Society/Culture Marriage equality debate - Part 1
- Thread starter Slax
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I'm sure there are many American Republicans out there jumping up and down about the Constitution and this ruling being against it. Never mind that it grants equality and that the US is supposed to be all about equality.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
- Banned
- #2,053
Doesn't seem to worry them too often
http://investmentwatchblog.com/ralp...-unconstitutional-tpp-a-corporate-coup-detat/
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It's a nice soundbite for year 9 students but it's a false dichotomy. The USA is both a democracy and a republic. It's not a direct democracy like ancient Athens but like any other large democratic country, it has elections for representatives who make the law, and appointed judiciary who interpret that law. A radical change to the rules of marriage should be decided by elected representatives, or like Ireland did, by plebiscite. This decision by a five to four verdict of appointed officials overrides the will of two thirds of the states.
What system of government are you proposing?
The president of the USA, as head of state, carries a lot weight in terms of election preferences. Obama spoke against gay marriage before he was elected and some people may have voted for him on that basis. How about a presidential candidate speak in favour of gay marriage then once elected initiate changes to the law via Congress?
There's a big difference between what some presidential candidate says is unconstitutional and what the US Supreme Court Rules is Unconstitutional.
http://wp.me/p4V4lR-or
In the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage (effectively legalising same-sex marriage across the United States), opponents of the move have asserted that the Supreme Court's ruling is in fact, unconstitutional.
One such argument I have read is that the 14th Amendment (being the one referred to in this case) does not mention marriage, therefore attempting to justify the Court's move on the grounds of the 14th Amendment is dishonest and wrong.
However, what the 14th Amendment does cover is civil rights. In particular, the paragraph below is quite telling:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So it would seem to me that any State trying to ban same-sex marriage is therefore depriving those seeking same-sex marriage 'equal protection of the laws', in that, despite being US citizens, they are not permitted to get married in certain States. They are being denied equality in the eyes of the law by any State seeking to ban same-sex marriage.
I have also seen it argued that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this case - yet this is what the Supreme Court exists to do:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
This would once again seem to be quite clear. The Supreme Court has authority, under both the Constitution and the law, to make rulings on any case. The lack of a specific mention of marriage does not exclude marriage issues either!
Moreover, if this ruling is undemocratic (another argument I've seen), then it would seem opponents of this ruling actually want the minority to have their way this time - for a majority of Americans actually favour same-sex marriage. It's also worth noting this includes religious folks as well.
So there is a fair of disingenuous arguing going on here. The conservative US Republicans who have repeatedly opposed same-sex marriage (and who, it could be argued, actually stand against Republican values in doing so) usually do so on religious grounds. Yet the early US governments were keen to avoid religion becoming entangled with government. Thomas Jefferson once said that the American people, through the First Amendment, had created a 'wall of separation between church and state.'
There is another aspect to this. By using religious-based arguments to make a case against same-sex marriage, the anti-gay marriage position is seeking to impose a religious value upon the entire population, regardless of other beliefs (or an absence of beliefs). They are quick to argue about the wrath of God, but this presupposes that God actually cares (and indeed, that God exists).
It should be simple really. Same-sex marriage is about extending rights so that two people of the same sex can marry. This doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, this doesn't cheapen marriage, and it doesn't deny rights to anyone else. What it boils down to is bigotry.
In the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage (effectively legalising same-sex marriage across the United States), opponents of the move have asserted that the Supreme Court's ruling is in fact, unconstitutional.
One such argument I have read is that the 14th Amendment (being the one referred to in this case) does not mention marriage, therefore attempting to justify the Court's move on the grounds of the 14th Amendment is dishonest and wrong.
However, what the 14th Amendment does cover is civil rights. In particular, the paragraph below is quite telling:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So it would seem to me that any State trying to ban same-sex marriage is therefore depriving those seeking same-sex marriage 'equal protection of the laws', in that, despite being US citizens, they are not permitted to get married in certain States. They are being denied equality in the eyes of the law by any State seeking to ban same-sex marriage.
I have also seen it argued that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in this case - yet this is what the Supreme Court exists to do:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority
This would once again seem to be quite clear. The Supreme Court has authority, under both the Constitution and the law, to make rulings on any case. The lack of a specific mention of marriage does not exclude marriage issues either!
Moreover, if this ruling is undemocratic (another argument I've seen), then it would seem opponents of this ruling actually want the minority to have their way this time - for a majority of Americans actually favour same-sex marriage. It's also worth noting this includes religious folks as well.
So there is a fair of disingenuous arguing going on here. The conservative US Republicans who have repeatedly opposed same-sex marriage (and who, it could be argued, actually stand against Republican values in doing so) usually do so on religious grounds. Yet the early US governments were keen to avoid religion becoming entangled with government. Thomas Jefferson once said that the American people, through the First Amendment, had created a 'wall of separation between church and state.'
There is another aspect to this. By using religious-based arguments to make a case against same-sex marriage, the anti-gay marriage position is seeking to impose a religious value upon the entire population, regardless of other beliefs (or an absence of beliefs). They are quick to argue about the wrath of God, but this presupposes that God actually cares (and indeed, that God exists).
It should be simple really. Same-sex marriage is about extending rights so that two people of the same sex can marry. This doesn't affect anyone else's marriage, this doesn't cheapen marriage, and it doesn't deny rights to anyone else. What it boils down to is bigotry.
I'm sure it must be a shock to you hear some countries restrain their politicians to prevent maniacs abusing their position. Its reason for the separation of powers. its a safety valve designed to prevent a government overstepping its democrat boundaries. The people of California NEVER VOTED to ban gay marriage, Democratically they never had a say, A bunch of polie's passed those laws via the legislative branch without the direct input of its citizens. The Judicial branch found that the legislative branch could not infringe on basic individual right a long, long time ago. This ruling mere says that marriage is one of those individual rights. That is a long way of saying, a handful of *******s said they could stop people from getting married and the US supreme court said, no you can't.
I always chuckle when the nutters bitch about "unelected" judges in western countries and how its not democratic. Those same judges are one of the few things that prevent a government from passing draconian laws. Rather then rally against them, You should embrace rulings that go against the Legislative branch, its the only thing that restrains their power. The only reason you have any rights at all is due to the Judicial branch.
In the coming weeks the Abbott government may pass a law allowing Tony Abbot the ability to personally revoke anyones citizenship (including yours) with no evidence, with no over site and no due process, He thinks he is fit to revoke your right to even vote. All because he says he can, Apart from an armed revolution the only thing protecting your rights to be a citizen is 7 high court Justices saying no he can't.
Last edited:
Glad to see you suspended.
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
That's what you say should happen, the Supreme Court of the U.S. disagrees.
Why have "unelected" judges been OK to make rulings on constitutional law until the specific point where you disagree. You can't pick and choose the way you want government to function based on the politics you have.
If unelected judges shouldn't make rulings on this the be consistent and advocate the abolition of the judiciary. Like Bobby Jindal has.
I'm not you dummy. Democracy is not the only thing served by the three branches of government. Certainly isn't served by the judiciary.
You're the one suggesting that the U.S. system is broken.
Except it didn't happen, so too bad.
It must infuriate you that it is eventually coming to Australia. Left the UK, then came here, where will you run off to next?
Last edited:
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Nope. And wtf does have to do with anything?
Nice little witchhunt you both have. You are wrong. I have specifically said that I share the concerns of many of the issues raised.
Why don't you reply to the quote I supplied, of one of the Justices. He is clearly worried about the democratic implications of this ruling.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Is this about equality and fundamental rights though? Moving aside that the ruling itself shouldn't even be about whether gay marriage is right or wrong, marriage itself discriminates against many people, cousins, siblings etc.. where is their "human right"? I think the court should be guarding actual human rights.
FWIW im fine with gay marriage, however in the US I would think it's a matter for the States like many other similar issues are.
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 71,988
- 133,637
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Moderator
- #2,063
The Supreme/High Court has adjudicated on literally thousand of cases down the years, they make one judgement that for inexplicable reasons people disagree with, and democracy is collapsing. This is either complete ignorance of the law, or willful blindness.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Clearly the majority of SCOTUS thought otherwise. You are entitled to hold contrarian viewpoints regarding the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but throwing around words like 'undemocratic' demonstrates a seriously flawed understanding of established fundamental principles such as the separation of powers.
As someone half-following this issue over the past few years this decision was a bit surprising since the easy fall-back was States rights, but obviously the current liberal/conservative split in the bench helped sway things. However, the inconsistencies and rhetoric in Scalia's and Thomas' dissents indicate to me that their ideological opposition trumped all.
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Actually I questioned the damage it does to democratic institution and then quoted Justice Antonin Scalia saying the exact same thing.
Hilary was anti-gay marriage at one stage too. Funny eh.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Do you think Roe v Wade damaged the democratic institution?
I would strongly argue that decisions of our judiciary actually enhance democracy rather than the other way around.
Barack Obama also expressed his opposition pre-2008. Arnold Schwarzenegger did so as Governor too. Great. I imagine it must be very rare for a politician to change their viewpoints as public opinion changes, it's not like their jobs are dependent on following public opinion.
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Can you please tell me what Reclaim has to do with anything? Is that not thread derailing? Do mods now support any issue to be raised in any thread? I would usually PM this but since anything seems to go now..
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
No, I see abortion as a question of human rights..
I personally like conviction politicians. Happy for them to change their mind on issues such as this due to a personal change of heart, but when it just follows public support it's just seems weak.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
Not a mod here. Ask other mods like Jiska and co.
Then why isn't this one about human rights? The majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy explicitly states it.
I don't mind politicians following public opinion. After all - they are our elected representatives and the ballot box makes or breaks their careers.
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Is marriage a human right? I tend not to think so. And hence I think it should be a state issue as everything else to do with marriage is.
Not on moral issues though.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,961
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I've just noticed, through my life, that if someone is racist, they tend to also be homophobic and generally bigoted.
Now I'm not accusing your of any of that, I'm just asking questions.
JAQing off, as it were.
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Principles of democracy will of course come up as an issue especially when it goes against States rights.
camsmith
Brownlow Medallist
Well im none of the above so your point is irrelevant to the discussion.
As I have said, im fine with gay marriage. My concern is how it has been implemented in the US. Also, being against gay marriage doesn't equal being homophobic and those sort of insults cause me to lose some sympathy to those pushing for gay marriage. It's a divisive tactic that doesn't add any substance to an argument.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,748
- 14,961
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
So, you're pro-gay marriage?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
