Why is SSM such a big deal?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hard to imagine why a change in marriage law wouldn't be a big deal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states.

You can take your "but gay people can still get married to the opposite sex!" argument right back to the trash can where it belongs. Thanks.

Until I saw AD's reply below I was thinking he was using a frame of reference similar to mine. Mine is that ever since Lawrence SSM has been legal in all fifty States, and that the current legal and political struggle has been over giving all marriages the same degree of legal recognition and privileges. After all, he's been vocal about his odd view that how governments treat marriage amounts to discrimination against single people.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1. People don't understand the law or civil rights. Gay people can get married in all 50 states.

You can take your "but gay people can still get married to the opposite sex!" argument right back to the trash can where it belongs. Thanks.

Until I saw AD's reply below I was thinking he was using a frame of reference similar to mine. Mine is that ever since Lawrence SSM has been legal in all fifty States, and that the current legal and political struggle has been over giving all marriages the same degree of legal recognition and privileges. After all, he's been vocal about his odd view that how governments treat marriage amounts to discrimination against single people.

Ugh.  During slavery, everyone was equal under the law, some people were just more equal than others.  Right?

Wrong. Rather it is that I don't accept that a marriage requires civil recognition to be a marriage. Keep in mind that in the Loving case, it wasn't merely that the Lovings were denied a civil marriage by Virginia, they were found guilty of claiming to be married and living as if they were married. That's why I consider Lawrence to be the same-sex equivalent of Loving. Ever since then it hasn't been a crime for any couple in the US to live in marriage. That's far more important than the residual issues relating to SSM that have been dealt with since then.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The judicial tyrant that struck Prop 8 down used the term "unconstitutional," yet there's nothing in the US constitution that guarantees same gender marriage, otherwise, we'd have had them since the country's inception.

The ninth amendment was added specifically to prevent such a narrow-minded view that only rights explicitly named are guaranteed by the constitution. I'll grant that at times the courts tend to be overly plastic in constitutional interpretation, but I'd much rather have that than rigid strict constructionism that blocks change.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Insert Jim Crow, slavery, child labor, women's rights, religious freedoms, etc. into the blank. It's all the same terrible, bigoted, recycled, and archaic argument.

It's hardly progressives that have been castigated in that way.  Every movement that thinks that their goals are so pure and obviously good that all opponents should be counted as "evil incarnate" has been so castigated. Some are more deserving of that castigation than others of course. When it comes to SSM, I think castigating proponents for seeking legalization and recognition of SSMs is not deserved (if anything, those blocking the change should be castigated), but when "progressives" seek to force private parties to provide services for SSMs, the castigation is fully deserved.

Example translation in another context: (Russia Today)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Newsflash:  The Bible is not changing.  Religion should not get with the times.  It is time society Protestantism stops trying to rip pages out of the Bible.  I sincerely hope the Supreme Court Luther is smart and does NOT impose sola scriptura same-sex marriage in all 50 states.  It threatens America's Germany's churches, especially the most conservative ones.  It also threatens Christian schools.  Liberal progressives theologians seriously want to see pastors thrown in jail for life for preaching against same sex marriage Protestantism and they want to take away tax exempt status for those who refuse to go along with gay marriage Protestantism.  The denominations theologians who are allowing same sex marriage now are 100% WRONG on that issue.  The Bible clearly states Adam and Eve Peter is the Rock of the Church.  The Bible clearly prohibits a man sleeping with a man disobeying the Pope.  It is not a slippery slope to other forms of "marriage" "Christianity", but it is a slippery slope to which all voices of opposition will be discriminated against, by the loss of jobs, the loss of their business, imprisonment.

However, there is one thing that is an ABSOLUTE FACT that NO one can deny.  Jesus The Pope reigns.  What He says goes.  It doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a member of another religion.  What Jesus yhe Pope says goes.  He will stamp out ALL same sex relationships and marriages heretics.  He will get rid of all sin.

FTFY

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What about Lev 18:22? 1 Corinth 6:9? The Bible is the inspired word of God, if it's said by an Apostle, we're supposed to just disregard it if we feel like it?

Leaving aside that fact that I hold the Bible to be inspired by God, but written by fallible men, there's also translation issues of language and culture to consider.  That "ἀρσενοκοίτης" refers to homosexuality in general appears to not be the case. Paul had a wide variety of existing Greek words he could have used to refer to homosexuality in general rather than coin a brand new word. Exactly which aspect of what we consider to be homosexuality today, he meant is debatable, but since he likely coined the word by compounding words used in the LXX translation of Lev 18:22, we can presume he meant a similar meaning.  But what of Lev 18:22?

From the context, Lev 18:22 is part of a list of practices that the Canaanites engaged in when worshiping their gods. So it's fairly clear that Yahweh takes a dim view of ritual male on male temple prostitution, but inferring from the Bible that homosexuality in general is being condemned is an inference. If indeed, homosexuality were a choice, then a blanket condemnation would be reconcilable with the concept of a loving God. However, the available evidence indicates that homosexuality is not a choice.  Thus, having God condemn a person for being true to how He made them would make God a rather vicious and spiteful being. Since God is love, an inference that makes God to be spiteful cannot be correct. I suppose that's why many desperately want to believe conversion therapy works.  If it doesn't, then one of their axioms is false.  Either God is not love, God is not responsible for all creation, God is mean and vicious, or their interpretation of the Bible is incorrect.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This thread was temporarily locked while a much needed cleanup was done of these Augean Stables.

I think I cleaned the pity party and the posts encouraging said party out of here.  There was some collateral damage, but I don't think I destroyed the village while saving it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If opposite-sex marriage were the same today as it was in the days of the Founders, I might agree with you two. However, civil marriage had already ceased to have distinct gender based distinctions between husband and wife, thus making the transition to civil SSM easier to happen.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's a difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy.  A ruling imposing SSM on America would be judicial supremacy. It should be defied. It would be an unprecedented violation of multiple state constitutions. The court would essentially be invalidating the constitutions of the states. If same-sex marriage was granted by the founders, we would have had it since the 1700s.

I am not sure I would hold SSM to be a Constitutionally protected right if I were on SCOTUS myself. I am  not comfortable with aggressive interpretations of Constitutional text, particularly if clearly not the intent of the text when promulgated, which do in fact if abused give the Courts in essence the power to legislate. On the other hand, a situation where a married couple of the same sex could have their marriage dissolved when they move to another state is an intolerable situation from a policy standpoint, and may infringe the constitutional right to travel and relocate.

If the Court doesn't want to overturn Windsor and Perry a mere three years after writing them (the same Court with the same membership!), it basically boils down to two options: every state has to recognize same sex marriages but doesn't have to issue them, or every state has to issue them. Perry has them in this box where a state constitutional ban on same sex marriage is motivated by animus and can be overturned, and if they punt (which they won't do, they chose to take this case) the lower court split between the Sixth Court and the other courts will be an impossible dilemma.

Every state has to recognize but doesn't have to issue will be a ridiculous procedural issue, much cleaner to just rule it legal nationally.

Yes, it's a mess. That is why I really don't know the best path. I honestly don't. Well of course, having a federal law legalizing same sex marriage from a policy standpoint, done through Congress, F federalism, is by far the best from a policy standpoint, but I digress. It's the legal aspect absent that, that gives me a headache. It makes me feel humble in my ignorance.

Actually, that gives me an idea, tho I suspect that the Republican led Congress wouldn't like having a political hot potato being handed them by SCOTUS.  If Kennedy decides to be unexpectedly traditional, he might rule (and in such a case I think Roberts would go along with it) that Congress could act to require that same-sex marriages in one state be recognized in others that have no provision for them otherwise.  It looks like it would be a straightforward use of Congress' power under Article IV Section 1 to prescribe how the Full Faith and Credit clause is put into effect.

That said, I doubt Kennedy would be so traditional, especially since I don't think the idea was brought up during the case, tho this court hasn't been shy about giving hints to Congress about what it can do or needs to do, such as it did with the VRA.  Still, for defenders of traditional marriage, that would have had at least a small chance of success to forestall nationwide SSM, at the cost of making SSM an issue in the 2016 Congressional elections.

It also wouldn't offend my Federalist principles as Windsor did and as I fear this case will, tho of course, a simple acknowledgement of civil SSM as a right would be best in my opinion, both in terms of result and process.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This would've been far simpler if the ERA had passed...SSM could have been ruled in on gender equality grounds (the ability to marry a woman but not marry a man as gender discrimination). More's the pity about the ERA falling just short of the finish line.

Doubtful.  Both men and women would have had the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender, so I don't think gender equality would be a viable path to getting SSM recognized by a court that wouldn't otherwise recognize it.  I don't think any of the State ERA's were used to overturn non-recognition of SSM in State courts.

The only area of marriage that I think the ERA might affect would be if at some future date, polygyny were to be recognized as a valid civic marriage, then polyandry would have to also be recognized.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While Schafly made that argument, it certainly wasn't the thrust of her argument, nor is it what resonated with the public.  She argued the ERA would lead to women being drafted, unisex public bathrooms, and losing the right to alimony and a preference in child custody when divorce occurred.

The former is a dead issue, the second is silly, and the third has essentially already occurred.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That's because by the 90's the issues on which the opposition to the ERA was fought in the 70's were dead issues while SSM was then starting to become an issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If two gays kissing non-gratuitously in a restaurant is flaunting their homosexuality, did my wife and I flaunt our heterosexuality?

Yes, tho most places, yet not all, tolerate such flaunting.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If two gays kissing non-gratuitously in a restaurant is flaunting their homosexuality, did my wife and I flaunt our heterosexuality?

Yes, tho most places, yet not all, tolerate such flaunting.

If two straight people kiss in Chelsea or the Castro, nobody is going to scream at them or attack them.  That could absolutely happen to two gay people in many, many places around America.

I wasn't thinking of that.  Rather I was thinking of places where those in charge don't want any sexual flaunting, either homo or hetero.