.
2 Likes
People like you are why we can never have nice things.
6 Likes