Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[Taliseian]

The heart of the ruling, as I think I understand it, is really very simple.

 

The plaintiffs were legally married in a state that allows for SSM, then went back home to their state that didn't recognize it.  One spouse was hospitalized and later died and the other spouse was denied hospital visits as should be allowed a family member, death benefits, and even the right to have his name listed as the deceased spouse on the death certificate.

 

This was all about granting SSM the same rights and protections as marriage.  The SCOTUS looked at the case and found that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause covered this.

 

Civil Unions in some states did not meet the Equal Protection clause.  They were found to be "separate, but equal", which has long been considered unconstitutional.

 

The ruling did NOT grant any legality to polygamy, paedofilia, bestiality, or necrofilia - which has long been a scare tactic of the extreme right.  This ruling only affected same sex consenting adults of legal age.  Since marriage is more a legal contract, none of the parties mentioned can legally enter into such agreement, therefore this decision makes no changes in those conditions.

 

As an aside, the use of any religious argument would be in violation of the First Amendment, because in order to become married you not only need to find a willing pastor/church (if you wanted to be involved in a religious marriage ceremony), you also need to get a license by the local government.  If the court used a religious background for their ruling, it would of been a case of the government recognizing a specific religion over any other, which is against our Freedom of Religion Amendment.

 

 

T

[Dot Matrix]

[Clirion]

The more Islam is offender, the better.  Also, same sex couples were getting married way before the Christian church was even thought of, let alone came into being and decided to ban it.

 

(Just for a correction on this subject.)  The Christian Church was not the first to ban it.  At least in Western Law traditions that honor would belong to Emperor Augustus the 1st. This was part of the Pax Romana program for him.   I think we can safely say that he was no Christian (The religion did not exist during his reign as other than a fringe movement at the end of his Reign.)

[FloatingFatMan]

(Just for a correction on this subject.)  The Christian Church was not the first to ban it.  At least in Western Law traditions that honor would belong to Emperor Augustus the 1st. This was part of the Pax Romana program for him.   I think we can safely say that he was no Christian (The religion did not exist during his reign as other than a fringe movement at the end of his Reign.)

 

So? It predates the Romans, too.

[techbeck]

States who do this just shows the world which ones are living in the past and which ones are willing to move forward.  They can say they will deny gay marriage and they may do just that....but will hurt them in the long run.  Same with the political figures would speak out against it or the government officials.  It is getting more and more accepted in society to be gay and more people are coming out and admitting they are.  Its going to happen one way or another in time and just delaying the inevitable.

 

And gay marriage really has nothing to do with religion.  Religion is just something people against gay marriage do to justify their reasoning/actions.  This is a human/civil decision and should be treated as such.

[+DoctorD Subscriber²]

Just looking at this from a legal standpoint, that when a decision was decided by the US Supreme Court I was unaware that it was optional for states to opt out.  With the recent confederate flag issue and now two SCOTUS decisions that these southern states are seething over something tells me its a matter of time before a large group of nutjobs tries to start something.

[Clirion]

So? It predates the Romans, too.

 

I assume you meant Same Sex Marriage as Christianity did not exist before the Roman Empire.

 

What I was correcting was the line I quoted.  "It was Legal until the Christians came along and banned it."

One of the most Powerful Empires in the Western World banned it before the Christians even existed, let alone had the political clout/ability to effect that kind of change.  Also that Roman tradition is the basis for the Laws that affect the Western World. 

[Clirion]

I bet all of this is over in 23 days.  Technically an order from the SCOTUS has a 25 day period for the lower courts to handle any framework to go with it. 

That clock started ticking when the decision was read.

 

I bet everything dies down after 23 days.  Everyone will have their sound byte, and we can finally get about the business of actually governing the people, instead of making remarks to our respective bases.

[DefyTheOutcome]

Some points in this thread have been so gruesomely beaten to death that it is becoming painful to see them again.

 

Anyway, this is about one thing. The Supreme Court has ruled that SSM must be recognized by all states and that SSM bans at the states level are unconstitutional.

 

This is how the constitution works and the clause 2 of the sixth amendment works. Once decisions or laws have been enacted at the federal level, it takes precedence over anything the states might have before.

This is why the 6th amendment is called the Supremacy amendment. Federal Level > State Level > City Level.

 

The states and the attorney generals are required by the constitution they have to uphold to follow and implement the Supreme Court decision.

 

So, whenever I see that, my blood boils

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/states-gay-marriage_n_7683480.html

 

County clerks in Texas will be able to turn away gay couples seeking marriage licenses, the state's attorney general Ken Paxton ® announced on Sunday.

Clerks can refuse based on religious objections, Paxton told the Austin American-Statesman, and because the clerks will probably be sued, "numerous lawyers stand ready to assist clerks defending their religious beliefs," he said.

 

These clerks are here to apply the laws of the land, not discuss it or refuse to implement it. These laws can be dumb, can be stupid, can be against whatever beliefs one has, it does not matter, this is not their job to discuss them. If the Texas AG wants to squander the budget money of Texas into frivolous lawsuits, he can and he will fail miserably.

 

It is the job of congresses to make laws and the supreme courts to validate them or not against the constitution. It worked for the last 200 years and all the sore losers who want to get rid of the Supreme Court because they are crying over the decision can continue to expose themselves as the bigots and hypocrites they are.

[Nerd Rage]

reading the comments in this thread, I find it quite ironic that people who are seemingly pro-gay marriage and have fought to have their rights recognized are blasting southerners (using insults and such) who are just trying to achieve the same goal in that they are trying to not have their beliefs stepped on.  Just because you don't agree with peoples' lines of thinking or beliefs doesn't mean they should not have the same rights everyone else does.  The gay community and gay rights supporters should know that more than most, but it seems to get lost now somehow.

[PGHammer]

Some points in this thread have been so gruesomely beaten to death that it is becoming painful to see them again.

 

Anyway, this is about one thing. The Supreme Court has ruled that SSM must be recognized by all states and that SSM bans at the states level are unconstitutional.

 

This is how the constitution works and the clause 2 of the sixth amendment works. Once decisions or laws have been enacted at the federal level, it takes precedence over anything the states might have before.

This is why the 6th amendment is called the Supremacy amendment. Federal Level > State Level > City Level.

 

The states and the attorney generals are required by the constitution they have to uphold to follow and implement the Supreme Court decision.

 

So, whenever I see that, my blood boils

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/states-gay-marriage_n_7683480.html

 

 

 

These clerks are here to apply the laws of the land, not discuss it or refuse to implement it. These laws can be dumb, can be stupid, can be against whatever beliefs one has, it does not matter, this is not their job to discuss them. If the Texas AG wants to squander the budget money of Texas into frivolous lawsuits, he can and he will fail miserably.

 

It is the job of congresses to make laws and the supreme courts to validate them or not against the constitution. It worked for the last 200 years and all the sore losers who want to get rid of the Supreme Court because they are crying over the decision can continue to expose themselves as the bigots and hypocrites they are.

 

Were Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson enforced nationwide?  Surprisingly, no.  Both SCOTUS rulings would, in fact, eventually get reversed.  What is needed is an implementation framework - which doesn't exist yet (and may never exist in some states).  All the ruling says is that you can't do things the "unconstitutional" way any more.  The onus is - correctly - on the state governments and the voters of the several states.  But until one or the other acts, it will take time.

 

You are insisting upon "immediacy".  Not even SCOTUS rulings work that way.  What's the rush?

[Nerd Rage]

 It worked for the last 200 years and all the sore losers who want to get rid of the Supreme Court because they are crying over the decision can continue to expose themselves as the bigots and hypocrites they are.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  This is what I'm talking about.  You are probably, when you say bigots and hypocrites, referring to the same people that would call gay people hate terms and use insults, but now you are not respecting their beliefs and insulting them.  It's a two way street, you can't say the anti-gay crowd has to respect the pro-gay crowd, but the respect doesn't have to run the opposite way back.  If you don't give respect, you usually won't get it in return.  You don't have to agree with people, but respect that some people might have differing belief systems....and that's OK.  The world would be boring if we were all sheep that believed the same thing.

[HawkMan]

reading the comments in this thread, I find it quite ironic that people who are seemingly pro-gay marriage and have fought to have their rights recognized are blasting southerners (using insults and such) who are just trying to achieve the same goal in that they are trying to not have their beliefs stepped on.  Just because you don't agree with peoples' lines of thinking or beliefs doesn't mean they should not have the same rights everyone else does.  The gay community and gay rights supporters should know that more than most, but it seems to get lost now somehow.

 

No one is taking or even trying to take any rights away from the religious guys, they're not even forcing them to do anything.  so what exactly are you talking about. 

[Memphis]

Pot, meet kettle.  This is what I'm talking about.  You are probably, when you say bigots and hypocrites, referring to the same people that would call gay people hate terms and use insults, but now you are not respecting their beliefs and insulting them.  It's a two way street, you can't say the anti-gay crowd has to respect the pro-gay crowd, but the respect doesn't have to run the opposite way back.  If you don't give respect, you usually won't get it in return.  You don't have to agree with people, but respect that some people might have differing belief systems....and that's OK.  The world would be boring if we were all sheep that believed the same thing.

 

 

I am just going to say it, not all opinions are created equal and frankly, any opinion which was to unnecessarily restrict the freedom of others is an opinion not worth respecting. If the anti-gay crowd had kept their beliefs within members and not tried to restrict the freedom of those who where no religious, this conversation would not be happening today.

[HawkMan]

Pot, meet kettle.  This is what I'm talking about.  You are probably, when you say bigots and hypocrites, referring to the same people that would call gay people hate terms and use insults, but now you are not respecting their beliefs and insulting them.  It's a two way street, you can't say the anti-gay crowd has to respect the pro-gay crowd, but the respect doesn't have to run the opposite way back.  If you don't give respect, you usually won't get it in return.  You don't have to agree with people, but respect that some people might have differing belief systems....and that's OK.  The world would be boring if we were all sheep that believed the same thing.

 

I'm sorry, but calling someone a bigot.

 

 

 

bigot

/?b???t/

noun

1.

a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, espon religion, politics, or race

 

is NOT the same as denying other people the same rights as you, and calling them hateful names, bigot in this case is a factual statement, so it's not even calling names. 

[PGHammer]

The heart of the ruling, as I think I understand it, is really very simple.

 

The plaintiffs were legally married in a state that allows for SSM, then went back home to their state that didn't recognize it.  One spouse was hospitalized and later died and the other spouse was denied hospital visits as should be allowed a family member, death benefits, and even the right to have his name listed as the deceased spouse on the death certificate.

 

This was all about granting SSM the same rights and protections as marriage.  The SCOTUS looked at the case and found that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause covered this.

 

Civil Unions in some states did not meet the Equal Protection clause.  They were found to be "separate, but equal", which has long been considered unconstitutional.

 

The ruling did NOT grant any legality to polygamy, paedofilia, bestiality, or necrofilia - which has long been a scare tactic of the extreme right.  This ruling only affected same sex consenting adults of legal age.  Since marriage is more a legal contract, none of the parties mentioned can legally enter into such agreement, therefore this decision makes no changes in those conditions.

 

As an aside, the use of any religious argument would be in violation of the First Amendment, because in order to become married you not only need to find a willing pastor/church (if you wanted to be involved in a religious marriage ceremony), you also need to get a license by the local government.  If the court used a religious background for their ruling, it would of been a case of the government recognizing a specific religion over any other, which is against our Freedom of Religion Amendment.

 

 

T

However, it does open the door to ALL the above - as long as so much as ONE STATE recognized them all - the same would apply if state recognized so much as one individually - that same one would have to be recognized in the rest of the Union.  That was indeed the issue facing the Union with the Utah Territory - remember, Utah DID recognize polygyny/polygamy.  (The Equal Protection Clause has, in fact, been called the "One State Rule" - if a single state legalizes something, it CAN be made binding on the other 49 via the EPC - this was, in fact, the legal precedent for Loving v. Virginia.  The only reason this is not applicable to drug laws is that there is no interstate-commerce or multi-state component TO such laws.)  If Utah were to legalize polygamy, this ruling (and Loving v. Virginia) would force the rest of the United States to do so.  While I personally have as little problem with polygamy as I do with same-sex marriage, that opinion is NOT shared merely by all of Neowin - let alone all the United States - despite the reality that there IS Biblical precedent for polygamy.  All I am asking you to do is look at it from THAT perspective.

[firey]

So tell me, who is the Mr and who the Mrs, who is the bride and who is the groom? When they came up with the word marriage, it was not for couples of the same sex.

Does it matter? So.. lets say it's two men.. one is transgendered and identifies as a woman but was born a man.  They decide to get married (Man and Wo(Man)) one is the Mr and the other is a Mrs.. based on your throughts that is 100% OK.  But to have two "Mr." is wrong?

You are making up ###### based on a book, come on now.. it's 2015 grow up a little.  

[Nerd Rage]

I'm sorry, but calling someone a bigot.

 

 

is NOT the same as denying other people the same rights as you, and calling them hateful names, bigot in this case is a factual statement, so it's not even calling names. 

 

So by the definition, you are saying that the pro-gay crowd who are intolerant of the religious crowd's anti-gay beliefs are bigots?  If so, there are a lot of bigots in this thread....just sayin.

[Beyond Godlike]

You will note that definition has been altered in recent times to include "two people of the same sex". That was never the original definition. Over the course of history, homosexuality has never been largely accepted so to think that they would have had homosexuals marrying one another would have been nothing short of a travesty.

 

 

Was highly accepted before Christianity came around.  Back to school for you!

[firey]

I've got nothing against gay people and would never chose not to be befriend a gay person or do business with one because of their sexual orientation. I'm just of the opinion that marriage is something between a man and a woman and that should be respected.

I'm not sure why gay people protesting about not having had the right to get married like a man and woman have traditionally done, makes them feel like their love for their partner is any less or their life is somewhat incomplete because they're not married.

Bro.. most people now a days only get married because of the tax breaks, insurance breaks, all the legal perks of marriage.  Why should someones sexual orientation stop that?  My sister got married last year.  Her and her husband had the pastor read the most generic no bible quotes script for their marriage.  Their marriage was about them.. not some god, some bearded wonder, etc.  It was 100% a non religious thing.

[ATLien_0]

Its interesting seeing the religious / anti gay community saying their rights are being violated. I'm not saying they are bigots like others here. Sure if I was someone who was brought up very religious, believing every word of the bible I would understand why they are upset, it goes against everything they have been taught. BUT it still baffles me to this day that most of these people are the ones that preach about following the constitution, and yet they still forget about the whole separation of church and state as well as equality for all. When will people realize that christianity is not the constitution or the law of the land. Churches are not required to marry gays, and christianity is un affected. Gay marriage will likely have little impact on any of these people. 

[Beyond Godlike]

I bet all of this is over in 23 days.  Technically an order from the SCOTUS has a 25 day period for the lower courts to handle any framework to go with it. 

That clock started ticking when the decision was read.

 

I bet everything dies down after 23 days.  Everyone will have their sound byte, and we can finally get about the business of actually governing the people, instead of making remarks to our respective bases.

 

Yup..I bet the conservatives/evangelicals are just having tantrums for the next year or so and then theyll find a new group to hate.  Without the hate their lives would be pointless.  its just so funny that they keep debating it with incorrect facts and lies.  

[Nerd Rage]

Yup..I bet the conservatives/evangelicals are just having tantrums for the next year or so and then theyll find a new group to hate.  Without the hate their lives would be pointless.  its just so funny that they keep debating it with incorrect facts and lies.  

 

I wouldn't lump conservatives as a whole in there.  Yes, the evangelicals for the most part are conservative, but there are plenty of non-religious conservatives who have no issue with gay marriage.  The vocal minority always causes groups to get misrepresented.

[Draconian Guppy]

20 years ago it was legal to rape your wife, 200 years ago marriage was basically slavery where the woman wasn't an equal partner but a commodity to be traded, 2000 years ago child marriage was common as was polygamy.

 

Traditional marriage is a myth.

+1 more of a legal requirement in order to obtain benefitis in society (private insurance mostly :laugh )

[HawkMan]

So by the definition, you are saying that the pro-gay crowd who are intolerant of the religious crowd's anti-gay beliefs are bigots?  If so, there are a lot of bigots in this thread....just sayin.

 

Sigh. No.

 

I'm saying the anti gay crowd is ACTIVELY oppressing the gays, denying them the same rights they have.

 

the gay's are only asking to get the same rights, they're not oppressing anyone, they're not forcing us hetero's to be gay, they're not forcing churches or priests to marry them, they're just asking for the right to be married by the state and/or churches that aren't intolerant and support their right to be who they are born as.