- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,706
- Reaction score
- 75,658
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Now we have come full circle. Loving was about access to an extant institution. The debate about same sex marriage has been about creation of a new institution.
We're over 50% for same-sex marriage in terms of population, and SCOTUS is still punting. The similarities continue!
The SCOTUS did not punt. They took the surest, clearest path to affirming the right to gay marriage.
Could be another reason. The pubic is not in the bag with this yet. With the elections coming up, the republicans could take both houses. Congress can impeach SCOTUS justices you know.
That's not going to happen.
We know SCOTUS has already kicked the can down the road. So the only part that you could be referring to is the republicans taking the senate, they'll keep the house easily.
The SCOTUS did not kick the can anywhere. They took the surest, shortest path to affirming the right to gay marriage.
I disagree. They are doing what they have done since Madison v Marbury, wait another generation and then invoke precedent. They're waiting to see if the majority against will erode with time in face of the current lower court decisions. If the states and the people don't fight back effectively, it becomes an easy decision when they do take it up.
They effectively made gay marriage the law of the land in 30 states, and the others will follow.
Except they still may not. The states and the People are still searching for ways to fight back against these rogue federal courts. You may think they'll lose in the end, but that chapter hasn't been written yet.
I disagree. They are doing what they have done since Madison v Marbury, wait another generation and then invoke precedent. They're waiting to see if the majority against will erode with time in face of the current lower court decisions. If the states and the people don't fight back effectively, it becomes an easy decision when they do take it up.
Please show everyone where I have said otherwise. This is about the third time you have brought up this strawman argument. I have explicitly stated the above point multiple times. The rest of your post also misses my actual point. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, but at this point I'm beating a dead horse. Let me spell it out one last time.It would still have to be recognized by the government.
As long as the court system is controlled by government, it will be involved in the enforcement of all contracts. Does that mean there is no point to having private contracts? Government would not get to decide which contracts to recognize. If I say my best friend Bob is my next of kind and we sign a contract, the government would recognize that. Period. Notary fees are a creation of government, and some notaries charge less than a dollar.If the government is still involved, then what would be the point? They would still decide which ones they recognized.
And I still don't see where you think that it wouldn't cost money to set these up, even if it is just a single document. They would still have to have it notarized, which likely means a fee. Plus, I don't see the government not requiring a fee to at least file the paperwork either.
What a stupid suggestion. You know as well as I do that the current system as it is set up does not allow for this. Such contracts would be useless and could never have the benefits of a marriage license. You might as well tell a same-sex couple in Texas to "put your money where you mouth is and just get a Texas marriage license." Of course they couldn't do that, because the government does not allow them to. Likewise, government does not allow me to confer the benefits of marriage through a private contract.So, put your money where your libertarian mouth is. All the things you mention can be done with a private contract. So make one. Start your own marriage contract firm. Offer marriage contracts that do everything the government one does for less money and less hassle. Run them out of business with a superior product. Surely the market will gravitate towards your much better option.
Even before Loving marriage between races was legal in most of the US.
As long as the court system is controlled by government, it will be involved in the enforcement of all contracts. Does that mean there is no point to having private contracts? Government would not get to decide which contracts to recognize. If I say my best friend Bob is my next of kind and we sign a contract, the government would recognize that. Period. Notary fees are a creation of government, and some notaries charge less than a dollar.
Please show everyone where I have said otherwise. This is about the third time you have brought up this strawman argument. I have explicitly stated the above point multiple times. The rest of your post also misses my actual point. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, but at this point I'm beating a dead horse. Let me spell it out one last time.
1. I support same-sex marriage.
2. I prefer that there be no marriage license at all, but have the common sense to know that isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever.
3. Legal kinship can be established without a government issued marriage license or any government issued document. This is the case in the United Kingdom.
Now your point about notarization is more relevant to my claims, so I will address that respecfully. The maximum fee a notary can charge varies from $0.50 to $10.. That is cheaper than a marriage license pretty much anywhere. Keep in mind, however, that notaries are not required for all types of contract, and only exist because government forces people to use them for certain contracts.
Actually, it was only just before Loving, within a decade or so, that most states started changing their laws to allow interracial couples to marry. Almost every state has had, at one point in time, laws against interracial marriage. The vast majority of people were still against interracial relationships in 1970, after the Loving ruling, 70% in fact.
I'm unconcerned by most people. Your own post confirms that Loving broke no new ground nationally.
Nor will any ruling from the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. Same sex couples can already get married in over half the states in the US. It is quite possible that by the time the SCOTUS does take on a case pertaining to state same sex marriage bans (that it doesn't punt, again), there will be more states that allow same sex couples to marry than there were states that allowed interracial couples to marry when Loving was decided.
My state didn't even have a ruling yet for the same sex marriage cases here in NC, but now we do, after the SCOTUS refused the cases that reached them so far. Since the Circuit Court covering my state already struck down the laws in VA, it only took a ruling by the judge to strike it down here as well.
It should hit 35, which outnumbers pro-interracial marriage states at Loving, within the next few months, certainly before the next time SCOTUS might review another case pertaining to same sex marriage.
States | Freedom to Marry
Same-Sex Marriage Fast Facts - CNN.com
Alaska is likely going to make it 30 (once the legal extras are decided).
Federal judge rules Alaska's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional | Alaska Dispatch
Yes. That has been my point.
What? That same sex marriage is mirroring interracial marriage, just at a faster pace? Because that is what is happening. It may not continue, since we don't know what the SCOTUS will do, but so far, it has been pretty similar.
SCOTUS has followed the surest, swiftest path to marriage equality.
Not quite, but it should happen soon unless by some miracle the other few Circuit Courts actually just strike down the marriage bans themselves, something I just don't see happening. I think at least one of those left will side with the states, but we'll see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?