Marriage Equality and the Supreme Court

Yeah I know, she sucks. And not in the good way! (Just kidding, my job is great, and it's cool with me running around with other interests on the weekends.)

I'm obviously being hyperbolic here, but...

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
who cares, if two guys or two girls want to be "married" then let em. It shouldn't be a big deal just put spouse/domestic partner on forms and their ya go.

Just don't force churches to have to "marry" gays and go against their rules we have no problems.

It shouldn't be this big a deal
 
Mr. Deez, does a church currently have the right to determine whether it will perform a legal marriage ceremony for a couple based on religious merits? I believe this is the case as a priest or pastor can deny to perform a ceremony for a couple who are not members of the church, or baptized, or don't complete counselling, or just don't seem like a committed couple in the opinion of the priest/pastor. So, if a gay couple goes to a church that regularly refuses to marry couples who do not meet its religious standards, can't it then also refuse to marry a gay couple on the same grounds?

I just don't see the government and/or courts now forcing churches to marry just any odd couple who show up and want to get married and don't see that changing because of the courts overturning Prop 8 and/or DOMA.
 
Mr. Deez, I think we just have to disagree. Your opinions are based on your own personal feelings and the fact you are a lawyer. And a self-admitted old school lawyer (not that there is anything wrong with that). My opinions are, of course, also based on my personal feelings and experiences, but also the sincere belief that gay people are born that way. To me, that totally differentiates gay people from polygamists. It also seems obvious to me that gay people should be able to marry the person they love.
 
I actually appreciate the opinions on this thread that are against gay marriage. I think the posts have been civil and I have a better understanding of the other side (the wrong side, but I digress).

There are two issues that have not been addressed that I want to call to your attention.

First is the case of Loving v. Virginia in which the Supreme Court struck down unanimously Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Here is a portion of Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Warren's statement has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay men are allowed to marry just as straight men are. The question is not about the right to marry, it is about the definition of marriage, and whether the court has the right to make that decision on behalf of society, from which that definition came.

It does not.
 
What's the matter Deez, you don't seem to want to defend your position. Have you decided you'll let your alter ego on the other thread deal with my argument?
hookem.gif
 
Mr. Deez, my knowledge of the intricacies of the law do not really allow me to appropriately respond to your last post. I would be interested in knowing if the SC has ever applied the 14th amendment to a case that is clearly non racial. I googled SC and 14th amendment and got pages and pages and pages of gay marriage references. I couldn't really find any info I was seeking.

However, of course, I do still have something to say. Whether you, and others, have actually clearly stated that the 14th amendment should not apply to gay marriage, it has certainly been implied.

Just looking at the Prop 8 case, both Judge Walker and the circuit court did apply the 14th amendment. You certainly may disagree with their arguments (and that is clearly your right), but quite clearly there are educated opinions different from yours.

For example, Judge Walker states on due process::
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I thought that was part of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do is determine the law when there are contradictory laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top