Yes, there is a lot here, and much of it is very decisive.
kylemittskus wrote:A fair question. And one that is larger than it seems, I think. Chem touched a bit on what my surely longer post will say.
I think there are two questions that are more important to answer first. What do you see the job of the Supreme Court being and in what column, if you will, do you see gay marriage?
SC; to protect the Constitution and insure the constitutionally of laws and cases presented to and accepted by it.
"Marriage", to me, is a religious and not civil construct for the union of a man and a woman. The government originally became involved with the issuance of "marriage licenses" for political reasons to prevent black/white unions.
A "civil union" {corrected, CA has domestic partnerships,DP's} as we have in CA, confers all the rights and privileges of "marriage" to same-sex couples.
I hope that the SC and its justices see their job as protecting civil rights. States have the right to make and mandate laws as they'd like as long as they don't interfere with civil rights.
Within the bounds of the Constitution, I believe we generally agree.
And in my very unhumble opinion -- and this is where, I think, the debate becomes quite large and emotional -- that the right to benefit from "marriage" to whomever one wants is a civil right. Indeed, the Constitution does not name homosexuals as a protected class, but it didn't name black/Mexican/women as protected classes either. That is, until it did. I see this as the last brick that needs to be removed in a large wall preventing civil rights. I'm sure others will emerge, but I can't imagine any more bricks being added to the wall for a while.
The suppression of Blacks was very real, as was the abolition of slavery. Clearly civil rights issues. Woman's suffrage also rises to that stature. However, what's with Mexican? You lost me there, unless you are addressing race, ethnicity or National origin, then we agree; protected class, only if legally in the country.
Regarding "whomever one wants" we currently do have laws restricting marriage between close relatives. We ~had~ politically motivated laws prohibiting marriage of black/white couples; fortunately those were seen as violations of civil rights and were overturned.
If a state wanted to outlaw a black man marrying a white woman, should we (i.e.: should the courts) allow that?
Racial discrimination as already been addressed.
What if a state wanted to disallow a 55 year old woman from marrying a 58 year old man? (An argument made in the current case suggested that ga.y marriage doesn't serve the states' interests because children won't be a product. The issues in that argument are absolutely incredible and quite funny actually, but it was argued.)
That was a rather amusing diversion. There were also a few other positions taken, by both sides, that would have been best not voiced.
I think that some states' and counties' laws are insane, but I don't think they impede civil rights (dry counties for example absolutely blow my mind).
Indeed! But they are States and they do have that right. Fortunately, we also have the right to chose where we reside, and travel freely within the States.
I think -- and it has been suggested many times before -- that the SC should change the title of what the gov't recognizes as a legal union. Everyone gets civilly united and with it come all of the benefits (tax, death, insurance, etc.). I think it's absurd but people want so badly to hang on to an inherently meaningless word. And if that's the issue, then let them keep the 8 letters and they can stop preventing people from doing things that don't affect other people in the least.
I think this is esactly how proponents of traditional male/female marriage see this issue. It seems it is the in-your-face gay community that is forcing these issues and these cases, resulting in elevated emotions for those on both sides.
I work on a University campus; we have a very diverse group and are tolerant and accepting of all, without regard to personal views.
Edit: I'd like to add that I think the outcome will be that the SC doesn't make a ruling. This will make marriage legal in CA (reverting to the 9th's decision), but illegal in the majority of states. In that case, we have issues of recognition that were so well explained above by andrea above.
I believe you are correct and that reflects my current thinking as well, and that takes us back to States Rights, and there have already been SC rulings regarding how conflicts in state laws are to be resolved.
