Gay Marriage Vote in NJ Senate on Thursday

[Free Palestine]

Any attempt to federally legalize same-sex marriage would be a direct affront to the founding principals of the country.  Not to mention a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment (not that anybody in the federal government cares).  It should be left up to the states, not the federal government.

There are two issues here:

1. Making the federal government enforce marriages legal in Mass., Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. in Alabama and Arkansas.
2. Having the federal government recognize marriages legal in Mass, Iowa, N.H. for federal purposes, like taxes and immigration.

Do you have the same view on both issues? If so, how do you justify #2 when it is a departure from past practice?

The federal government recognizing same-sex marriage in the states where it's legal, and enforcing the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't violate the Constitution.

[Brittain33]

The federal government recognizing same-sex marriage in the states where it's legal, and enforcing the Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't violate the Constitution.

Ok, it sounds like we're mostly on the same page, and I suspect that's what's going to happen in the long run. But does that mean you oppose Loving v. Virginia--or a hypothetical Loving overturning bans where their marriage wasn't criminal in Virginia, but also wasn't recognized by the state?

There are two possible routes for the Supreme Court to take to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide in addition to the third route of preserving the status quo (or the very unlikely fourth route where Scalia and Thomas ban same-sex marriage nationwide). The first requires other states to recognize out-of-state marriages, the second strikes down constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage. I wonder if there is an appreciable difference in the odds of the former happening rather than the latter.

[Torie]

I don't see how SCOTUS could strike down a Consitutional ban on gay marriage.  And the law is clear per SCOTUS decisions that the full faith and credit clause does not apply to enforcing foreign state gay marriages. So, SCOTUS would have to invoke Kennedy's theory of fundamental liberty rights that he invented, or SCOTUS would have to stretch yet farther the reach of the equal protection clause. Neither is likely to happen, even though it happened surprisingly enough with the California Supreme Court.

[Brittain33]

I don't see how SCOTUS could strike down a Consitutional ban on gay marriage.

There's an implied "[state]" in there. The Federal Marriage Amendment would mean game over, clearly.

Yes, it would involve Kennedy sailing in to save the day or more dramatic changes to the Supreme Court's membership than are currently predictable.

[Free Palestine]

The Federal Marriage Amendment is exactly why I oppose federal fiddling around with same-sex marriage.  If the federal government can legalize same-sex marriage, we can easily get someone in there that could ban it.  If marriage is left to the states, it can be preserved in those states where it's legal, not subject to a pen-stroke by someone elected by a quarter of the voting age population.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

[Brittain33]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

The Virginia law overturned in Loving went beyond any of the current DOMA bans because it criminalized interracial marriage. I wanted to ask if you disagreed with Loving, because it federalized a right to marry regardless of race, but I needed to make it a hypothetical Loving involving merely an anti-interracial "DOMA" because I don't believe any libertarian would ever defend a law that criminalized a marriage like this.

[Free Palestine]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

The Virginia law overturned in Loving went beyond any of the current DOMA bans because it criminalized interracial marriage. I wanted to ask if you disagreed with Loving, because it federalized a right to marry regardless of race, but I needed to make it a hypothetical Loving involving merely an anti-interracial "DOMA" because I don't believe any libertarian would ever defend a law that criminalized a marriage like this.

The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't ban anything.  It just prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages of other states, which was the driving force behind the movement for a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.  The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the bill was simply put there to appease the right-wingers.

As for Loving, I disagree with the court decision.  Not because I support anti-miscegenation laws, but because I have a different view about the nature of sovereignty in the United States.  Only the people of Virginia have the right to decide the laws of Virginia.  I as a Californian can condemn their racial policy all I want, but as a Californian I have no say in the matter.

I am a libertarian, but I feel that liberty and equality can and should only be implemented if the people support it.  That wasn't the case in Virginia, and it isn't the case with same-sex marriage in the South today.

[Brittain33]

The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't ban anything.  It just prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages of other states, which was the driving force behind the movement for a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.  The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the bill was simply put there to appease the right-wingers.

Again, there as an implied "[state]" there that didn't make the leap from my brain to other people's. When I talk about DOMA in the context of a new Loving, I refer to a state DOMA which does explicitly ban same-sex marriage.

The real DOMA does prevent the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, including my own, so it does ban federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Without DOMA, I'd be filing as married on my taxes.

[Verily]

I am a libertarian, but I feel that liberty and equality can and should only be implemented if the people support it.  That wasn't the case in Virginia, and it isn't the case with same-sex marriage in the South today.

In other words, you're not a libertarian. You're a populist.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am a libertarian, but I feel that liberty and equality can and should only be implemented if the people support it.  That wasn't the case in Virginia, and it isn't the case with same-sex marriage in the South today.

In other words, you're not a libertarian. You're a populist.

Yeah I must say I was having doubts about his supposed libertarianism myself.

[Free Palestine]

The Defense of Marriage Act doesn't ban anything.  It just prevents states from having to recognize same-sex marriages of other states, which was the driving force behind the movement for a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.  The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman in the bill was simply put there to appease the right-wingers.

Again, there as an implied "[state]" there that didn't make the leap from my brain to other people's. When I talk about DOMA in the context of a new Loving, I refer to a state DOMA which does explicitly ban same-sex marriage.

The real DOMA does prevent the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, including my own, so it does ban federal marriage rights for same-sex couples. Without DOMA, I'd be filing as married on my taxes.

Ideally nobody's marriage would be recognized by the federal government.  Marriage is a state matter, and in my personal view government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A mix of the two, not explicitly one or the other.

[Brittain33]

Ideally nobody's marriage would be recognized by the federal government.  Marriage is a state matter, and in my personal view government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.

Marriage has salience for issues that even libertarians acknowledge are federal only: immigration, naturalization, soldiers' families, and the taxes needed to sustain even a tiny government.

I understand how libertarians hold this up as the ideal--but given that it will never happen--is a situation where those rights are held up for a popular vote and some groups excluded really a libertarian goal?

[Хahar 🤔]

[nclib]

Civil rights are inherent and should not be decided by "the people".. instead they should be protected by the government, "the people" be damned.

Government is instigated by the people.

Indeed.. unfortunately, representative democracy with strong checks and balances is about the best system we have for now.... because it does allow for social change, albeit slow social change.

But when it comes to civil rights, I do not believe they are earned or that they are a privilege.. I believe they are a basic human right and that no constitution, lawmaking body, or citizenry has the right to infringe upon them.  These rights transcend human civilization and government.

If we're voting on a highway system or a new national park... the people should have a strong input.  When it comes to my personal sexual orientation or whom I wish to marry, the government has no right to tell me no.. and giving preference to one group over another is inherently wrong... again, the will of the people be damned.  I don't care if 51% hate gays.  That 51% doesn't have any right to rule when it comes to civil rights.  End of story.

Exactly. In the past 6 years, 31 states have had a referendum on whether a certain group of people should be recognized as married, should they desire to be, even though legalize gay marriage has no direct effect on anyone else's marriage. No other issue has been on state ballots anywhere close to as much, though plenty of those issues are much more appropriate for a referendum.

[Free Palestine]

I must say that was kind of funny.

[Хahar 🤔]

Ideally nobody's marriage would be recognized by the federal government.  Marriage is a state matter, and in my personal view government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.

I think you need to remember that states are governments, too.

[Free Palestine]

Ideally nobody's marriage would be recognized by the federal government.  Marriage is a state matter, and in my personal view government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage at all.

I think you need to remember that states are governments, too.

That's what I meant.