To my gay friends

[nddons]

I oppose all things that are contrary to the US Constitution. There should have been no ruling at all. The Supreme Court should not have taken this case as it involved no power possessed by the federal government. Of course, most of the activities of the federal government today involve powers not given to it by the Constitution.

Spot on.

 

[nddons]

2 things - it changes the definition of marriage, so mine is no different from two men or two women. Is that good, bad, or other? That depends on how strongly you feel about what marriage "is".

The other, and the one that really is a harm, is the way the Court ruled that it's a Federal issue rather than state/local. The Court decided that the rule of law (our Constitution) doesn't matter anymore - that States who for over 200 years had the authority, based in the Constitution, to write their own laws concerning marriage, now don't.

A lot of people say that the "government" has no business in marriage, seemingly forgetting that the citizens that create the law actually are the government. OK, but the Court just decided that the "government", meaning the 9 members of the Supreme Court, NOW has complete control over deciding what's best for the people, rather than a legislature and a government "of, for, and by" the people.

I'll admit that I haven't had time to read the opinions yet, I would like to find out the reasoning behind the decision.

Here's the thing. Even though it has been the right thing to do, this nation has had to ratify two Amendments to the Constitution in order to end slavery, and grant women the right to vote. As we are a nation of laws and not of men, that was the ONLY LEGAL WAY to accomplish these goals; otherwise the states controlled such things.

Now comes a clearly activist court that decides that no such Amendment is necessary, and in its sole power, it can create the Law of the Land with respect to the definition of marriage.

It was a bad opinion.

 

[nddons]

So, your position is that the 14th Amendment is wrong? Is that the argument you really want to make? Because replace marriage with slavery, and you are arguing that states should be able to write their own laws on slavery

Then using your take on things, why was the 13 Amendment even necessary? Why go to the trouble to amend the Constitution when the Supremes could do it from the Bench, or Congress could do it from the Capitol?

 

[nddons]

So, your position is that the 14th Amendment is wrong? Is that the argument you really want to make? Because replace marriage with slavery, and you are arguing that states should be able to write their own laws on slavery

Then using your take on things, why was the 13th Amendment even necessary? Why go to the trouble to amend the Constitution when the Supremes could do it from the Bench, or Congress could do it from the Capitol?

If your answer is that the 14h came after the 13th, then why was the 15th and 19th necessary?

 

[Gerhardt]

I think another argument is the idea of "right to get married". Is it there in the Constitution? Do we really have a "right to get married"?

There are a couple of things to consider with this argument. The first is that we have many rights that are not in the Constitution.

But yes, we have a right to get married. If every tax form you complete asks about marriage, and your tax rates are based on that answer, then common sense (which doesn't always apply when it comes to the law) would say that there is a right to be married. And it's not just every tax form - there are hundreds of thousands of forms that affect our daily lives that ask about our marital status.

I'm constantly harping about our broken health care system. At one time I had a health insurance policy, as did my wife. I added her and my kids to my policy thinking I would up our coverage. In fact, because we were married, because of some law I've never heard of, it actually reduced our coverage (unless we maxed out my policy, then it could be excess). If the federal gov't is going to address marital status in myriad ways, then yes, there is a right to marriage.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Then using your take on things, why was the 13th Amendment even necessary? Why go to the trouble to amend the Constitution when the Supremes could do it from the Bench, or Congress could do it from the Capitol?

If your answer is that the 14h came after the 13th, then why was the 15th and 19th necessary?

Inter-racial marriage was illegal in this country at one point, yet I don't see an amendment making it legal? So are you saying that it shouldn't be legal either without an amendment? I don't see an amendment granting the federal government the power to give pilot certificates out, yet they do, where's that amendment?

I don't get why all the facists are so upset about this. It doesn't directly affect you in any way, shape or form.

 

[BigBadLou]

Why do we even need such threads on an aviation forum?
I thought the board was meant for pilots to share stories, education and ask questions about flying.
Political agenda never brought people together.
Bickering about politics, racism or whatever non-aviation just seems absolutely pointless here.

Now let's go fly, people!

 

[Kristin]

That's because we're hoping to be invited to the party.

You may be fishing in the wrong pond. Try the Castro District in San Francisco. I am sure that you will find that the fish are biting there.

 

[RJM62]

I think another argument is the idea of "right to get married". Is it there in the Constitution? Do we really have a "right to get married"? The majority of the Court just said "yes". The minority asked, "Where does it say that?" States have issued permits, depending on whether or not you meet some criteria. Does that mean it's a right or a privilege? I don't know, that's part of the argument. If it is a right, it's been always considered a State right - States/counties/municipalities issue the license, Justices of the Peace can perform the act. We don't go the the Federal courthouse, or DC, to get the marriage license, we go to the county courthouse or City Hall. States got to define what marriage is, and they have for a long time decided it was the traditional definition - and for centuries it was just fine. Now, in the last 10-15 years, States (citizens), have been changing their minds and one by one have been allowing same sex marriages. The Court last week decided the other States weren't moving fast enough and took over. As far as the other argument of "full faith and credit" - the Court could have reminded the States that they need to recognize licenses issued from other States. They should still have been allowed to not issue in their own State, but that would be their decision.

It's a complicated issue. I think marriage has to be considered a "right" because it requires no qualifications other than being of age, not already being married to someone else, and not being related by blood more closely than the state allows.

But even if it's not a "right," even state-created "privileges" must be administered in a non-discriminatory manner. You can't deny someone a driver's license because they're Mormon, or an electrician's license because they're female, or a civil service job because they're Black. Any of those policies would be unconstitutional no matter how many different ways they were codified under state law, despite the fact that none of them are "rights."

So the question really becomes whether the Court had a compelling interest in overriding state laws. My definition of "compelling" is pretty damned narrow, as in the alternative would cause either the collapse of the Republic, or egregious harm to an individual's rights, for the latter of which a persuasive argument can be made in this case.

I guess what it comes down to is that I hate it when the federal government stomps on states' rights. But I hate it even more when they stomp on individual rights. So I suppose I wouldn't be doing back flips about the decision either way.

Rich

 

[Kristin]

Then using your take on things, why was the 13th Amendment even necessary? Why go to the trouble to amend the Constitution when the Supremes could do it from the Bench, or Congress could do it from the Capitol?

If your answer is that the 14h came after the 13th, then why was the 15th and 19th necessary?

Because the Supreme Court had ratified slavery in 1857 with the Dredd Scott decision. Half a million Americans died overturning that decision.

 

[Kristin]

There are a couple of things to consider with this argument. The first is that we have many rights that are not in the Constitution.

But yes, we have a right to get married. If every tax form you complete asks about marriage, and your tax rates are based on that answer, then common sense (which doesn't always apply when it comes to the law) would say that there is a right to be married. And it's not just every tax form - there are hundreds of thousands of forms that affect our daily lives that ask about our marital status.

I'm constantly harping about our broken health care system. At one time I had a health insurance policy, as did my wife. I added her and my kids to my policy thinking I would up our coverage. In fact, because we were married, because of some law I've never heard of, it actually reduced our coverage (unless we maxed out my policy, then it could be excess). If the federal gov't is going to address marital status in myriad ways, then yes, there is a right to marriage.

The founding fathers certainly believed that rights existed that were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, there was a number of outspoken critics of the Bill of Rights on the grounds that even having a Bill of Rights would suggest that those contained therein were the only rights that individuals possessed. In hindsight, their admonition was well founded.

 

[Kristin]

Then why look at it and why post it? Does it speak to you deep down?

 

[Matthew]

Here's the "plain english" explanation:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/i...e-bans-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/

Here's the whole thing:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."

It's interesting to read each opinion.

The majority claimed that under the 14th Amendment that if you allow opposite couples to marry, then you have to allow same sex couples to marry.

The dissenters argue the 14th amendment doesn't apply because the 10th amendment allows States do define what they actually say that marriage is. They argue that the State legislatures, who's responsibility it is to define just what marriage is (until just recently, opposite sex), are being overruled and forced to accept a different interpretation, one that the Court has decided. They say this overrules the State right and responsibility.

They each take a different look at the Love decision on interracial marriage. One side says the 14th Amendment allows interracial marriage, so it must also allow gay marriage. One side says the 14th amendment allows interracial marriage but does not change the definition of marriage as being one-man/one-woman.

I wish I could get paid for reading SC decisions. They really are a fascinating look at history being made whether you agree with the outcome or not.

 

[warthog1984]

It's a complicated issue. I think marriage has to be considered a "right" because it requires no qualifications other than being of age, not already being married to someone else, and not being related by blood more closely than the state allows.

But even if it's not a "right," even state-created "privileges" must be administered in a non-discriminatory manner.

Not quite correct. There is a requirement even in civil marriages for both partners to be capable of and participate in the reproductive act at least once.

Sterility/barrenness is not a barrier to marriage, but impotence or lack of equipment is.

Hence why homosexual marriages cannot exist. Civil unions can, and the various legal benefits of union can be attached to same sex unions as well, but not marriage.

The sacrament of matrimony has its own requirements of course.

 

[Kristin]

Not quite correct. There is a requirement even in civil marriages for both partners to be capable of and participate in the reproductive act at least once.

Where would I find that enshrined in the law, in writing?

 

[Matthew]

It's a complicated issue. I think marriage has to be considered a "right" because it requires no qualifications other than being of age, not already being married to someone else, and not being related by blood more closely than the state allows.

But even if it's not a "right," even state-created "privileges" must be administered in a non-discriminatory manner. You can't deny someone a driver's license because they're Mormon, or an electrician's license because they're female, or a civil service job because they're Black. Any of those policies would be unconstitutional no matter how many different ways they were codified under state law, despite the fact that none of them are "rights."

So the question really becomes whether the Court had a compelling interest in overriding state laws. My definition of "compelling" is pretty damned narrow, as in the alternative would cause either the collapse of the Republic, or egregious harm to an individual's rights, for the latter of which a persuasive argument can be made in this case.

I guess what it comes down to is that I hate it when the federal government stomps on states' rights. But I hate it even more when they stomp on individual rights. So I suppose I wouldn't be doing back flips about the decision either way.

Rich

It is "different". The SC in the past has said there is a right to marry (I looked it up). There has been little question for thousands of years about what the definition of marriage is. The SC took different sides on that - one side said it's up to the States to decide on a definition and then apply that definition equally (like interracial marriage), the other side said that the definition of marriage must be expanded so that it includes couples previously outside the definition. Maybe it's nitpicking, but the technical differences are very big. I wish I could think of a similar example - like a fishing license or a driver's license, but I can't right now.

 

[narchee]

Where would I find that enshrined in the law, in writing?

And even if it were, how would it be enforced?

 

[Becky]

I don't get why all the facists are so upset about this. It doesn't directly affect you in any way, shape or form.

Because liberalism and fascism are so similar*, are you using that term to refer to liberals?

The erosion of federalism by SCOTUS is enormously far reaching. Saying "it doesn't directly affect you in any way, shape or form" is untrue, and very small-picture thinking.

*The State is the solution!

 

[Becky]

Egad! Google "states that require consummation of marriage" and be very surprised. Who knew.

 

[JOhnH]

And even if it were, how would it be enforced?

A new job description at the IRS?
The Watchers.

 

[EdFred]

I look at the decision as creating a "standard" across state lines. I mean if a couple can mark married on a Federal (1040) form while in, say Vermont, then they should be able to to mark that same married on a Federal form if they move to Nebraska.

However, rather than say that all states must allow (same sex) couples to be married by the state, I would have rather them say a state must recognize a marriage performed in another state. This way a standard is in place for all federal issues granted by a state license, and it does not impinge on state's rights.

Now, since licenses are granted by some states to permit concealed carry, should all states be forced to grant and recognize permits issued by other states. I mean, if a marriage license is now recognized, why not CPL/CCW licenses as well?

 

[nddons]

Because the Supreme Court had ratified slavery in 1857 with the Dredd Scott decision. Half a million Americans died overturning that decision.

Actually it was the 13th Amendment, ratified in only 10 months in 1865, that overturned Dred Scott. Certainly the horror of the Civil War accelerated that Amendment. The 14th and 15th cleaned up other issues emanating from Dred Scott, and those were both ratified within 5 years of the Civil War.

So that's my point. The 10th Amendment was designed with federalism in mind, reserving most of the power to the states. The people and the states generally followed this principal by ratifying 17 more Amendments, but the current Judiciary appears to look at the 10th as irrelevant. It is not.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Much of the objections to SSM will be lessened by having more educated citizens or allowing nature to take its course with the Boomers ( and older) dying off

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roncachamp]

It's a complicated issue. I think marriage has to be considered a "right" because it requires no qualifications other than being of age, not already being married to someone else, and not being related by blood more closely than the state allows.

Until recently, marriage also required people of opposite sexes. Nobody was denied marriage because they were gay. Gay people have been marrying for a long time, possibly for as long as marriage has existed.

 

[roncachamp]

Here's the "plain english" explanation:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/i...e-bans-on-same-sex-marriage-in-plain-english/

Here's the whole thing:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."

It's interesting to read each opinion.

The majority claimed that under the 14th Amendment that if you allow opposite couples to marry, then you have to allow same sex couples to marry.

Couples. Just two people in a marriage. Why? If the rationale is valid for same sex marriage it must also be valid for polygamy.

 

[Kristin]

And even if it were, how would it be enforced?

With great difficulty, which is one of the reasons I suspect that this statement of Warthog's is not well rooted in fact.

 

[Dart]

I thought the board was meant for pilots to share stories, education and ask questions about flying.
Political agenda never brought people together.
Bickering about politics, racism or whatever non-aviation just seems absolutely pointless here.

"Hangar Talk Open forum for discussion of any topic you like, aviation related or otherwise (but no spin zone material, see below).

Virtually all topics in this forum are permitted - so long as they are discussed in a civil manner."

Considering this has been a very civil discussion among folks of diametrically opposed viewpoints I don't yet see a need for a censor.

 

[Kristin]

Actually it was the 13th Amendment, ratified in only 10 months in 1865, that overturned Dred Scott. Certainly the horror of the Civil War accelerated that Amendment. The 14th and 15th cleaned up other issues emanating from Dred Scott, and those were both ratified within 5 years of the Civil War.

So that's my point. The 10th Amendment was designed with federalism in mind, reserving most of the power to the states. The people and the states generally followed this principal by ratifying 17 more Amendments, but the current Judiciary appears to look at the 10th as irrelevant. It is not.

I would say that the Civil War likely hastened the 13th Amendment by at least 100 years. That is no small acceleration.

The 14th Amendment overrode a significant portion of the 10th Amendment. It, and the subsequent interpretations, limited the State's power to infringe on individual rights. I doubt that there are too many here who like like to free the States to go back to their old way of doing things. Doubtless many of the same people decrying SCOTUS's ruling on gay marriages applauded their decisions expanding the Second Amendment to apply to the States.

 

[Kristin]

Until recently, marriage also required people of opposite sexes. Nobody was denied marriage because they were gay. Gay people have been marrying for a long time, possibly for as long as marriage has existed.

Historically, marriage has been more of an economic arrangement rather than the ratification of a relationship. The elites brokered marriages for political and economic gains. The middle class married to have a partner in business and the poor needed all hands to just survive. Screwing around on the side was for "love" or lust, or whatever. It was only this 20th Century bubble where we had the "Leave it to Beaver" view of marriage.

So historically, I don't think anyone looked too close at what was male or female as long as there was someone proclaiming each role.

Modern science as screwed that up a bit as if one is going to define marriage, legally, as between a man and a woman, you have to define something that can't be clearly defined.

 

[Kritchlow]

Historically, marriage has been more of an economic arrangement rather than the ratification of a relationship. The elites brokered marriages for political and economic gains. The middle class married to have a partner in business and the poor needed all hands to just survive. Screwing around on the side was for "love" or lust, or whatever. It was only this 20th Century bubble where we had the "Leave it to Beaver" view of marriage.

So historically, I don't think anyone looked too close at what was male or female as long as there was someone proclaiming each role.

Modern science as screwed that up a bit as if one is going to define marriage, legally, as between a man and a woman, you have to define something that can't be clearly defined.

WTF planet are you from?

 

[PaulMillner]

That was settled with civil unions, available in all 50 states. If that was the goal of the militant homosexual movement, they could have declared victory some time ago.

Still, the gaymarrriage wars rolled on.

So, no, it wasn't simply "about the right of gays to obtain the same benefits accorded to married couples."

Hmmm. Your position is that separate but equal, like the Jim Crow South, was peachy keen? Except that separate is fundamentally NOT equal, and the Supreme Court figured that out on race half a century ago...


Under civil unions, hundreds of individual benefits weren't available... Hence the successful lawsuit that set aside DOMA. WHY should a gay couple have to pay hundreds of thousands more in taxes than a similarly situated straight couple? The Supremes decided they shouldn't.


If it's any consolation, we've been DP since 1999, and married since last year. But now, with DOMA set aside, *our* income tax goes up $1,000/month. That's OK, he's worth it!


Paul

 

[Flying Viking]

Actually it was the 13th Amendment, ratified in only 10 months in 1865, that overturned Dred Scott. Certainly the horror of the Civil War accelerated that Amendment. The 14th and 15th cleaned up other issues emanating from Dred Scott, and those were both ratified within 5 years of the Civil War.

So that's my point. The 10th Amendment was designed with federalism in mind, reserving most of the power to the states. The people and the states generally followed this principal by ratifying 17 more Amendments, but the current Judiciary appears to look at the 10th as irrelevant. It is not.

Dude, you are in serious need of a history lesson. First, the 14th Amendment overturned Dred Scott, not the 13th. But this was still a country based on segregation, lawful discrimination etc. Ever heard of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and "separate but equal"?

In case you missed it, what ended segregation in this country was Brown v. Board of Education (1964). Another SCOTUS case, mind you, not a legislative act or amendment. Congress got it's act together the same year with the Civil Rights Act, and the following year with the Voting Rights Act, but it was the Supreme Court that had to step in and end segregation.

Regarding the 10th Amendment, its erosion started long before the current court and the Obergefell decision. Griswold v. Connecticut found a right to privacy in the "substantive" component of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The right to privacy is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, but is nonetheless a right granted federal constitutional protection.

Griswold is one of the most significant cases of the 20th century with respect to it's broad interpretation of the due process clause. If you really want to understand the courts ruling in Obergefell and how it relates to the 10th Amendment, you should start there, and then follow the evolution of this legal concept (and Scalia's highly entertaining opposition to it) in the cases that followed...Roe v. Wade (and it's progeny cases...Casey, Carhart...), Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia etc.

 

[Florida Cracker]

Hmmm. Your position is that separate but equal, like the Jim Crow South, was peachy keen? Except that separate is fundamentally NOT equal, and the Supreme Court figured that out on race half a century ago...


Under civil unions, hundreds of individual benefits weren't available... Hence the successful lawsuit that set aside DOMA. WHY should a gay couple have to pay hundreds of thousands more in taxes than a similarly situated straight couple? The Supremes decided they shouldn't.


If it's any consolation, we've been DP since 1999, and married since last year. But now, with DOMA set aside, *our* income tax goes up $1,000/month. That's OK, he's worth it!


Paul

As I see things, the idiots on the supreme court were pandering to idiots that think separate but equal, really means, homosexuals should have special privileges based solely on where they put their thing.

Just like blacks should have special priviegse based solely on skin color, and muslims should have special privileges based on their devotion to their pedophile prophet.

The new court seems intent upon creating a bunch of new divisions, and separations, just to enact new separate but unequal rights based on whatever ignorant nonsense progressives come up with next.

 

[Becky]

With great difficulty, which is one of the reasons I suspect that this statement of Warthog's is not well rooted in fact.

Apparently some states do require consummation. AK, CO, CT, DE, ID, IL, MI, MN, MT, OH, SC, VT and WI.

But I can't find anything that says how they verify! I suspect the requirement is there to allow for annulment if the partners discover something after marriage that precludes consummation. For some, the lack of consummation (technically impossible) in a gay marriage means there is no marriage. But hey, that's another thread!

 

[DJTorrente]

Hmmm. Your position is that separate but equal, like the Jim Crow South, was peachy keen? Except that separate is fundamentally NOT equal, and the Supreme Court figured that out on race half a century ago...

Brilliant deduction, holmes. Except that race is not sexual orientation, not matter how much Berkeley pines for the heyday of the civil rights movement. (See, Selma Envy.)

Under civil unions, hundreds of individual benefits weren't available... Hence the successful lawsuit that set aside DOMA. WHY should a gay couple have to pay hundreds of thousands more in taxes than a similarly situated straight couple? The Supremes decided they shouldn't.

DOMA was a legal target of opportunity, nothing more. Because it was a federal statute, the Court could set it aside under the 5th amendment without getting into the 14th amendment issue; thus avoiding directly telegraphing its prejudice to the question in Obgerfell.

It is actually the same reason that the gun issue was first decided in DC (Heller), then extended to Chicago (McDonald).

If it's any consolation, we've been DP since 1999, and married since last year. But now, with DOMA set aside, *our* income tax goes up $1,000/month. That's OK, he's worth it!


Paul

Considering my kids will be paying both your social security checks, I suspect you'll make out just fine.

 

[RJM62]

I look at the decision as creating a "standard" across state lines. I mean if a couple can mark married on a Federal (1040) form while in, say Vermont, then they should be able to to mark that same married on a Federal form if they move to Nebraska.

However, rather than say that all states must allow (same sex) couples to be married by the state, I would have rather them say a state must recognize a marriage performed in another state. This way a standard is in place for all federal issues granted by a state license, and it does not impinge on state's rights.

I think you've hit upon half the ruling that could have made me happy. The other half would have given same-sex couples the right to marry without a license if their state refused to issue them one solely because they were of the same sex, and would have compelled all states to recognize those marriages.

The ceremony could be solemnized by anyone ordinarily allowed to solemnize weddings, or by the couple themselves taking their vows in the presence of three witnesses. In either case, the certificate issued would be completely equal to a marriage license, and states would be required to accept it as such.

The states' rights issue is the only part of this ruling that irks me. A ruling like the one I described above would have minimized that. It would have respected the rights of the individuals while not compelling states to issue licenses in violation of their constitutions or laws.

Rich

 

[Kristin]

Apparently some states do require consummation. AK, CO, CT, DE, ID, IL, MI, MN, MT, OH, SC, VT and WI.

But I can't find anything that says how they verify! I suspect the requirement is there to allow for annulment if the partners discover something after marriage that precludes consummation. For some, the lack of consummation (technically impossible) in a gay marriage means there is no marriage. But hey, that's another thread!

I checked two and found neither had a stated requirement for consummation. No it is true in the days before no-fault divorce, failure to consummate could be grounds for a divorce, but that isn't exactly the same thing nor probably relevant in this day and age.

 

[Kristin]

WTF planet are you from?

Ah! Another articulate soul who is either weak on history, science, or both.

 

[Kristin]

Just like blacks should have special priviegse based solely on skin color, and muslims should have special privileges based on their devotion to their pedophile prophet.

The new court seems intent upon creating a bunch of new divisions, and separations, just to enact new separate but unequal rights based on whatever ignorant nonsense progressives come up with next.

Ah yes! The society destroying special privilege of not being lynched. Not to mention those other special privileges that are special only if not conferred upon white males.

You must be hating the 20th and 21st centuries.

 

[Kritchlow]

Ah! Another articulate soul who is either weak on history, science, or both.

Whatever. How about real world?