Supreme Court - Gay Marriage

[Okie Boarder]

[Nor*Cal]

[pet575]

I can't say I really know WTF anyone is talking about at this point. I was forced to take an entire school year's worth of classes on Constitutional Law in law school so I've studied this a bit. I'm going to try to very simply explain the role of the SCOTUS without regurgitating two semesters' worth of material (again, I'm oversimplifying so try not to flip out if it comes at the expense of not extrapolating in great detail):

1. The sole purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine whether ANY law (state law or law passed by Congress) which is challenged/brought before it for review comports with the Constitution. The SCOTUS's review is based upon the arguments brought before it by the parties who have standing to challenge/request review. It is extremely rare for SCOTUS to say, "Well, you argued ABC as the basis for your case but you lose that argument. However, you didn't argue XYZ and you would have won if you had-so you win based on XYZ." The SCOTUS has the ultimate power to affirm/strike down any law challenged/brought before it for review. The Constituttion itself says that. Als, see Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall basically says, "We have the ultimate power on this because we say so."

2. As you may have noticed, there is a TON of ch!t that is not in the Constitution. However, many state/federal laws can be challenged on the basis that the purpose or effect of the law violates the Constitution. The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution when it reviews laws challenged/brought before it for review to determine whether the law's purpose or effect passes the test of comporting with the Constitution.

3. The SCOTUS does NOT re-write the Constitution. EVER. It interprets it and applies it to the issue brought before it in each particular case. Over the years, the interpretations can change based on politics, social conditions, economic conditions, development of science/technology, etc. The only re-writing of the Constitution that has EVER taken place is the Amendments to the Constitution. Good example of interpretation and it changing over the years? Read, in chronological order, the landmark cases addressing topics such as race/gender equality and/or the science/technology/forensic evidence in criminal investigations.

4. The danger of a single SCOTUS Justice finding that a law which "clearly violates the 1st Amendment" is incredibly remote, but it was a concern when Marbury was being argued/litigated. Given how remote that danger is for a single justice, the danger is even that much more remote when you consider 5 justices and the fact that any dissenters can write a dissenting opinion. But yes it is a possibility in theory. In the event the SCOTUS actually upheld a law that "clearly violates the 1st Amendment" (there's a reason I keep putting that in quotes), there is always the opportunity for another case to come up challenging/requesting the SCOTUS to review/reconsider its previosu ruling. This keeps the SCOTUS's rulings from being absolutely set in stone no matter what. A 2nd/3rd/14th/552nd challenge could rely on the prior dissenting opinion(s) in an effort to plead for the SCOTUS to change its position. In one form or another, this has happened previously. An example would be the eventual rulings by the SCOTUS on countless issues in which society/politics dictated that the ruling was perfectly fine on an issue and then decades letter it is determined that such ruling should be reversed because the law "clearly violates the 1st Amendment".

I'm sure I've short-changed someone somewhere and will regret typing this out.

"Help me Justice Marshall, you're my only hope."

[jgriffith]

[Aubs]

Personally, I think marriage should be between two people that love each other. I'd much rather see a gay couple be married than Kim Kardashian for 72 hours. So many people think that gay marriage would ruin the 'sanctity of marriage' when I think reality tv and celebrities are doing more of a detriment. Kids will grow up in a much healthier environment with two loving parents, than being passed around between multiple parents after each has had many remarriages.

(Hope this is clear enough - starting drinking red wine when I started making dinner, and dinner is taking longer than expected! oops! )

[Okie Boarder]

pet575, thanks. That firms up a lot of what I understood and corrected me on a few items.

Aubs, the only issue that comes into play is that "marriage" is typically rooted in religious beliefs, which is where the arguments typically come from. However, when you consider it just as a legal "contract" and consider the benefits typically allowed to those that entered the contract, we have not supported equal rights for various relationships that want the legal rights. So, either let "marriage" include ANY joining of any number of people of whatever sexual preference, or get the government out of the "marriage" business and leave that up to religious organizations. Then establish a secondary legal agreement between those that want to be "married" and the state.

[goofyboy]

By doing the full seperation, that would also allow people to have the ability to NOT enter any legal agreement with their spouse, if they so choose. Pre-Nups could be a thing of the past. Every agreement could be tailored to that individual couple's situation.

[pet575]

[jason_ssr]

The real winner is to have civil unions for all, tailored to each individual situation. Leave marriage to the religious groups.

This way, people can choose whether they want to bring the law into their commitment and if so, how much. People could get legally bound without expectation of a religious tone or ceremony.

It also makes the dissolving of a bad religious marriage a mere status update on Facebook.

[goofyboy]

[jason_ssr]

Ha! Indeed

[Rhawn]

So sick of the modern Christian church's hypocrisy. Jesus spoke on divorce quite clearly, not to much on homosexuality. Yet, there is no one protesting and raging against divorce.

[Okie Boarder]

Rhawn, good point.

[E.J.]

Hell froze over and there are flying pigs in Utah....

Pure awsomeness!

That said, there may be a stay this morning.

[Porterwake]

I'm divorced. Let gays have the same consenting chance going through misery or happiness as the rest of us in marriage. If you are so adamant against it, go drink a beer and live your own life and stop prying into other people's.

[Okie Boarder]

Porterwake, you know what is interesting to me is most everyone I know that believe in what the Bible says acknowledge homosexuality as a sin, and that's about it. Nobody I know is out there trying to pry into other's lives. Even the comments from Phil Robertson seem to mirror that attitude. If asked, we would answer with what we believe. Otherwise, we don't say much about it.

[Porterwake]

Phil Robertson did far more than just simply acknowledge homosexuality is a sin. Give me a break. He went into great visual detail.

[Okie Boarder]

Robertson stated what the bible talks about regarding sin with respect to sexuality. He added some color commentary about vaginas and anuses and how that doesn't make sense to him. Period. That's not a whole lot different than what most people do when they state their belief, the reason for the belief and some form of analogy to back it up.

By your logic that he must be gay because of the commentary he made, a person that says murder is wrong a describes aspects of it that don't make sense to them must secretly want to kill someone.

[pyrocasto]

[Porterwake]

I honestly wonder how some people manage to breathe.

[Okie Boarder]

...and some people believe the Bible to be the word of God and to be truth. A person should not be in fear of being labeled, chastised, attacked, and ridiculed by answering a question asked about their beliefs, just because it isn't the same belief held by another group.

[Okie Boarder]

OK is following suit with UT.

[jryoung]

[Okie Boarder]

And vice versa, from what I've seen.

[Okie Boarder]

Looks like a local rep is going to see about pushing a total pull out of marriage regulation.