emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Jan 21, 2010
- 23,669
- 4,181
5 Key Facts About the Supreme Court Gay Marriage Cases
It seems the more complicated the issues get, it becomes more clear that federal govt
should stay OUT of marriage and benefits all together, if people can't have equal protections and treatment.
See below [points a, b, c, d added in response to parts in bold]:
a. this is clearly partisan and driven by agenda not Constitutional principle if you compare with other cases
1. re: "not threatened personally"
where is this argument when people are arguing against crosses or prayers
that don't threaten people personally?
2. re: "taking rights away that were already granted"
votes by citizens are contested that take away rights that gay couples already had, but when the federal govt passes laws to take away gun rights that citizens already had, that's okay?
b. if it is unlawful for same sex couples to only have "civil unions but not marriage,"
then NO ONE should have marriage under the state but only under the churches of their choice and keep this private. only keep the civil union/contracts public that apply to all cases.
That would solve the problem(s), be fair to all, and keep personal issues out of govt, period!
[d. same with federal benefits: another sign that federal govt should not be micromanaging these things, but policies and programs should be local where people represent themselves,
as diversely and individually as they need, instead of trying to making blanket policies for all.]
c. if the Obama administration is going to selectively support or reject laws based on personal bias (instead of contesting ANY law that ANY group holds unconstitutional to be fair to ALL groups and not just ones that align politically or religiously with the office holders)
then that is ANOTHER sign this legislation needs to be kept localized and not mandated globally. Find it interesting that Obama and supporters will challenge the immigration bill as unconstitutional and this DOMA law as unconstitutional, but when it comes to gun laws and health care bills as unconstitutional, they won't challenge it due to the same party bias.
That is not protecting all interests or beliefs under law, but only based on the official's party.
how is that any different from imposing a religious bias through govt?
These things should be kept enforced locally within parties or groups, not imposed on the public given the clear distinctions between political views as different as religions which are protected under the First Amendment and cannot be mandated or denied by federal govt.
====================================
EXCERPRT:
"4. Possible outcomes: Hollingsworth v. Perry
a.
In dealing with Proposition 8, the Supreme Court justices have a wide range of options. They could rule that Hollingsworth and his organization don't have "standing" to file a lawsuit challenging earlier decisions about the proposition, because same-sex marriage would not threaten them personally. That would allow same-sex marriage to stand in California without changing policy elsewhere. The justices might also keep their ruling narrow, allowing earlier decisions to overthrow Proposition 8 to stand on the basis that it was a voter initiative that took away a right gay and lesbian citizens in California already had. That ruling would re-open same-sex marriage in California, but not speak to marriage rights in other states.
b.
Or the Court could tackle same-sex marriage broadly with Proposition 8 as its impetus, deciding whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. A final possibility, urged by the federal government, would be to strike down Proposition 8 based on the fact that California allows same-sex civil unions but not marriage. According to a brief filed by the federal government, this sets up two "separate but equal" institutions, violating Constitutional promises of equal protection. A ruling striking down Proposition 8 on those grounds would affect seven other states that permit same-sex civil unions and ban marriage.
5. Possible outcomes: United States v. Windsor
c.
The question of standing, or who has the right to argue a case in front of the Court, comes into play in United States v. Windsor as well. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it would no longer be defending DOMA in court, believing it to be an unconstitutional law. Republicans in the House of Representatives formed a group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to step in and defend the law in the administration's stead. The Court will have to determine if BLAG has standing to defend DOMA before hearing other arguments. If the justices decide BLAG doesn't have standing, the same-sex marriage case returns to the lower courts and would likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court eventually.
d.
If the Court decides not to dismiss the case, they could uphold DOMA, continuing the status quo of state marriages remaining unrecognized federally. If the law is struck down, the Court could write the decision narrowly, opening federal benefits to married gay couples but not broadly addressing the question of marriage as a fundamental right. Or the justices could address whether prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, recognizing a constitution right to same-sex marriage.
The justice's rulings are expected in late June."
==================
These complications are ridiculous.
Reminds me of problems created by mandating that insurance cover all pre-existing cases and all taxpaying citizens buy insurance in order to cover that, which ends up with govt trying to regulate and micromanage insurance policies and more complicated tax conditions, instead of focusing on better health care and medical education, services and provisions which is not the role of govt either but belongs to professionals who specialize in that field.
Complete opposite direction of what it's going to take to solve the problem.
Such abuse of Govt is punishment for not taking responsibility for resolving problems directly.
With this self-induced lunacy, no wonder our mental health systems are backlogged and pharmaceutical companies make millions hooking people on medications for the symptoms!
It seems the more complicated the issues get, it becomes more clear that federal govt
should stay OUT of marriage and benefits all together, if people can't have equal protections and treatment.
See below [points a, b, c, d added in response to parts in bold]:
a. this is clearly partisan and driven by agenda not Constitutional principle if you compare with other cases
1. re: "not threatened personally"
where is this argument when people are arguing against crosses or prayers
that don't threaten people personally?
2. re: "taking rights away that were already granted"
votes by citizens are contested that take away rights that gay couples already had, but when the federal govt passes laws to take away gun rights that citizens already had, that's okay?
b. if it is unlawful for same sex couples to only have "civil unions but not marriage,"
then NO ONE should have marriage under the state but only under the churches of their choice and keep this private. only keep the civil union/contracts public that apply to all cases.
That would solve the problem(s), be fair to all, and keep personal issues out of govt, period!
[d. same with federal benefits: another sign that federal govt should not be micromanaging these things, but policies and programs should be local where people represent themselves,
as diversely and individually as they need, instead of trying to making blanket policies for all.]
c. if the Obama administration is going to selectively support or reject laws based on personal bias (instead of contesting ANY law that ANY group holds unconstitutional to be fair to ALL groups and not just ones that align politically or religiously with the office holders)
then that is ANOTHER sign this legislation needs to be kept localized and not mandated globally. Find it interesting that Obama and supporters will challenge the immigration bill as unconstitutional and this DOMA law as unconstitutional, but when it comes to gun laws and health care bills as unconstitutional, they won't challenge it due to the same party bias.
That is not protecting all interests or beliefs under law, but only based on the official's party.
how is that any different from imposing a religious bias through govt?
These things should be kept enforced locally within parties or groups, not imposed on the public given the clear distinctions between political views as different as religions which are protected under the First Amendment and cannot be mandated or denied by federal govt.
====================================
EXCERPRT:
"4. Possible outcomes: Hollingsworth v. Perry
a.
In dealing with Proposition 8, the Supreme Court justices have a wide range of options. They could rule that Hollingsworth and his organization don't have "standing" to file a lawsuit challenging earlier decisions about the proposition, because same-sex marriage would not threaten them personally. That would allow same-sex marriage to stand in California without changing policy elsewhere. The justices might also keep their ruling narrow, allowing earlier decisions to overthrow Proposition 8 to stand on the basis that it was a voter initiative that took away a right gay and lesbian citizens in California already had. That ruling would re-open same-sex marriage in California, but not speak to marriage rights in other states.
b.
Or the Court could tackle same-sex marriage broadly with Proposition 8 as its impetus, deciding whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. A final possibility, urged by the federal government, would be to strike down Proposition 8 based on the fact that California allows same-sex civil unions but not marriage. According to a brief filed by the federal government, this sets up two "separate but equal" institutions, violating Constitutional promises of equal protection. A ruling striking down Proposition 8 on those grounds would affect seven other states that permit same-sex civil unions and ban marriage.
5. Possible outcomes: United States v. Windsor
c.
The question of standing, or who has the right to argue a case in front of the Court, comes into play in United States v. Windsor as well. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it would no longer be defending DOMA in court, believing it to be an unconstitutional law. Republicans in the House of Representatives formed a group called the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to step in and defend the law in the administration's stead. The Court will have to determine if BLAG has standing to defend DOMA before hearing other arguments. If the justices decide BLAG doesn't have standing, the same-sex marriage case returns to the lower courts and would likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court eventually.
d.
If the Court decides not to dismiss the case, they could uphold DOMA, continuing the status quo of state marriages remaining unrecognized federally. If the law is struck down, the Court could write the decision narrowly, opening federal benefits to married gay couples but not broadly addressing the question of marriage as a fundamental right. Or the justices could address whether prohibiting same-sex marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause, recognizing a constitution right to same-sex marriage.
The justice's rulings are expected in late June."
==================
These complications are ridiculous.
Reminds me of problems created by mandating that insurance cover all pre-existing cases and all taxpaying citizens buy insurance in order to cover that, which ends up with govt trying to regulate and micromanage insurance policies and more complicated tax conditions, instead of focusing on better health care and medical education, services and provisions which is not the role of govt either but belongs to professionals who specialize in that field.
Complete opposite direction of what it's going to take to solve the problem.
Such abuse of Govt is punishment for not taking responsibility for resolving problems directly.
With this self-induced lunacy, no wonder our mental health systems are backlogged and pharmaceutical companies make millions hooking people on medications for the symptoms!
