While I was out
And, generally not paying attention to the news, the Supreme Court decided to important cases. They declared, using the 14th amendment, that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage. I’ve long supported gay marriage but this seems a bit of a stretch in terms of their actually being a “right to marry” in the first place.
Up next, in a twist of reasoning and a 6-3 vote, they’ve upheld Obamacare (now SCOTUSCare) by saying the law doesn’t mean what it says but it means what people think it means. Or something.
I’m actually surprised at how neither case surprised me. Yeah, you heard me. But in these cases, as with the Bruce Jenner and this Confederate flag non-thing, I find myself more fascinated at the reaction of the culture more than the issues themselves. Everything from the gloating to the people I see on facebook praying for God to overturn the supreme courts. Interesting times.
June 28th, 2015 at 7:08 pm
They’re both scary decisions. The Obamacare one has had its counterpart in Minnesota’s prosecution of felons for possessing BB guns for a while now. Because … wait for it … BB guns are firearms because the hunting laws call them that even though the weapons laws don’t. And little did Grant and Lee know that they were really fighting for the right of homosexuals to marry.
June 28th, 2015 at 11:25 pm
Everyone already had the right to marry, ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF THE INSTITUTION. What SCOTUS did was an arbitrary redefinition thus usurping the power of the States and People through their democratic, representative governments to establish such institutions. Gay folks could have legally enjoyed the accoutrements of marriage without imposing and hi-jacking an age old institution!!’ And it’s not over with what else their radical elements want.
June 28th, 2015 at 11:40 pm
Roberts has certainly proved himself a CINO, but his dissent on gay marriage may signal that the issue should be a personal one, and that gov has no damn business in the marriage business of anyone at all…
Most gay folks will readily and honestly admit that getting the official nod has little to do with the heart and everything to do with the wallet; the rights and benefits bestowed on legally married couples are substantial and withholding them from gays is wrong and discriminatory.
I may believe that homosexuality is an abomination, a sin, and a harbinger of the species’ demise; others may believe otherwise. But all of that is irrelevant to the issue of the government sanction of marriage, any marriage. When controversy and feelings are used to obfuscate, sweep it all away and follow the money; always follow the money…and get gov the hell out of marriage and the bedroom.
June 29th, 2015 at 7:41 am
But wait, there may be a “silver lining” to the SCOTUS ruling and I think it may not be to the liking of many so-called ” liberals” who like to be discriminatory in what rights they champion. First of all, some States are even now considering to stop issuing marriage licenses. That will remove marriage from the cognizance of the government, so it will be a matter of personal contract between ( or among) the marriage partners. So when there are private contracts between individuals in other matters, has SCOTUS, in citing ” the equal protection of the laws” (14th Amendment) re: this contract, opened it to any other personal contract? And will not the broad range of things in the 4th Amendment and 9th apply within those personal contracts and the “effects” that result?
Someone help me. Am I making sense? Does this now really open the “libertarian” door that should send shock waves throughout the authoritarian leftist establishment?
June 29th, 2015 at 7:48 am
Well, if the states now have to recognize any flavor of marriage permit issued by other states, shouldn’t they also be required to recognize carry permits issued by any state?
June 29th, 2015 at 8:23 am
Yes, Bram. It would seem so IF, IF they consistently applied and held to this most recent precedent. But I was thinking beyond that to any personal “effect” that you owned or that was the result of a contract between or among other parties.
June 29th, 2015 at 8:42 am
That libertarian door has already been opened up by gov itself in its definition of marriage to qualify for the subject of the other big scotus ruling, health insurance.
In checking into that definition for my son and his fiancé to determine their eligibility for the subsidy (if they’re going to take money from me and hand it out to others at least this way we’ll get some of it back; we did the same thing for him six years ago for the 8K first time homebuyer boondoggle, that’s my money anyway), we found that marriage is defined as people who are married or “consider themselves married”. Well, son and “wife” live as a married couple in every other sense of the word, so yeah they got the subsidy by combining their incomes putting them right in the middle of the income qualification range.
So when it comes to every other gov benefit of marriage, i.e. survivorship, tax issues, etc. which as I said before is the real crux of the push for “legalized” gay marriage, that is a precedent which could and should be applied in the eyes of gov, and would effectively end any real purview it has on the issue. Which is as it should be; the relationship of two people is their business, and government has no business defining it or treating it differently from one couple to the other.
June 29th, 2015 at 8:53 am
This is an excerpt from Time magazine, politics section:
“Those who disagree with the recent Supreme Court ruling argue that the court should not overturn the will of legislative majorities. Those who favor the Supreme Court ruling argue that the 14th Amendment protects rights from legislative majorities.”
So SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment protects RIGHTS from LEGISLATIVE majorities. Yes, I agree. ALL rights, especially those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Therefore ANY OTHER RIGHT would be included and ALL laws, Federal, State or local,that restrict, deny, violate or INFRINGE on any other right should be declared unconstitutional as were State marriage laws and Constitutional amendments. Hey Mr. President, you may want to hold up on that victory lap.
June 29th, 2015 at 9:30 am
All the theories about this opening a door to “whatever” need to pump the brakes and realize that the current SCOTUS will do whatever they “think” is popular, not what is constitutional.
They will ignore language that they don’t like that is in the law/constitution, and add words that they think “should” be there.
You can no longer look at statutory law, and maybe even common law, and safely think the meaning is clear, because SCOTUS will see whatever pleases them.
June 29th, 2015 at 9:57 am
HL, yes this court may even ignore its own immediate precedent applying the 14th Amendment when it comes to striking down, let’s say, gun control laws which not only violate the 2nd Amendment, as well as proposed ” universal background checks, to include contracts between private persons, thst would violate the 4th and 5th Amendments. Also many gun laws and others EXEMPT government officials and agents Which are flagrant violations of “the equal protection of the laws”.
June 29th, 2015 at 10:35 am
I know same-sex couples that are married in any sense of the word — sometimes even the legal sense, if Canadian marriage counts. What they have is real.
Separating the legal and religious aspects of this coupling might be a reasonable compromise. Let people have a contract tying them together. It’s called a “domestic partnership” most places. Let them have the legal status: inheritance, tax benefits, and all.
And if they find a church to solemnize it, why not call it marriage?
June 29th, 2015 at 11:33 am
With regard to gay marriage, there are two constitutional issues.
The first issue where marriage is a religious institution, and the First Amendment applies. If we follow the First Amendment, gays can marry in churches that welcome them, other churches can decide they don’t want to marry gays, and the Mormons can marry as many women as they want. I know that’s not what the law is now, but that’s what the First Amendment actually means.
The second issue is where marriage is a civil institution, and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause applies. This is very simple: since married people have certain rights under federal and state law, we need to allow gays to have the same rights under the law.
My preferred solution would be to eliminate marriage as a civil institution and let the churches do whatever they want as long as it’s between consenting adults. Extending the benefits of the civil institution to gays is a good second choice. A solid reading of the Constitution by SCOTUS, for once. Scalia should read the damn thing once in a while.
June 29th, 2015 at 2:43 pm
And SCOTUS is about to hear the case for racism.
We’ll see how consistent they are. With the recent rampant racism of the reverse type, they’ll have a chance to say that racism is racism and is not Constitutional regardless of attempted justification. A plaintiff from ’08 who was passed over for admission to a Texas university due to racial set-asides (euphemistically called “affirmative action” by UT and other institutions), will finally have her case heard. While it will no longer affect her personally as she completed her degree elsewhere, she has stayed on the case to help others who have been discriminated against.
As others here have said, the justices seem to be picking and choosing when and where they want to enforce constitutional equality, so I doubt they’ll get it right, but it’ll be interesting to see just how they can justify what is truly outright racism, and what effect that might have on the current situation whereby perceived symbolism is resulting in bans and restrictions by gov.
June 29th, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Yeah, I’m with you on that.
(I mean, I support gay people gettin’ hitched if they want. But there’s no “fundamental right” to do so, and it’s madness to assert one, let alone Constitutionally.
And while I don’t care for the ACA, I wouldn’t have cared if Congress had spent 15 minutes a few years back amending that clause to have it say “Subsidies for Everybody, tiny American flags for some!” … but it plainly does not actually say that, and in fact says exactly and clearly the opposite.
They can’t even pretend to “intent”, since the intent of record at the time was exactly to remove subsidies from non-State exchanges, as a stick to the ACA’s carrot.
Madness.)
June 29th, 2015 at 9:11 pm
Apparently Alabama is looking to get rid of state-issued marriage licenses altogether. They will just enforce the civil contract registered with them by people who can call their relationship whatever they want. No more “government permission slip.”
Call it “Constitutional Conjugality.”
June 30th, 2015 at 11:42 am
Matthew,
Some like Ron Paul have been advocating removing marriage from the cognizance of government. I think that’s the way to end this controversy, probably to the chagrin of the radical gay agenda ( not all persons who are gay) and the leftist authoritarian politicians.