SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Not true.

In 1967, Loving vs. Virginia redefined marriage in 16 states to include mixed race couples.

 

The definition of marriage did not change. In fact, the state of Virginia recognized that the Lovings were married; that's why they threw them in jail.

 

No, in this case the Court would be mandating a definition of marriage across all states that discards the commonly understood gender terms. Before 2004, states didn't have to define marriage by gender terms because there was only one definition in common use.

 

They not mandating a specific definition. Mandating a definition would be saying it's only this, this, and that and not allow any other possibilities (like same-sex partners).
Instead, they're removing a restriction that can't withstand constitutional scrutiny. I realize that this might been seen as splitting hairs, but guess what, that's what the legal system is all about...

 

So? If it is deemed unconstitutional isn't that their job?

Things change.

 

"[Traditional marriage] has been the law everywhere for thousands of years among people who were not discriminating even against gay people, and suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require States that don't what to do it to change what you've heard is change what marriage is to include gay people. Why cannot those States at least wait and see...?" -Justice Breyer

 

There were already court rulings

 

Except for the fact that marriage isn't mentioned within the Constitution and therefore the providence of the individual states. The individual states have amended their Constitutions to reflect the desires of their residents. Marriage laws have always had a degree of latitude in terms of discrimination, for incest or polygamy, this is no different, and the USSC does not have the authority to usurp the State's in an area in which the federal government has absolutely no authority...

 

Subject to the 14th amendment.

In violation of the constitution.

the US constitution is supreme. States can not pass legislation which violates it. It's why interracial bans were struck down, and why same sad marriage bans are being struck down.

 

Well actually it did, if you consider altering two people of the same sex to marry.

Legally speaking the definition of marriage in those states was two people of the same race.

The supreme court changed that definition.

 

Not at all. Virginia's Racial Integrity Act assumed the same definition of marriage that had been around since the Mayflower had come over: one man, one woman. It deemed it unlawful for a white person to marry a non-white person. It didn't change the definition, it outlawed marriages that actually fit the definition. States are not outlawing same sex couples from doing anything, states are retaining the definition of marriage that was inherited from antiquity.

 

Well it changed the definition, because before the law a blank person couldn't marry a white person. It didn't change the rules regarding sex, just race.

Just one specific definition, and ignoring all others.

 

What definition? Supporters of interracial marriage bans believed that such marriages did not fit the definition of marriage, which according to them was between men and women of the same race only.

There is no one definition. There are many definitions. The question is which definitions are unconstitutional? Definitions that exclude based on race are, now the question is what about definitions that exclude based on sex?

 

I don't know what you mean by a blank person. The definition didn't change, and it didn't ignore any other definitions. Just let it go. The definition of marriage in the U.S. has been consistent: a man and a woman. Not all marriages have been legal, but making them illegal doesn't change the definition. E.g., it is illegal to marry at age 19 in Mississippi (without parental consent). It is illegal to marry a sibling in all states but West Virginia (just kidding!). Marrying someone while you're already married to someone else is illegal in all states. The Virginia case was no different: it made marriage (still understood to have a man and a woman) between a white and a non-white illegal, but the Supreme Court said the states can't make something illegal strictly based on race. In no cases did the definition of marriage change.

No, states didn't start changing the definition of marriage until Vermont and New Hampshire did in 2009. I don't think the Supreme Court wants to get into the business of assuming state powers like that.

 

You don't have to make up stuff like this to make your argument. This is silly. There are not "many" definitions of marriage, and there's only been one in the U.S. Those opposed to interracial marriage didn't define marriage by race, they outlawed a specific kind of marriage just like we outlaw specific kinds of marriage today (like underage). Problem is, the Court ruled that states cannot outlaw marriages on racial grounds. It has nothing to do with the SSM case today.

 

I mean a black person, I apologize for my typo.

It did.

It actually is legal for people to marry somebody of the same sex in most states currently. That didn't change the definition of marriage any more than any of the rest of it did.

The scotus already has. In 1967.

Saying that it didn't change one instance and thus didn't change the definition it's not accurate. Or it's double speak.

 

Do you think the definition of marriage is different in Mississippi, where adults under the age of 21 still need parental consent to marry, than it is in nearly every other state where parental consent is unnecessary from age 18+?

When a state makes something illegal, it doesn't change the definition of that thing. It simply makes that variant of the thing illegal, like states do with underage marriage. SSM doesn't meet the long-understood meaning of the word "marriage," so states are not compelled to suddenly redefine their intended meaning just to accommodate homosexuals.

 

No but than again I don't think it's different in Connecticut where two women can marry each other.

Yeah it does. It's just a variant.

 

But the Connecticut supreme court did change the definition of marriage for that state. They said so in their ruling: "... it is true that authorizing same sex couples to marry represents a departure from the way marriage historically has been defined..." and "...our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled..." There is even a whole section on why the Connecticut supreme court thinks it has the authority to define marriage over the will of the people!

You should stop arguing this point and recognize that if the Supreme Court redefines marriage for all the states it will be unprecedented.

 

The original thread closed, but this thread covers the same topic so here's an honest answer to your honest question. States long ago decided to embrace and endorse the family, with a mother and a father taking care of their children, as the fundamental building block of society. The state's interest was twofold: (1) they wanted parents to care for the babies they'd made because it's better for the kids and for society as a whole; and (2) they wanted the population to grow so they wanted to encourage single people to marry each other and make more babies. That's a crude explanation for why the public recognized a traditionally-defined marriage in the first place. No ill-intent, just trying to build a healthy society.

So the next question is why would the state or its public want to expand the marriage concept to include "a couple of dudes?" I don't really know why. To make them happy? Who else do we need to make happy? To normalize homosexual behavior? Is that the state's job? Maybe people in one state want to do so for whatever reason they come up with, but that doesn't mean another state should be compelled to follow suit. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Supreme Court should mandate it across the nation.

 

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) does this have to do with the states? The states don't matter. The individual matters. The state wants to restrict the individual without a good reason

 

Special pleading. When you don't agree with it, it's the law that's i error. When you agree with it, it's the opposition that's in error. There's no meaningful difference between the two other than the fact that disagreeing with one will get you laughed out of the room.

 

They did it in 1967

 

Are you even paying attention? Whether I agree or not has nothing to do with the fact that the Supreme Court has never taken it upon itself to redefine marriage over a state's definition.

 

Yes they did. In 1967.