View Topic

As someone that was there and remembers when a number of states banned gay marriage in 2004, it's a great feeling to see the nation come out on the side of right only 11 years later.

Naturally, I'm happy that this is a thing, although I'm a bit on the fence for similar reasons that Aragonn stated in the Shoutbox, which I'll quote:

The article states their source for reasoning lies solely in the 14th amendment. The only part of it I could find relatable to this case was section 1 which reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I don't see how the states banning same sex marriage goes against this since 1) The rights for marriage were given to the states to decide for themselves and 2) each state went through the due process of law to ban it.

I underlined the part that pretty much argues it in favor for me.  The right on who to marry shouldn't even be a law unless we're talking about children, animals, and inanimate objects.  The idea that states can ban a man from marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman goes completely against what the underlined area states, and is therefore unconstitutional itself.

However, I do agree that the states are supposed to be governing themselves, and this decision completely undercuts that idea.  It's not unconstitutional, but it shows that we'll completely ignore a process we gave the "okay" for if we think the state is incompetent in their decision.  What's next?  Is weed going to suddenly become legal nationwide because the Supreme Court is going to flex their muscle and make every state legalize it?

To me, this is like telling people they have to do something they don't agree with...such as telling pastors of a church that they'll now have to marry ALL couples regardless of sexuality, even if it's not something they agree with.

The right to marry should be something allowed for all consenting adults...but this feels like a strong-armed way of pushing people into doing it rather than allowing them their freedom of choice.

The question is whether state rights should trump individual rights, and since 1865 the answer to that has been 'no'.

Throughout American history, some states have lagged behind in the progression of civil rights for minorities and have used states rights in order to justify it, culminating in the Civil War. Even afterwards, the federal government has had to intervene within the states to protect the rights of minorities, perhaps most famously through the Civil Rights Act which in some areas had to be enforced through military force. Only a decade ago, the Supreme Court overturned laws in four states which criminalized sex acts people of the same gender, which would be seen by some as a similar intrusion on the rights of states. In that case, it was determined that moral disapproval was not sufficient to deny individual rights, and in many ways that was re-enforced with this ruling.

The disconnect here is that you state that there shouldn't be a law unless we're talking about children, animals, and inanimate objects, but to some people, especially in conservative areas, gay sex, relationships, and marriage are on the same level and that's one reason why all of those were banned to begin with. As recently as 20 years ago this was a majority opinion nationally...gay rights really have advanced at breakneck speeds nationally, and again, some states just not have caught up to modern times, and without such intervention those rights may not have been granted in some states for another 20 or 30 years, remembering that in many states it would require a supermajority to overturn state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

My suspicion is that the law will be clarified to allow religious figures the right to refuse to marry couples, but will bind government officials such as county clerks and justices of the peace, who are servants of the people, into issuing marriage licenses. It's important to note that not all religions and even Christian denominations oppose gay marriage, so I imagine gay couples that want a religious ceremony for some reason could still get it, espsecially as time passes on. Remember, churches previously used religion to justify slavery, but you don't hear much of that anymore nowadays.

However, I feel that the Supreme Court decision was correct both legally and morally when applied to the historical context.

The question is whether state rights should trump individual rights, and since 1865 the answer to that has been 'no'.

But then I counter that by saying should the Supreme court decision trump that of what the people want?  And to that I say "no" as well.  The progress that has been made in the US on the gay marriage front has been nothing short of amazing.  Throughout my entire time in Washington alone, I've seen people grow, going from being absolutely hesitant about it, to being "okay" with "civil unions/domestic partnerships," to becoming increasingly supportive of Gay marriages.  It's been a privilege being in a state that has been on that journey and come to that decision because the people want it.

Washington isn't the only state that has had a journey like that, and some states the journey was even lengthier...but in the end the people decided they wanted something more and became more in favor, winning that argument in other states.

And just as more states are gaining the potential to make that journey themselves, the Supreme Court cheapens the feeling by making it legal in all states.

And again, to that I say it's a great thing that it's finally legal, however the sudden wave of a hand making it essentially a mandatory thing in all states bugs me.  Many of these states, as I said, people are still increasingly hesitant and are still learning and growing and were coming to the decisions themselves.  Now they're being told that nobody gives a fuck about their opinion, because now they have to accept that it's legal everywhere.

Not to mention, just because it's now legal in the entire nation doesn't mean everyone's going to suddenly nod their heads and agree.  Those states that don't agree and didn't get to go through that journey to eventually come to a different conclusion themselves are going to resist, and there's going to be many attempts to repeal and overturn the Supreme Court's decision.  And it's also likely that one of those attempts will succeed, and we'll be right back where we were before until someone else tries to go back in and overturn what was just overturned.

People will still discriminate based on sexuality, and mask the reasons like they always do, and sexuality-based remarks will still be passed around like candy, much like racial and gender remarks still are despite the progress we've attempted to push.

Churches can still refuse to marry couples if they choose, and if that choice has been taken away from them, then that'll just upset me since regardless of their reasons, they should always be able to have that choice.  And likewise, churches will still be able to remove people from their church or deny them entrance into their buildings.

The only change is that gay marriage isn't "illegal" in the US anymore...but that only applies to cities that actually bother to listen to the government.  What about the small towns?  What about the tiny towns in the south that never gave two shits about what the government says anyways?  You think everyone in those bible thumping cities is going to be okay with the change?  What's the government going to do, fly to the middle of nowhere and wag their fingers at a small insignificant little town?

The way I see it is that this changes a lot, but it also changes nothing.  You can count on there being monumental backlash to this, and the fact that people, especially those extremist religious types that love sticking their nose into political and human rights affairs, are going to do everything in their power to make the Supreme Court reverse their decision.  And hell, this is the US.  If they throw the right amount of money around, they could damn well succeed unless the other side has even more.

Should oppression of a minority be alright if that's what the majority wants? Of course not. Let's not forget, this goes far beyond marriage...without this sort of intervention gay sex would still probably be illegal in some states as part of their old sodomy laws. Is it right that people could be carted off to jail for having sex in their homes because it was what the people wanted? Of course not. Why should some gay people that aren't fortunate enough to live in a more liberal state have to wait the rest of their lives for the people to come around and repel their state bans? Why should they have to move to another state to get the rights they deserve? And why should they have to risk visiting a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages and falling ill, being put in a situation where their spouse has no rights that marriage would legally confer?

What you are basically arguing is that discrimination and oppression of minorities should be fine and legal so long as it's what the majority in a state wants, and I categorically do not believe that.

Fortunately we have an American tradition of federal intervention to protect the rights of minorities, and that there is enough tradition and respect in our legal tradition that most people will abide by the Supreme Court's ruling, even if they don't believe in it personally. The only time that I can recall a Supreme Court ruling not being abided by is Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, which essentially ruled that the United States and the State of Georgia had no jurisdiction in Indian Country yet failed to prevent the relocation of the Cherokee as the state and federal governments refused to enforce it. I don't see President Obama making a similar stand here.

Nor do I think this ruling will 'cheapen' our right to marry. Looking back in history, we don't believe the Emancipation Proclamation cheapened the ending of slavery, or that the Civil Rights Act cheapened desegregation of public and private facilities and businesses...we see those as landmark decisions that are on the right side of history, and I think history will show this to be a ruling in the same vein. Most people that are against this will be upset initially, but in a year or so they'll realize that gay marriages haven't effected them in any way and move on, leaving the ultra-religious and conservative that won't ever be turned anyway.

And you're right, it won't magically end discrimination...as recent events have shown, we still have racism in portions of America in spite of all those past laws and rulings. However, that discrimination will no longer be legally justified, at least when it comes to marriage...if their rights to marry are violated, they will have recourse, and the government does have ways to enforce the ruling if it were to come to that. Remember, the federal government sent the military to enforce desegregation in some states that refused to do so on their own. I don't believe it will come to that here, but for sake of argument it would be an option.

At the root of intolerance is usually fear that accepting what is different will change or destroy their own way of life, something that conservative outlets constantly drum up to those that listen. Once people see that gay marriages in their area haven't changed their own lives, I think it will actually help overcome that fear and promote acceptance. I just don't foresee the "monumental backlash" that you seem to think will happen.

Pengu pastors aren't forced to marry anyone, even straight couples can be refused by churches on a host of issues... so the assertion that they are now "forced" to marry homosexual couples is not really true.
 
Also, those with the backlash are basically killing their own political party. I see no problem with letting the conservatives die out because Gays, Guns, and God is no longer a viable way to get a majority in elections (thankfully). All that's left of their platform now is Greed.