Gay Marriage

[PeterJB]

I do wonder why the government decided to ban the Church of England from conducting same-sex marriage, because when it's legalized any gay Anglicans that want an Anglican ceremony can't have it. I'm mean yeah they've been largely opposed to it, but I don't see why it was necessary to ban it.

 

[DK]

I think it might be the whole matter about the CoE being the "established" church of the UK.

His Indigo Omniscience is probably going to correct me, though.

 

[Joel]

I do wonder why the government decided to ban the Church of England from conducting same-sex marriage, because when it's legalized any gay Anglicans that want an Anglican ceremony can't have it. I'm mean yeah they've been largely opposed to it, but I don't see why it was necessary to ban it.

Because instead of the rational choice, which is to leave it alone and let the leaders of different churches decide what they want to do, they went all Guvment on it and decided banning things was a better idea.

 

[Danoff]

Given that multiple US supreme court members have discussed re-banning gay marriage now that the demographics have shifted, I wonder if congress would be interested in making it US federal law.

 

[TexRex]

Given that multiple US supreme court members have discussed re-banning gay marriage now that the demographics have shifted, I wonder if congress would be interested in making it US federal law.

I don't think much of congressional Republicans, but even I don't think enough of them would be in favor of disregarding the Obergefell decision.

 

[Danoff]

I don't think much of congressional Republicans, but even I don't think enough of them would be in favor of disregarding the Obergefell decision.

We could see the supremes try to overwrite it:

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/9204...supreme-court-decision-on-gay-marriage-rights

 

[TexRex]

We could see the supremes try to overwrite it:

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/9204...supreme-court-decision-on-gay-marriage-rights

Unsolicited? What's the precedent for SCOTUS making such a move? Serious question.

 

[Danoff]

Unsolicited? What's the precedent for SCOTUS making such a move? Serious question.

Here's the exposition of Thomas and Alito on the subject. I took that to mean that they were basically asking for a case to be brought to use as a basis to overrule precedent now that they have the votes (presumably) on the court.

There are two ways around this. One is to change the makeup of the court. The other is to pass law.

I don't know whether you consider this "solicited". And I honestly do not know what the precedent is for overturning a supreme court decision so soon after a previous one. Certainly, though, at least 2 members seem to be ready to do it.

 

[TexRex]

Here's the exposition of Thomas and Alito on the subject. I took that to mean that they were basically asking for a case to be brought to use as a basis to overrule precedent now that they have the votes (presumably) on the court.

There are two ways around this. One is to change the makeup of the court. The other is to pass law.

I don't know whether you consider this "solicited". And I honestly do not know what the precedent is for overturning a supreme court decision so soon after a previous one. Certainly, though, at least 2 members seem to be ready to do it.

Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the
many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.

What kind of malarkey is this?

 

[Danoff]

What kind of malarkey is this?

I know, it's preposterous. It's the equivalent of Donald Trump's reading of the freedom of speech - but from supreme court justices.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Republicans' arguments against gay marriage are so disingenuous that its actually quite comical. Whenever asked why they are against LGBT marriage, the usual two excuses are: "it should be left up to the states", and "marriage is defined as a sacred bond between one man and one woman". Because LGBT+ folks being allowed to express their love like anyone else is government overreach, and defining marriage as any two lovers being legally unionized isn't what the word means; it must only be a man and a woman. Sneakily, they'll never articulate whether they support LGBT rights or not, nor whether they believe homosexuality is moral or even legitimate. They just revert back to their tired old talking points. Honestly, if every elected Republican (most in the house/senate still do not support gay marriage even now) were totally honest, and blatantly declared that homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural and sinful, it wouldn't make a dent in their chances of being re-elected. There's even get whack-jobs like Ben Shapiro who believe that LGBT+ people being federally allowed to get married is an infringement on his religious freedoms granted by the 1st amendment.

EDIT: read through the first few pages of this thread and I've realized how drastically the general attitude towards LGBT+ persons have changed in 18 years. Back then, at least on GTP, it honestly seems like more people were against it or at least skeptical of it then accepting of it, while now, LGBT+ freedom seems to be universally accepted on this website. Gives me faith in humanity that peoples' perspectives, even deep-seeded ones that ought to never be questioned, can be changed.

 

[PeterJB]

Given that multiple US supreme court members have discussed re-banning gay marriage now that the demographics have shifted, I wonder if congress would be interested in making it US federal law.

By demographics do you mean the balance of power shifting in Congress or the literal demographics of increased immigration to the US from conservative Catholic and Muslim nations?

 

[GranTurNismo]

By demographics do you mean the balance of power shifting in Congress or the literal demographics of increased immigration to the US from conservative Catholic and Muslim nations?

I think he means the demographics of the court. Being 6-3 conservative from 5-4 liberal from only a few years ago is quite a shift.

 

[PeterJB]

I think he means the demographics of the court. Being 6-3 conservative from 5-4 liberal from only a few years ago is quite a shift.

Is this something the Supreme Court could enforce on their own or would they need Congress' approval?

 

[GranTurNismo]

Is this something the Supreme Court could enforce on their own or would they need Congress' approval?

I think they can enforce it on their own, though not 100% certain.

 

[PeterJB]

I think they can enforce it on their own, though not 100% certain.

I would hope that's not the case. When gay marriage was originally legalised Obama was involved in one way or another if I remember correctly. I don't fully understand the US system of governance as here as the House of Commons are basically in charge of legislation and while bills need the approval of the House of Lords and the Queen, they rarely if ever intervene in the way that the President and the Senate can. But it seems like a major flaw in the system if something as significant as this could be decided by nine people who are appointed by the President rather than the people without the approval of the two houses of elected officials.

 

[TexRex]

I would hope that's not the case. When gay marriage was originally legalised Obama was involved in one way or another if I remember correctly. I don't fully understand the US system of governance as here as the House of Commons are basically in charge of legislation and while bills need the approval of the House of Lords and the Queen, they rarely if ever intervene in the way that the President and the Senate can. But it seems like a major flaw in the system if something as significant as this could be decided by nine people who are appointed by the President rather than the people without the approval of the two houses of elected officials.

The function of the Supreme Court isn't to craft legislation but to weigh in on the constitutionality of rulings made by lower Courts. If Justices are indeed imploring legislative bodies to ensure that a case is presented before them, as seems to be what is happening, they would in effect have a hand in crafting legislation that they would then either affirm or strike down as unconstitutional. It's a massive reach, I'm not aware of any actual precedent, and it may actually be permissible, as ****** as that is.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution holds that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Because legislation prohibiting couples from marrying based on them not consisting of a man and a woman would be founded upon religious belief--as Justices Thomas and Alito explicitly acknowledged--such legislation is indeed unconstitutional per the Establishment Clause as ruled by the Supreme Court in 2015 in Obergefell v. Hodges. This move basically acknowledges that the unconstitutionality of such legislation doesn't actually matter because the Court may be in a position to affirm lower Courts' rulings based on the current conservative majority.

 

[Danoff]

I think he means the demographics of the court. Being 6-3 conservative from 5-4 liberal from only a few years ago is quite a shift.

Yes.

Is this something the Supreme Court could enforce on their own or would they need Congress' approval?

The supreme court basically did this (legalized gay marriage) on their own the first time around. They got a good case, and ruled that laws restricting marriage to man and woman are unconstitutional (either through the establishment clause or equal protection, I haven't read Obergefell). The supremes are basically asking people to bring a similar case now that they have more conservatives, so that they can overturn Obergefell. Or at least they were, not sure they're doing that now that the democrats have the executive and congress. I think they might be quiet for a while hoping they can wait less of a legislative mandate in the other branches before they start shaking things up.

They could overturn Obergefell on their own. No need for congressional approval. Just like Roe v. Wade (legalized abortion).

And just like roe v. wade, there are a variety of potential stances that the court could take. Right now, for both Obergefell and Roe v. Wade, the court's opinion is that states cannot restrict any further than they have. Meaning states are now allowed to restrict it. But there are two other positions that the court could take - that it can be restricted, or that it has to be restricted. The middle ground could be potentially circumvented by federal legislation. So congress and the executive can work together to pass legislation for gay marriage and abortion that tries to prevent its restriction if the supreme court says it can be restricted. In other words, the federal government can try to step in and say "just because the constitution says this is ok, doesn't mean we do". That could be tricky, because the supreme court could rule that congress can't do that, it has to be done at the state level. It's worth noting that the federal government does this for marijuana right now. It's constitutional, but not federally legal. But if the supreme court were to say it has to be restricted, congress and the executive can't do anything about it except pack the court.

So for example, if a supreme court ruling said that "defining marriage as anything other than a man and a woman violates the establishment clause" - in otherwords, marriage is constitutionally enshrined as heterosexual - then there is no recourse. And that appears to be what at least Thomas and Alito are arguing. Similarly they can establish abortion in all forms as being murder, and thus not permissible according to the constitution (I don't know what the technical argument would be... due process?). The federal and state governments could do nothing to stop that. This would be akin to making permission of abortion or gay marriage similar to gun control laws - constitutionally prevented (to a degree) at all levels.

We really do have a problem at the supreme court. It has been quiet for a little while, but it's still there.

 

[TexRex]

(either through the establishment clause or equal protection, I haven't read Obergefell)

I hadn't read it either, I just knew the implications of the ruling. Indeed the Fourteenth was cited as justification for the Obergefell ruling, though the First can't be discounted.

It also seems I misunderstood your first post today. I thought you were speaking of Congress prohibiting gay marriage with the aim of pushing it through to SCOTUS for potential affirmation.

 

[Danoff]

It also seems I misunderstood your first post today. I thought you were speaking of Congress prohibiting gay marriage with the aim of pushing it through to SCOTUS for potential affirmation.

Yea that's not what I meant. Congress isn't anywhere near trying that. But SCOTUS can make that move on its own, and looks like it might want to.

 

[Rich S]

I hadn't read it either, I just knew the implications of the ruling. Indeed the Fourteenth was cited as justification for the Obergefell ruling, though the First can't be discounted.

It also seems I misunderstood your first post today. I thought you were speaking of Congress prohibiting gay marriage with the aim of pushing it through to SCOTUS for potential affirmation.

For many years, this federal constitutional amendment banning same sex whatever you want to call it (marriage, union, etc) was purposed but continously rejected by congress much in the same way the equality act has been rejected. Based on the current situation the senario might be SCOTUS reversing prior rulings but for me even within SCOTUS the votes aren't there to reverse course - so it's a mute issue on marriage, unions, sodomy between 2 adults, and also on employment discrimination. Now when it comes to things like housing discrimination and also on the age of consent for gays that for me is unsettled as SCOTUS never addressed those issues.

 

[Imari]

Now when it comes to things like housing discrimination and also on the age of consent for gays that for me is unsettled as SCOTUS never addressed those issues.

Wait, age of consent isn't the same regardless of the sex of the parties involved?

 

[Sprite]

I’m all for Gay marriage, it’s one of the best things in the world seeing two happy people making their commitment to each other.

This is my friend Andy and his Husbands Jose’s wedding cake.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I’m all for Gay marriage, it’s one of the best things in the world seeing two happy people making their commitment to each other.

This is my friend Andy and his Husbands Jose’s wedding cake.

View attachment 999791

My goodness, that's amazing.

 

[Sprite]

My goodness, that's amazing.

Yeh, Andy is a huge Lego fan so was a must for him.

 

[Rich S]

Wait, age of consent isn't the same regardless of the sex of the parties involved?

No not always. Sodomy laws make it illegal to have sex with a member of the same sex.

 

[TexRex]

No not always. Sodomy laws make it illegal to have sex with a member of the same sex.

Following Lawrence v. Texas, there are no laws prohibiting non-procreative sexual intercourse between consenting adults in the United States. SCOTUS' deeming such laws unconstitutional and establishing a non-interference policy means that state consent laws apply regardless of participants' sexual orientation.

 

[Imari]

No not always. Sodomy laws make it illegal to have sex with a member of the same sex.

But there's no age of consent involved if something is flat out illegal. That's an example of a law that discriminates based on the sex of the parties involved (sort of), but it has nothing to do with the age of consent.

 

[Daz555]

I'm all for gay marriage. Gay people have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us. ;-)

Not sure where I heard that, but it made me laugh.

 

[TexRex]

I'm all for gay marriage. Gay people have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us. ;-)

Not sure where I heard that, but it made me laugh.

Kinky Friedman.