Equal marriage rights

OK, I am not saying the marriage decision should be appealed. But, for reference, the SCOTUS is not the final decider.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

How our 3 branched of gubment are supposed to work...

 

Thanks musksnipe. And spare a thought for those kids who did not have the right to be born.

Food for thought...

 

Ah, but part of the thing IS giving kids a home! An anecdotal example: I have friends from high school who are a lesbian couple. They have two children, same sperm donor, each one of them the mothers. Since they were not allowed to get married, if something happened to one of them the other one was not legally entitled to raise the other child. The sperm donor had more parental rights than their other mother.

That gets clumsy. I'll call them Sally and Sarah. Sally gave birth to their son, Sarah gave birth to their daughter. If something happened to Sally, Sarah had no legal right to their son because she wasn't his mother and legally was not his mother's spouse. Therefore, under previous Michigan law, their son would go into the system to be placed. It's highly unlikely that Sarah would be given custody of their son, because she was not only single but a lesbian. However, if the sperm donor was to be made known, he could take custody, no questions asked, because of his blood relation to the child.

In that brief period when same-sex marriage was legal in Michigan, they were issued a license and got married in front of a justice of the peace. And then the ruling was appealed, and they've been in limbo ever since.

They cross-adopted in federal court once the federal government decided to recognize same-sex marriages, but under Michigan law they were still legally unmarried. Now their marriage has been ruled legal again, so if something happens to one of them both children will be allowed to legally live with the surviving spouse. Now all we need to do is get a SCOTUS ruling on whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to adopt, which Michigan just signed into law they cannot, because there are MANY same sex couples who would love to foster and/or adopt children who need homes...they're just not legally entitled to. And apparently all of the "think of the children" couples in the state only think of the children if it means they don't have to actually do something about them. There is a frightening shortage of foster parents, and even less who will adopt, so those children are left in the cold.

 

To whom would you appeal a ruling from the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land? The article you linked to does not in any way support this assertion.

 

Sgt. Tibbs has made every point I would have about SCOTUS. A later SCOTUS with a different makeup can muddy and redefine, but they are loath to do so, and it is definitely not an appeal. You can nor appeal their rulings, all you can do is amend the Constitution.

A Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointment. Only they decide when it is time to retire. They can be impeached, but that has never happened to the best of my knowledge.

 

I would think the Supreme Court. But just because you appeal does not mean they will hear it. I would think you would need new evidence, or maybe a ruling by a lower court on a similar law? Law is not my specialty, but I don't think a Supreme Court ruling is never changed.

My main point was that even though they have ruled, many states do not comply immediately. They may have to rewrite their laws, wording on license, have lawyers approve it...

Bold mine http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-scotus-ruling-gay-marriage-article-1.2272503

When a federal ruling effecting 50 states, each with their own constitution happens, change may not happen overnight. I am guessing if a challenge was filed, enforcing the ruling might be on hold until the challenge is ruled on or dismissed?

 

What certain governors believe and what the law is are two different things. It's time certain governors learned that.

 

Wikipedia.

Also...

Wikipedia.

As a Christian, I fail to understand how 2 men or woman getting married has anything to do with me. It doesn't change anything about my religion or life.

I would rather have grown up with 2 men or woman than in an orphanage or on the streets...

 

True, I think Jindal is trying to get higher in the polls. OT, but weed is illegal by federal law, but legal in some states... :confused

 

As I understand it, states can always give more rights than the federal government, but they cannot restrict more rights. Federal law supercedes local law when it comes to freedoms.

 

While the Constitution has indeed been amended, it has not changed the role of the Supreme Court. Also, you ignored this important qualifier:

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution itself invalidated those laws.

The Supreme Court is established in Article III of the Constitution, therefore it is delegated.

Nor do I.

 

Hmm, but giving more rights these days might restrict the rights of others... :confused

 

How do you figure? In this instance, allowing same-sex marriage does not prevent opposite-sex couples from getting married.

Edit:
Wait. I forgot we were talking about pot for a second.

How does a state legalizing marijuana restrict anyone's rights?

 

Agreed.

Same-sex couples getting married doesn't restrict the rights of others.

Likewise, not being able to carry a concealed firearm, doesn't restrict your right to carry a firearm.

PS Can this thread be renamed Marriage, Law, Guns & Pot... LOL

 

Maybe more thought, less posting?
For every new "right" granted another "right" is violated. What we are discussing is which "right" is best for society. These are all decisions made by men.

The right to use pot will violate the right to avoid smoking pot if your neighbor is up wind. The right to gay marriage violates the right to pursuit of happiness in some religious communities.

 

I'm thinking...

No. I am not in any way less happy or religious because gays can legally get married.

 

Or to put it another way,

Is it right for a religious belief to force others to be miserable to meet their views. Even if the others are not of that religion?

When is it right to force your moral views on others when their actions harm no one, including themselves?

 

So, when is it right for your views to require people to be miserable with their religion? Like I said, I park my religion at the door when I am at work. But the religions and Conservatives I know don't care what others want to do. But, some of them choose, on religious beliefs to not be a part of it. You don't hear of bakers chasing out gay customers with a bat and beating them, they just choose not to participate in something they don't agree with.

And I have no desire to force my moral views on anyone. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Should a gay/lesbian baker be required to make a cake for a pro DOMA rally? I would think no. Some might do it just for the $, but if it is against their beliefs, I am not for forcing them to do it. Just find another baker.


@ Sgt. Tibbs, I was referring to just law in general. The feds demand all states comply with some things, and other things, not so much. I meant that to be simply a states rights vs fed gubment, not whether it is right or wrong. To go much farther on this might be HBT, will let you folks guide the conversation.

 

Marriage is not a new right "granted". In fact, rights are not granted by the government. It is now a right no longer denied to a group for arbitrary reasons. Also, people have the right to pursue happiness, but they are not entitled happiness.

 

Almost sig worthy.

 

Maybe if we prioritise... and compromise... we can have a better world. :confused

 

Just imagine.

 

From a certain point of view, you can argue it was gender discrimination. A man can marry any adult and consenting woman he wants to marry. But a woman is denied that right because she is female? Sexist! :-D

 

Why can't men and women marry whoever they want? (assuming consenting adults.)

2 guys, one female, 4 females, 1 guy?

 

Off the top of my head I'd say because of the legal complications it adds when the marriage contract has more than two parties to it. Who gets the deciding vote on turning off life support or keeping the brain dead spouse alive as a vegetable, if the other two can't reach an agreement?

It's a logical next step. The biggest obstacles are probably legal ones, and they would need to be resolved first in order to protect all involved parties to the extent current laws protect those who marry today.

 

"But when we start to say anything is legal, we no longer have any moral compass."

Perhaps therein lies the problem. What is legal is not what is moral. The two are very different and have different purposes. Many think what is legal is moral and our society needs to change that.

 

Hold on now. People who think polygamy is okay are not necessarily immoral, and acting as if they are is one of the reasons it's so difficult to have respectful conversations about topics like this - both sides are too quick to vilify each other.

Someone who thinks polygamy is perfectly fine between informed consenting adults simply has a different set of morals than you do. Accepting that and treating that person and their moral values with the same level of respect you want them to show yours should be a given.

Other than that, DOA already said it: What's moral and what should or should not be legal, should be two different things, though the US as a culture constantly tries to confuse the two. The purpose of laws is to make society function and to protect its members, and moral values have no place there for the same reason religion doesn't.

 

Ideally, we wouldn't be using anyone's morals. Morals are a personal value system. What we're discussing here is legality, which is an agreement that certain things either do or do not result in punishment under the law.

Your morals are different from mine, and I'm all kinds of good with that. It's when we want to impose our morals on others and force them to live by them that we have a problem. That's why the law is separate from the church.

 

So annoying when someone comes along and says exactly what I was trying to say, only so much better...

 

Sgt. Tibbs has been doing a lot of that for me lately.

 

All y'all are making me blush! :-o

Seriously, though. I'm just calling it like I see it. Allowing someone else to legally marry, as long as everyone involved is of legal age of consent, has no bearing whatsoever on morals. It can go against your particular morals, but that's OK. What isn't OK is your particular morals infringing on the legal rights of someone else.

Would I want to marry another woman? Nope. Would I want to marry more than one man, or be one of several wives? Nope. But that doesn't mean I think anyone else should be prevented from doing so.

 

Your assumption is that everyone is willing to live by the Bible. Many, MANY people do not. Laws are written apart from morals because morals typically involve religion. In this country, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. That is being eroded, and we are worse off for it. Because in Iran, to use your example, they do not, if for no other reason.

 

Yes, you do.

Not only that, but you also either ignore or misunderstand the points those you disagree with are making. We are saying that what is legal has nothing to do with your own personal set of morals, and it shouldn't. You try to argue against that by citing two examples of people who broke the laws of the society they lived in, and two examples of where moral code became the basis of legislation.

No, we do not do whatever we feel is right. If we want that right and privilege, we need to move away from this society and into one where might is right, and where sheer force is all that matters.

Are you at all interested in understanding anyone who disagrees with you?

There is to someone who believes in neither. And that is where secular laws come in, and what your posts completely fail to acknowledge. How to you explain your position to someone without referencing the Bible or Christianity? Can you?

 

I just had a thought. If all we are supposed to pay attention to are the 10 Commandments of the Bible, then same-sex marriage is moral as well as legal. So is polygamy. And bestiality. And pedophilia. Sometimes, secular law goes further than morals in protecting the greater good.

 

There's plentyof polygamy in the Bible. That means they're using Biblical morals. Be glad they're not calling for the return of concubinage.

 

I'm not describing one particular moral system at all, rather the opposite: I am saying that moral systems are irrelevant to the legislative system, and that it should stay that way.

And that's why I am ignoring your constant mention of "morals". Well, that and your insistence that the only moral values that have any worth or value to speak of are are the ones based on your personal religion. What you or I personally believe is ultimately irrelevant to the legislative process. Or at least it should be. That's the whole point of the constitutional separation of Church and State.

I believe it is wrong to force a person to live by a moral code they disagree with. This applies to everyone, regardless of whether I agree with their morals or not. I forfeit the right to demand respect for my own personal set of morals, if I refuse to respect the moral standards of others.

By contrast, you have yet to show any inclination that you are willing to respect those who live by a moral code you do not subscribe to, or even acknowledge that moral codes other than your own can exist.

But despite your proven unwillingness to try and understand someone else's point of view, I will do my best to answer a direct question: How I gauge my personal moral values today or tomorrow is no one's business by my own. How I gauge them twenty generations from now is utterly irrelevant since I won't be around at that point. Neither will you for that matter, so even if I was inclined to provide an answer on that score, that answer shouldn't matter to you, by virtue of you also being dead twenty generations into the future.

Are you sure you don't mean "slavery"? There's lots of Old Testament justifications for that institution for anyone who wants or needs them.

 

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Do you see something in there about same-sex marriage, or ANY marriage other than the prohibition against adultery? Because I don't. I also see nothing about bestiality, or pedophilia. So even if we don't "throw out the one about loving God" (which one is that, by the way...1st? That's the closest I can find.), then all of those things are morally acceptable.

Fact remains, if someone isn't a Christian, the Commandments are irrelevant. Heck, even different sects of Christianity can't even agree on what the rules should be. Which is why religion needs to be separate from secular law.

You do realize Christianity is a fairly young religion, right? And that it co-opted many rites, rituals, and rules from other, previous religions in an effort to get those practicing other faiths to convert?

 

We are not meant to stop morals or laws from changing or evolving. Even the laws in the Bible change and evolve. If we are meant to live our lives according to the Bible, without its rules ever changing or evolving, then there are all sorts of things we do wrong, even the most ultra-religious among us.

 

And with that, I see no further point in discussing anything with you. No one here has called you an idiot other than yourself. If that is truly what you think, then we have nothing further to talk about. And if you want to stick to the New Testament, then you'll have to abandon those 10 Commandments you love so much. They're in Exodus, which if I'm not mistaken is the 2nd book of the Old Testament. Can't have it both ways.

 

And so it devolves. It was inevitable.

One core thing we disagree on.

It is possible to have morals without religion. It is religious people who make the assertion, but it is false.

Start with one wrong supposition in math, and you can prove anything.