Posts: 942
Threads: 17
Joined: Aug 2005
One of my favorite quotes is from Wanda Sykes "why does anyone care if Bob and Steve get married unless you were planning on f'ing Bob or Steve".
I have a number of very straight married friends who don't find the prospect of gay people marrying as a threat at all. I mean, how could someone elses marriage threaten them? They love each other and are committed to each other. Other people making the same commitment only reinforces the stability of their commitment. They join with others of all genders to honor "marriage" or "civil unions" or whatever you want to call it by being a shining example of love and commitment.
John Dirgo, R, BIC, EcoBroker, ABR, e-PRO
Aloha Coast Realty, LLC
808-987-9243 cell
http://www.alohacoastrealty.com
Posts: 2,654
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
Bob, thanks for the case citation. I don't currently have any interest in joining this argument and I'm no lawyer but I was curious about the statement/argument that the court had ruled that Marriage is a Fundamental Right. As best I can tell the answer seems to be somewhere in between. Interpretations seem to be that the courts opinion that it is a basic right was related to procreation and race (14th). It does not seem to apply to the same sex marriage issue. Of course a new court can always narrow or broaden the application but as it stands now that doesn't seem to be a valid argument for same sex marriage.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
Oink, you are correct that the case was about applying a race standard to marriage. The court's ruling was that race requirements are illegal under law. But that was the outcome of that case because that was what that case trigger was about. However, Supreme Court rulings are seldom about a very specific item, they are about the full interpretation of the law. The case essentially was if a prohibition on a marriage was legal or illegal where the key item was a protected class item. The courts said absolutely no. Substitute any other protected class and the ruling would still be the same.
The main issue with same sex unions is because unlike most other issues, this one has deep seated religious, cultural, the sex act itself, and political baggage attached. Those items will have to be worked through and discarded if not founded in law so the ultimate question of same sex unions can be addresses. But since this is in it's infant stages, it may be another decade or two before the final word is written.
Posts: 2,654
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
It appears to simple little ole me to apply specifically in that case to race and the 14th but also to marriage as a basic right based upon it's essential need as part of procreation. Obviously procreation can be achieved without marriage, but I think most agree that children are normally best raised in a traditional family(exceptions of course). Also obvious is that marriage can be achieved without the purpose of procreation. I think the intent was that the nation's and therefore the courts interest in marriage as a basic right was it's benefit to society as part of procreation, which it saw as necessary. Point being that the court may well not see marriage as a basic right outside the context of procreation which is outside the natural realm of same sex relationships.
LOVING v. VIRGINIA excerpt:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). (Skinner v. Oklahoma excerpt added by oink: We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.) See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
