NBC: US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

[JMS]

As an aside, the Congress has given up its War Powers to the President, so yes, they will cede their power to the executive. Which I consider unConstitutional, BTW.

Still takes a vote of congress to declare war.; Also the war powers act (1973) is a federal law passed on the heals of the Vietnam War, intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress.

But I take your point.. War is a tricky one.. Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has

"Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2).

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 10:54 AM ----------

and yet the feds can say federal marriage benefits were passed based on one man ,one woman marriages and keep it that way

unlikely of course....but then a state granted right is not a federal one (such as the age issue earlier),nor controlling if opposed

Well not according to the Federal court, or the Federal court of appeals; several times. The Fed definition of marriage is not and never has been based on one man and one woman. The Federal definition of marriage is literally based upon state law.

And that is supported by our federalist system of government and the Constitution. You can't trump state law with federal law just because you don't like the state law anymore. Definition of marriage is reserved for the state via the 10th amendment of the constitution.

and even if that weren't the case passing a law in order to discriminate against a community you don't like goes against the 14th Amendment or the Equal Protection clause.

[twa]

. The Fed definition of marriage is not and never has been based on one man and one woman. The Federal definition of marriage is literally based upon state law.

And that is supported by our federalist system of government and the Constitution. You can't trump state law with federal law just because you don't like the state law anymore. Definition of marriage is reserved for the state via the 10th amendment of the constitution.

and even if that weren't the case passing a law in order to discriminate against a community you don't like goes against the 14th Amendment or the Equal Protection clause.

Yet it strangely is defined that way by the federal govt at the present,and clearly so in the past

The 10th argument is certainly valid,but a state law is not automatically binding on other states or the feds obviously

as to the 14th, discrimination is clearly allowed in some cases,just as it will continue to be even if SSM is recognized as a right nationally

ask the polygamists

[JMS]

Yet it strangely is defined that way by the federal govt at the present,and clearly so in the past

Yes but that relatively new definition has been found unconstitutional by 8 federal courts too.

The 10th argument is certainly valid,but a state law is not automatically binding on other states or the feds obviously

as to the 14th, discrimination is clearly allowed in some cases,just as it will continue to be even if SSM is recognized as a right nationally

This is true... a state law is not binding necessarily on other states. But here again you have to go back to precedent. What the courts have already ruled on anti SSM law. When the federal court tossed out the

popular referendum against same sex marriage known as Proposition 8 in California; It did so because when the state allowed Same Sex Marriage they significantly raised the bar against

passing a law opposing it. The courts said specifically that because SSMs were legal, these people had that right at one time. You can't then go back and take away a legal right from a group of

people solely because you don't like those people. Solely in order to discriminate against them....

Now that's a pretty broad precedent. Since all the states recognized all the other state marriages at the time when California pass SSM rights... That precedent set by over

turning Proposition 8 would seem to apply to all the other anti SSM laws subsequently passed by other states. Although this hasn't yet been tested in the courts, that is widely perceived in the wording of the precedent.

ask the polygamists

Polygamy is different because it was never legal in any state. Utah was not a state when polygamy was legal there; and when the congress told the territory of Utah that polygamy was not legal there they tried to succeed from the union; resulting in federal troops being dispatched there to explain the situation to them. The Mormon Church formally outlawed polygamy in 1890; Utah became a state in 1896. If Utah had not outlawed polygamy, they never would have become a state.

[twa]

you are leaning heavily on recent rulings that have largely been stayed and over emphasising the precedent from them.....if they were binding we would not be having this discussion

as well as state civil laws not ultimately being binding under the full faith and credit

under your assertion SSM would be illegal since it was found so in other states before the prop 8 cases:silly:

polygamy is only different if we say it is

where's my popcorn?

[JMS]

you are leaning heavily on recent rulings that have largely been stayed and over emphasising the precedent from them.....if they were binding we would not be having this discussion

Well latest precedent is the most important precedent. but I take your point about the supreme court has yet to weigh in on these issues. They could have refused to hear the case and there by allow the lower court rulings to stand, and they didn't. Agreeing to hear it means they want to weigh in.

Maybe to specify which rational for unconstitutional is right? The lower courts used 3 reasons for overturning DOMA? Maybe to overturn the lower courts, we don't know.

as well as state civil laws not ultimately being binding under the full faith and credit

under your assertion SSM would be illegal since it was found so in other states before the prop 8 cases:silly:

It's not my assertion, It's the finding of U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker, of the Federal District Court of San Fransisco which overturned proposition 8 (Perry v. Schwarzenegger) and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which supported Judge Walkers findings.

No this argument can't be turned on it's ear to allow one states law of outlawing SSM to spread to any other state, because no state has an agreement to recognize another state's reason for not allowing a marriage to occur for 2 reasons.

(1) They pinning this finding on the equal protection clause. You can not argue the equal protection clause in denying a minority there rights. Least I don't know how you could craft that argument.

(2) All 50 states had a blanket agreement to recognize marriages registered in other states.. So, if West Virginia allows a 15 yo to marry and Utah does not. Utah still recognizes the WV marriage. The binding part is on the affirmative not the negative. So the same argument which broadly found a popular resolution in California's proposition 8 was unconstitutional because not even the majority of the people can vote to take away rights of a minority once those rights have conveyed, seems to apply to all 50 states which reconized California Marriages. But since not all 50 states recognize California's prohibitions on who can get married.

Hope I explained that clearly..

polygamy is only different if we say it is

I hear what you are saying... I mean folks who think ssm is immoral think, hey polygamy is immoral and bestiality is immoral; do these court findings open us up to all that stuff too? Or worse saying they absolutely do open us up to legalizing that stuff... But reality is they don't, and that's just an emotional argument based on FUD. These court findings against DOMA can't be used for polygamy because SSM is not only different for many people but literally different under the law. This chief difference is polygamy and whatever else was never legal in the United States. 9 states recognize SSM, none recognize polygamy or bestiality or whatever else. SSM was the law of the land in California before proposition 8 passed. That's what makes this different. The federal district court found the "existing right" could not be taken away for no good reason... Not that any right had to have a "good reason" for it being outlawed. So that "existing" part doesn't apply to polygamy or whatever...

Which is probable why Congress put it's Federal foot on Utah becoming a state until they outlawed polygamy in the 1890's.

[twa]

the problem there is it was found a right under a state constitution,not federal

despite your assertion a blanket agreement to recognize marriages is not binding anymore than the definition of one man/one woman marriage is on another state

mixed race marriages were not recognized in some states until the court invalidated laws against them,and there remains a public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause

it is certainly possible the court could recognize a right to SSM(besides that granted by a state), but far from certain

if they simply find a lack of standing most of your alleged precedent goes away

it is interesting to examine the options, as will be their reasoning as it progresses

I would prefer a clear finding to put this thing to rest one way or another,but I'm not holding my breath

[elkabong82]

Polygamy is an issue of multiple partners entering a union reserved for two people.

SSM is an issue of sex discrimination within the union of 2 people.

Very different issues.

The federal government issues tax relief benefits based on marriage, so the SCOTUS can state that the federal government cannot deny those benefits, and thus the marriage, based on gender and can then require states to honor their ruling.

[twa]

Marriage is/was reserved for one woman/one man...if it can change so can others

there are numerous laws based on sex that discriminate, the need matters as does the harm

govt benefits can be distributed pretty much as they wish....as can contracts(which is a interesting avenue of whether SCOTUS can even control/direct that part)

[talk show host]

i dont want to derail the thread, but i looked at 2012-2013 tax brackets and there is no difference in the deductions when you file married vs. single. So whats the big deal? Theres no financial tax advantage to being married anymore.

[visionary]

Polygamy is an issue of multiple partners entering a union reserved for two people.

SSM is an issue of sex discrimination within the union of 2 people.

Very different issues.

That's one way to see it.

But marriage being a union of two people is as made up and arbitrary of an idea as is the notion that marriage must be between two people of different sexes.

And discriminating against those who want to be in a polygamst marriage is still discrimination, even if we don't agree with their lifestyle.

[twa]

i dont want to derail the thread, but i looked at 2012-2013 tax brackets and there is no difference in the deductions when you file married vs. single. So whats the big deal? Theres no financial tax advantage to being married anymore.

There is in certain inheritance matters, as well as SS and ins benefits ect, in fact one of the cases JMS keeps citing was over death taxes (a spouse is exempt from them)

[Larry]

Marriage is/was reserved for one woman/one man...

Really?

And I could have sworn that the religious right had spent the last decade trying to change every law, regulation, contract, and constitution in America, to MANDATE discrimination.

In fact, I wonder why they passed DOMA, if it was already the law, anyway.

[twa]

Probably a response to someone trying to change the accepted definition....just a guess :pfft:

imagine that

but since we are playing....care to share the long history of govt sanctioned SSM in the US before that event?.....of course maybe we didn't have any desiring nuptials before then / snark

[Bang]

Probably a response to someone trying to change the accepted definition....just a guess :pfft:

Battle words with oppression.

What kind of regimes have traditionally done that?

~Bang

[NavyDave]

I was hoping the SCOTUS was going to be smart enough to leave this as a state issue.

Let states keep the right to either enjoy the sanctity of traditional normal marriage or view deviant activity as being on par with the established norms.

[twa]

Battle words with oppression.

What kind of regimes have traditionally done that?

~Bang

Words?

The act has been oppressed thruout our history(rightly or wrongly).....this is a fruitless tangent,but if it makes ya'll feel better about yourselves

[NavyDave]

The act is still seen as universally immoral even with decades of propaganda and indoctrinating school children

[PF Chang]

SCOTUS had better not let interracial couples marry... that's against my morals, which are only obtainable through my religion. Marriage is between a white man and a white woman!

[elkabong82]

Marriage is/was reserved for one woman/one man...if it can change so can others

there are numerous laws based on sex that discriminate, the need matters as does the harm

govt benefits can be distributed pretty much as they wish....as can contracts(which is a interesting avenue of whether SCOTUS can even control/direct that part)

Use the quote feature!

Marriage was reserved for man with woman by society. Now a substantial part of society deems that sex is not important in the union. SSM is NOT a gateway for polygamy. There would have to be a large chunk in support of it and there currently is not. It's a rather absurd notion and typically is only brought up by anti-SSM folk as a scare tactic. SSM has to do with sex, polygamy has to do with numbers. Again, different issues.

What federal laws, since that is the level examining SSM, discriminate based on sex?

Gov't benefits can only be distributed in legal manners that do not violate the Constitution. Seriously, at least try if you're going to reply.

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 08:09 PM ----------

i dont want to derail the thread, but i looked at 2012-2013 tax brackets and there is no difference in the deductions when you file married vs. single. So whats the big deal? Theres no financial tax advantage to being married anymore.

http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Family/7-Tax-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html

---------- Post added December-13th-2012 at 08:11 PM ----------

That's one way to see it.

But marriage being a union of two people is as made up and arbitrary of an idea as is the notion that marriage must be between two people of different sexes.

And discriminating against those who want to be in a polygamst marriage is still discrimination, even if we don't agree with their lifestyle.

My only issue with polygamy is that it can be taken advantage of. So long as there existed reasonable scrutiny I wouldn't have a problem with it. If several people want to jointly marry because they all genuinely love each other then who are we to stop them?

[twa]

My only issue with polygamy is that it can be taken advantage of. So long as there existed reasonable scrutiny I wouldn't have a problem with it. If several people want to jointly marry because they all genuinely love each other then who are we to stop them?

Marriage can(and is ) already used to take advantage of, the number involved doesn't change that....scrutiny should be equal (of course the more partners the more looks )

Making it civil unions for all desiring union AND revising the benefits issue would be the best and most equitable solution

as to your point on public support being the critical factor.....are you saying SSM is not a inherent right,but rather something granted by support?

[visionary]

My only issue with polygamy is that it can be taken advantage of. So long as there existed reasonable scrutiny I wouldn't have a problem with it. If several people want to jointly marry because they all genuinely love each other then who are we to stop them?

That's pretty much the way I feel.

I think it should be legal, but there are some issues with how it's been used.

[morris84]

Why must the state be involved with marriage at all? Why can't people simply marry each other, no matter their sex or color of their skin, without the state intervening? How come these questions hardly ever get asked?

[twa]

Why must the state be involved with marriage at all? Why can't people simply marry each other, no matter their sex or color of their skin, without the state intervening? How come these questions hardly ever get asked?

Benefits granted/gained and control are the main reason for the state being involved....everyone is free to marry now( just w/o state recognition and benefits)

[Larry]

That's pretty much the way I feel.

I think it should be legal, but there are some issues with how it's been used.

I forget which poster it was who first made the point that part of the problem with polygamy is that, the only time we hear about it, it's some compound in Texas, where some guy has started his own religion, announced that he is God, married 11 women, had 17 daughters (no mention of boys), he's married his own daughters, and impregnated five of them (three of which are under 14).

[Bang]

Words?

The act has been oppressed thruout our history(rightly or wrongly).....this is a fruitless tangent,but if it makes ya'll feel better about yourselves

I think this is a large stumbling block.

This has nothing to do with making myself feel better. Unlike those who oppose this, I know my own life is not changed by any of them getting married. I'm secure in realizing their marriage doesn't affect mine. many are not. But in terms of making myself feel better, i think about the average gay couple about as much as i think about you and your wife. Which is to say never.

But like you, they should have the same rights as me.

it's about allowing others to feel better without me putting my opinion of it over their harmless pursuit of happiness.

In fact, i think the very complaints y'all are using to oppress them (it will ruin my marriage) is being done to make yourselves feel better.

Their marriage has as much bearing on anyone else's as the couple down the street has on mine or yours or anyone else's.

But they simply can't get past it, so to make themselves feel better, they do all they can to keep them down.

The very fact they have to ask our permission is rather galling.

It's pathetic.

~Bang