Obergefell v. Hodges: Get your bets inFollow

Yeah, that sounds ridiculously made up.

They really missed an opportunity, should have been "Baby Ruth" Ginsberg.

She's not on the fence. The only one who was potentially on the fence would have been Kennedy. But they've already rendered a decision on it anyway (just not made it public) so no one is still on any fences.

The implication is that Ginsburg already knew that the decision was in favor of SSM and tipped people off by her voice and body language. I'm not about to get excited about that (and it's second hand accounts anyway, not like there's video for us to go over) but thought it was amusing to add in to the thread since there's not likely to be any other new news until the actual decision is announced next month.

Except that if marriage itself is defined as a specific relationship between a male and a female, then the issue isn't with the "right", but the definition of what you have a right to. Deciding that hitting someone over the head with a bat is "speech", doesn't mean that your "right to free speech" makes laws prohibiting you from hitting people over the head with a bat suddenly become unconstitutional. That's what we're really looking at here.

That's a terrible metaphor. Here, let me help:

Except that if marriage itself is defined as a specific relationship between a male and a female, then the issue isn't with the "right", but the definition of what you have a right to. For example, it's not gender discrimination to pass a law disallowing only women from walking bare chested through a public park. Why is it that we allow men to do so and not women? Because our societies cultural practices and mores differ for men and women in some cases.

We find some of these cases acceptable in law and some not. A law that allowed only men to drive cars would likely not meet that societal standard, a law that allowed only men to serve in military combat roles might, and a law that allowed only women to search other women who had been arrested almost certainly would. We could think of a prohibition on same gender marriage as merely two mutually restrictive laws on each gender prohibiting them from marrying someone of the same gender. There is no particular reason this is fundamentally different from the search law, which restricts also only by gender. If our societies cultural practice has changed sufficiently that we should alter marriage laws, shouldn't that be reflected in the many popular votes that have been taken about this issue? To date, it hasn't been. Changing this law proactively runs counter to everything the United States is about.

We the people have thus far rejected this sort of widespread change, for the courts to force it upon what has been shown to be an unwilling populace smacks of fascism and elite opinion running roughshod over the will of those we claim control their own destiny. If there issues with other rights, address those issue in law. Marriage isn't the only way to remedy some of the legitimate problems of same gender couples, it's not always best to amputate a limb to cure an infection.

Better?

Yes, better, but not really very effective. Arguing the absolute case is pointless as law, including the constitution never really deals in absolutes. You have a right to free speech unless...you have a right to bear arms except...etc. While superficially it seems like the "you have a right" part is really important...it isn't. It's the 'except' part that matters. So it in no way follows that if people of the same gender have the right to married that 2 year olds do, or that people can marry dogs, or their sisters, or whatever.

All of that falls into the 'except' area, which is just societal standards. It's a weak rhetorical and legal case. I think there is a lot more value, rhetorically, to the case that we base laws around gender now. and this is just one more of those. The impeaching case is, of course, that we find some societal benefit to men not strip searching women, but no particular benefit to preventing men from marrying men. It's at that point that I think what you are trying to establish has some value, that we derive no tangible benefit from banning polygamy either, beyond avoiding a taboo and maybe that's enough for a law to be upheld.

I don't think it's a compelling case, but I think it is better articulated that way.

But when you put it that way, instead of putting it the way I did, no one can misunderstand you because there's no sarcasm in yours.

I suppose it didn't help that the image I linked said "I dissent!" but that wasn't why I linked it. My poor sarcasm-fu shames me.

Some people have an innate ability to manipulate language so that it becomes a pleasure reading what they have to say, which gives them an unfair advantage in advocating their opinion. Others, not so much.

Just as planned. Bwa ha ha and some such.

Um.. The definition of marriage as being between a male and a female is a new one? Since when? That's kinda been the definition for thousands of years. As long as marriage has existed, that has been the defined set of members of marriage. It's only been in the very very very very very recent history that anyone has even suggested otherwise. A point, btw, made by Kennedy during the arguments.

Two issues:

1. I think that's why you have to view the issue, not as a ban, but as a recognition/reward. Since that's what we're actually talking about here. The analogy to male officers strip searching women, is a matter of "we're banning that because as a society we don't think it's appropriate", but doesn't actually match the issue of marriage recognition. In the case of the marriage issue before us, the question isn't whether two men or two women *may* marry each other, but whether the state *must* recognize that marriage as qualifying for a status named "marriage", and must grant that couple whatever legal benefits/rewards/restrictions that status entails.

So it's not just a "do we accept this behavior as a society", but "does this status match the use we're trying to apply to it?" And that gets us back to "why did the states create the statuses" and all that other stuff you guys hate to talk about. I just don't think we can hand wave this away with the idea that it's just about social norms and acceptance. It's also about concrete objectives and actions. We should not be asking what the benefit is in preventing men from marrying men. The question should be what benefit we gain from rewarding men who marry men. Once you flip the question around, you can start to see a clear pattern between the various things we don't reward versus those we do. IMO, this is the correct way to view the issue. We're ultimately talking about a reward status, not a ban. Totally different things.

2. In general, I disagree with the "rights are what society thinks they should be" concept. I've run across this idea many times (and I think at least one of the justices in this case mentioned something similar). But IMO, the entire point of having a Judiciary is to tell society when what it's demanding is in violation of rights, or is not a right at all. If the Court just rubber stamps issues based on popularity, then it ceases to have meaning. The people have many ways to advocate for change. If a social position changes sufficiently over time, then the laws can be changed over time to reflect that (popular votes, right?). There is no need for the courts to impose social change based on the concept that society is moving in a direction. In this case specifically, if social views really do change, and the valuation of SSM in society changes such that people elect and pressure their legislatures to change the laws defining their own marriage status, then that will happen without any need for the court to act. I think Kennedy also more or less made this point (well, he went back and forth on it IIRC).

If our argument is that rights are defined by what the people think they should be, then in this case, as the people believe that marriage statuses should be granted to SS couples, the laws will change to reflect that. If sufficient legislative pressure via voting hasn't yet created this change, then that's evidence that society really hasn't accepted that position. Which means, it's not really a right, right? I happen to think the whole concept is flawed, but even if we accept it, then there's no reason for the court to take action. The only thing the court can do is mistakenly think that the people believe in some change in our society that now requires recognition as a "right", and thus be tricked into making a ruling that is in opposition to how people actually feel. Which, IMO, is a really bad thing for the court to do.


I think that the court should be ruling on objective interpretation of rights, not subjective interpretation of public opinion. We can debate what that objective interpretation should result in, but I just reject the idea that "changing social views" make something a right that was not previously. And actually, more importantly to this issue, no one's really talking about a "right to marry". It's about whether or not denying marriage status to gay couples violates equal protection. And that's totally different. No one says that food stamps are a right. But denying them based on financial condition is acceptable, while denying them based on skin color is not. And this isn't because our social opinions about the "right to food stamps" change over time (subjective interpretation), but because the objective purpose of food stamps is to provide food to those who can't afford it, so using financial condition as a determinant of qualification is perfectly acceptable, while doing so based on skin color is not.

Similarly, we should be looking at the objective purpose of granting marriage statuses and determining if a given qualification is acceptable or unacceptable. I happen to think (as I've stated many times), that the states purpose for creating marriage status is to encourage couples who may procreate to do so within a well defined marriage contract so as to maximize the odds that children will have both a legally defined mother and legally defined father on birth. While we *could* extend this status to gay couples, it would be just as much a waste of resources as granting food stamps to the wealthy would be. We're not concerned about that rich person begging for food if we don't provide him with assistance, and we're not concerned about two men producing a child without legally defined parents if we don't grant them marriage licenses.

That's an objective argument. You may disagree with it, but it's not based on liking or disliking anyone, or how people "feel". I happen to think that's a better way for us to approach something as important as rights within a society. Doing so based on subjective emotional appeals is a really bad idea IMO.

Edited, May 23rd 2015 8:01am by Jophiel

Irish Protestants and Catholics apparently agree on something?


Exit Poll -Friday 22 May 2015
Voters appear to have backed same sex marriage even in a semi rural, republican leaning part of Co Louth.
A small News Letter exit poll at St Fursey’s National School, west of Dundalk, found that 34 people had voted Yes to the referendum change, while 20 said that they had voted No. A further 13 people would not divulge how they had voted. They were mostly older voters, who are more likely to vote No.

Even if all the ‘won’t says’ are added to the No voters, the split is 50:50. Such areas are expected to be less supportive of same sex marriage than greater Dublin. The News Letter chose the station because last year it had both Sinn Fein and Fianna Fail on around 27 per cent of the vote. However, the findings have to be treated with caution because it is a small snapshot from one polling station.


http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/video-referendum-exit-poll-in-dundalk-1-6760280

The breakdown by gender was:
Women 20 Yes, 10 No, 5 won’t say.
Men 14 Yes, 10 No, 8 won’t say.

All exiting voter were asked about party affiliation, and most said that they had no particular affiliation or preference but of those who did, the Yes voters were 4 Fine Gael, 4 Fianna Fail, 3 Sinn Fein, and one Labour. The No voters who had a party preference were 8 Fianna Fail, 2 Fine Gael, 2 Sinn Fein. Across all age groups, even the elderly, there were people who strongly supported same sex marriage. One older woman said that she thought feminine men would be kind and good raising a family.

Early in the article the elderly get slapped with "a further 13 people would not divulge how they had voted. They were mostly older voters, who are more likely to vote No," only later to be congratulated with this tidbit across all age groups, even the elderly, there were people who strongly supported same sax marriage."

The press wants things to be one way, yet reality kinda bites back. I noticed the press engaged in the same sort of bias toward older people during the run-up to Calif's Prop 8 voting.

Edited, May 26th 2015 10:56am by Trappin

No. A ban would be the Court ruling that no state could expand their marriage status to include same sex couples. You know, "banning" SSM. What's being asked here, isn't if a state *may* expand their marriage status in this way, but if every single state *must* do so. That's an entirely different question.



You mean semantic wrangling that consists of actually knowing what the word "ban" means, and how it applies to the legal question at hand?



Wrong:



The two issues are clearly about whether a state is required to do something, not whether the state is barred from doing so. You have to engage in precisely the kind of semantic wrangling you're accusing me of, in order to call this a ban.