Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[g5000]

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

That ridiculous argument works just as well for banning interracial marriage. Black men can file a married tax return...as soon as they marry a black woman.

Or a Jew can file a married tax return...as soon as they marry a Jew.

I bet you thought you were being clever!

 

[The Rabbi]

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

Well you do understand one thing, amazingly enough. It's all about the money. It's the gimme-crowd, back for more. It has nothing to do with civil rights, discrimination or anything else.
Gays are asking for soemthing that belongs to someone else. They can get married and have all the benefits of marriage just like anyone else. But they want special rights. And they can go fuck themselves (and would if it were possible). Just like you.

What a crock of shit. YOU are the one who already has the special privileges. You want to WITHHOLD those privileges from others. You want them ALL TO YOURSELF.

YOU are the one opposed to equality.

You're right. I want to withhold the privileges that go with being married from people who aren't married. How bigoted of me.

You otoh want to ram your view of marriage down every one else's throat so you can feel all special about yourself. Another self-absorbed narcissist into "feelings". Feh.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

You are not legally married in all 50 states. Not even in regard to the fed.gov.
Try again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

And for good reason, it’s irrelevant.

With regard to DOMA;

The Republican lawmakers argued that Baker v. Nelson barred any challenge based on a claim of equality for gay couples The Circuit Court spent little time on the argument. It noted that DOMA, like the Minnesota law, defined marriage as a union of opposite-sex individuals, and it conceded that the Supreme Court precedent remained binding, and would thus bar any argument that either presumed or explicitly claimed that there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But, it said, that did not apply to the DOMA case, because the challenging couples and surviving spouses were making no such claim. They were, of course, already married. “Baker does not resolve our case,” it concluded.

Gay marriage and Baker v. Nelson : SCOTUSblog

Supporters of DOMA can’t argue that same-sex couples don’t have a right to marry when the respective states of the latter have indeed acknowledged and recognized that very right.

The same is true with regard to Proposition 8, the Perry case concerns itself with equal protection and due process rights, not a ‘right’ to marry; and subsequent case law further undermines Baker’s relevance. In Romer v. Evans the Court ruled that to deny homosexuals access to a state’s law is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; in Lawrence v. Texas the Court held that homosexuals are entitled to a right to privacy in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Loving is cited by defenders of marriage equality because it also addressed the issue of equal protection rights with regard to accessing marriage law, not a right to marry per se.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

That ridiculous argument works just as well for banning interracial marriage. Black men can file a married tax return...as soon as they marry a black woman.

Or a Jew can file a married tax return...as soon as they marry a Jew.

I bet you thought you were being clever!

Blacks are a protected group under civil rights law.
Jews are a protected group under civil rights law.
People who like to buttfuck members of their own sex or munch their carpets are not a protected group. In part because there is no real single defining characteristic of them.

Analogy fail.

 

[WillowTree]

no problem with a man marrying a woman and then marrying a man, that's a threesome and wedded bliss shall not be denied. end of story.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

Correct, because there’s no rational basis for it, no compelling governmental interest, and no evidence justifying such ignorance and hate.

 

[Seawytch]

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

You are not legally married in all 50 states. Not even in regard to the fed.gov.
Try again.

Wow...you're quick. Now justify that in a way that will stand up in a court of law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

Correct, because there’s no rational basis for it, no compelling governmental interest, and no evidence justifying such ignorance and hate.

That's obviously incorrect. So obvious it needs no refutation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

You are not legally married in all 50 states. Not even in regard to the fed.gov.
Try again.

Wow...you're quick. Now justify that in a way that will stand up in a court of law.

The constitution of the state of Tennesse specifically defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Other states have similar language in their state constitutions.
Now tell me how that is wrong without resorting to false analogies of the civil rights era. Because gays ain't black.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices know that "We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

No one was wronged in the two cases before the court?


............... You mean like the woman that was legally Civilly Married and when her spouse died was charged $365,000 that she wouldn't have been charged.



$365,000 in additional taxes isn't harmed?


Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

1. Never tried to imply that Civil Marriage laws passed hundreds of years ago were passed to explicitly exclude same-sex couples. However laws passed in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009 were explicitly passed to exclude same-sex couples from Civil Marriage.

2. And while the laws that were passed targeted a group based on their sexual orientation, each and every law passed in those recent years were based on gender. I don't remember any law that says Civil Marriage is defined as only for those who are heterosexual (sexual orientation), all that I remember defined Civil Marriage as a man and a woman (gender or "sex" if you prefer).


>>>>

Most of the laws dating from way back define marriage as a union between one man and one woman... mostly in response to polygamy and Mormons not because of homosexuality.

Doesn't change the fact that those new laws passed in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009 were targeted at homosexuals.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

That cash and those prized are given out for the benefit of mothers and children. Gays can never be mothers or have children, so there's no social justification for giving them any of the benefits that married couples receive.

Being homosexual <> Being Infertile

There are many homosexual couples raising children, IIRC the last Census showed that about 25% were raising children and yet those parents are still denied Civil Marriage.

>>>>

 

[legaleagle_45]

no problem with a man marrying a woman and then marrying a man, that's a threesome and wedded bliss shall not be denied. end of story.

Does 2 babes and an old dude work as well, or is does it have to be 2 men and a woman?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Being homosexual <> Being Infertile

There are many homosexual couples raising children, IIRC the last Census showed that about 25% were raising children and yet those parents are still denied Civil Marriage.

>>>>

Correct, but there are zero homosexual couples raising children which are the "issue" of the union ... which IMHO gets it beyond rational relationship scrutiny and the need to shoot for heightened scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Being homosexual <> Being Infertile

There are many homosexual couples raising children, IIRC the last Census showed that about 25% were raising children and yet those parents are still denied Civil Marriage.

>>>>

Correct, but there are zero homosexual couples raising children which are the "issue" of the union ... which IMHO gets it beyond rational relationship scrutiny and the need to shoot for heightened scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, heightened scrutiny.

And there are lots of heterosexual couples that are raising children which are not the "issue" of their union.

But since being able to produce and "issue" from the union is not, nor has it been a requirement of Civil Marriage - I'm not sure what the point is.



>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

Expectation of biological children?

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

We overturned almost the entire history of this country when slavery was abolished, as well as when women were given the right to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

Obviously that's up for debate. I don't think there's a good reason that supporters care about, but that doesn't mean there isn't one altogether. And I think it's wrong to assume the state has to give a good enough reason just because the pro-SSM side doesn't think one exists. I mean, democracy works when you get enough people in favor of something and are willing to stick their necks out to vote for and legalize it. I could say I think the government should give me an unlimited supply of Blue Bell banana pudding ice cream, and there's no good goddamn reason why they shouldn't. I couldn't drag them into court and make them explain to me why it's not a good idea.

Rough example, but you get my point. The state would have to explain itself if it took added measures to criminalize same-sex marriage...they would have to explain how same-sex marriage is so bad that it requires throwing people in jail over it. But it just not being of the law? It is what it is.

The state has to give a good enough reason because equal protection issues are involved.

There are no good reasons, so equal protection has to prevail.

 

[legaleagle_45]

And there are lots of heterosexual couples that are raising children which are not the "issue" of their union.

Correct, but irrelevant for purposes of rational basis scrutiny.

But since being able to produce and "issue" from the union is not, nor has it been a requirement of Civil Marriage - I'm not sure what the point is.

>>>>

Not necessarily correct, but irrelevant for purposes of rational basis scrutiny anyway.... I say not necessarily correct because historically it is one of the primary reason for civil marriage--- to provide a legitimacy to children born of that marriage so they would not be bastards (even if they in truth were not products of the union and were in fact bastards) thus providing a secure system of inheritance for the children and an obligation for support for both the parents and the children (who were lawfully obligated to care for their elderly parents..

You need heightened scrutiny. IMHO

 

[martybegan]

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

So I guess that should apply to concealed carry laws as well right? Its just the same as a marriage liscense, right?

Is your marriage license in your state valid in other states? Mine isn't.

You might have an argument if my CC was valid in all states but yours wasn't.

Not married so that is irrelevant. My point is that all these people who want a marriage liscense in one state to = one in all states because they see it as some "consitutional right" go running for the "but but but but" when it comes to a CCW, which is a liscense just the same as a marriage or driver's liscense, but is not recognized by some other states.

I know having hypocricy pointed out is difficult, but it is what it is.