Supreme Court Decisions

[jordan179]

I am glad that the Supreme Court sustained the legality of same-sex marriage across the country.  It is my profound belief, based on the logic that marriage is a mutual choice between any two people who decide to unite their lives in love, that marriage should not be only allowed between persons of opposite sexes.  Marriage is not purely for the

Comments

[igorilla]

All churches which refuse to wed the same sex couples going to lose their tax-free status

[hastka]

Why do you think so? By analogy, if even a heterosexual Jewish couple went to a Catholic church and said "please marry us," and the church refused to marry them (in accordance with Catholic beliefs), I don't see how the couple would have legal standing to sue the church, or why that would result in the church losing tax-exempt status.

[igorilla]

I'm not an American, so I've got no opinion.

Your arguments make sense to me, I'll bring them back to my American correspondents, thank you

[hastka]

All I can ask is that I "make sense" on occasion. :)

That concern is one which I think drives fear for a lot of people in the US. Certainly it's possible to attempt such a lawsuit, but I don't grasp the mechanisms by which it would play out. Thanks for your own understanding and response.

[hastka]

I completely agree on the marriage topic... as much as I'm not immediately impacted by it myself, as you said it feels like a movement away from legislation by morality, which I think is about 50 years overdue at this point

[jordan179]

Oh, the way it was done was possibly bad in Constitutional concerns. But that's nothing compared to what the Supreme Court did regarding Obamacare, which essentially strips the Congress of much of its power to pass legislation. When they write The Fall of the American Republic, centuries from now, that's going to be one of the key bad decisions.

[ford_prefect42]

Here are the problems with what you wrote here regarding the Obamacare decision:

1) In the specific context of the intent of the legislation, the "state exchanges" language was intended to force the states to *set up* exchanges in order to reap the benefits of the subsidies. It was *intended* that no federal exchange was to be set up. Claiming otherwise is simply dishonest, so this ruling specifically *over-ruled* the intent of the legislature.

2) All of the practice of law is "word-mincing". Without "word-mincing", any law can mean anything. That road leads to the purest of all possible hells. It's the very definition of "the rule of men" rather than "the rule of law".

Make no mistake, this was a terrible decision that will have truly horrific repercussions.

[jordan179]

2) All of the practice of law is "word-mincing". Without "word-mincing", any law can mean anything. That road leads to the purest of all possible hells. It's the very definition of "the rule of men" rather than "the rule of law"

Indeed -- it's very much not a good thing that the Supreme Court did this, because in practice, when the law is that uncertain, it enhances the power of the Executive. (They may think it's the Courts, but the survivors won't think so after some power explcitly only intended against foreign enemies gets used to scrag the dissidents in some important future Court decision that might go against an Emeperor).

[montieth]

I am rather less pleased with the logical basis used to reach this conclusion and how they compare to the words used to dissent in McDonald v Chicago.

It's substantially less dignified for someone who travels to DC or New York with a licensed handgun than it is for the plaintiffs in Obergfell v Hodges. But that mattered not when the issue of unequal treatment by the states of a right that has been incorporated to them via the 14th was brought before the court.

[montieth]

Example A

[montieth]

Example B

[eta_ta]

First - I don't really care, it doesn't concern me. Altogether I thought the issue was blown out of proportion: if they want to live together, they don't need official status and paper with a stamp. If the problem is in unequal benefits/legal rights, there is a "civil partnership" status that takes care of all that. But - generally - I am fine either way.

Much more important - and devastating - is the second decision, about Healthcare Act. More so since I don't place any hope on Republicans, if they happen to win next election.

[jordan179]

Oh, yes. The decision on Obamacare means that we can't count on tyrannically-passed laws being thrown out on procedural grounds -- we'll have to instead specifically repeal them. Which is much more difficult.

Thankfully, Executive Orders can simply be countermanded by any President, no judicial or legislative intervention required. So most of Obama's horrible legacy is still built on sand.

[montieth]

"First - I don't really care, it doesn't concern me. "

Making up rights out of whole cloth with unsupported case law WILL affect you. You've just not seen how it can. The ability to make new rights out of hand-wavium will affect you.

As you rightly point out with the healthcare law (Burwell v King) there is piles of bad precedent there too.

[benschachar_77]

"Marriage is not purely for the purpose of sexual reproduction: if that were the case, then what of marriages between people of which at least one is infertile?"

Yes actually it is. The difference is that the infertility is a malfunction while homosexuality was never meant to be in any conceivable.

The government has an interest in love, that's borderline nonsensical.

"I like the idea of same-sex marriages. Why should same-sex couples be denied the honorable resolution of their courtship in marriage?"

Because it's unnatural, maybe. Because marriage is also religious to some. Because half of them are actually trying to undermine it by writing exclusivity out of their vows.

[jordan179]

You're ignoring the obvous companionate, economic, political and romantic purposes of marriage. "A purpose of marriage is sexual reproduction" (true) does not logically imply "the ONLY PURPOSE of marriage is sexual reproduction," which is what you are trying to argue.

[benschachar_77]

Yeah but we had civil unions for that sort of thing.

I also take issue with the for love argument because if love is all that matters why stop at homosexuals? Why not allow polygamy, incest, and bestiality. If gratification is only what is important then you open the floodgates for a whole host of weirdness.

[jordan179]

Assuming informed adult consent on all sides, why do polygamy, incest and inter-species unions bother you so deeply? What harm would they do to those not involved in them?