Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[TripletDaddy]

I'd go to Cody for a carnival

[CardiacCoug]

I support gay marriage and I agree that it is a much more true claim that polygamy is "traditional marriage" than the form of marriage we have today in the U.S. is "traditional marriage." Also, I'm fine with legalizing polygamy. I pretty much always have been.



It's funny how many constitutional scholars there are now among the Republican party. It's not a new concept that the Constitution might protect citizens' marriage as a liberty interest that can't be deprived without due process of law (i.e., legislative authorization). It's a principle found in Loving v. Virginia and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, among others. It's a little disingenous to me for people to be arguing on one hand that marriage is such a sacred institution and fundamental part of our society that extending it to gays would lead to its devaluation and destruction, while on the other hand claiming that marriage is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Seems a little inconsistent to me.

I've been a lawyer for 18 years. I've handled more than 50 appeals over the years (among other trial-level work). I've litigated civil rights case. I don't pretend to be a constitutional scholar. But reading the actual opinion, and reading informed commentary and analysis of the opinion, I don't get the sense that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, as is being argued vehemently by many around here. The ruling seems consistent with my understanding of Constitutional principles. I get the impression that a lot of people (not saying you or anyone else here) are just throwing around "due process" and "fourteenth amendment" and "legislating from the bench" because that's what the political honks are throwing out right now, trusting that they know what they're talking about.

I'm more of a big picture person. I recall a line from the Declaration of Independencs as follows: To me, the Declaration of Independence contains the very basic principles underlying the break from England and formation of the United States. I would have a hard time rationally arguing that marriage to the spouse of my choice does not fall under the "inalienable rights" endowed by the Creator of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But I guess technically you're right about same sex marriage not being in the Constitution; the court found it's guaranteed by the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.



States can make laws (and draft state constitutions) so long as they don't limit the rights of their citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments. The Supreme Court has now officially ruled (I think correctly) that the denial of gays the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice is prohibited by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. That's entirely consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, as I understand it.

A lot of the criticism of this sort of decision, i.e., "where in the Constitution does it guarantee gay marriage?", seems to be based upon a false premise, that we are some sort of code-based system of government, like they have (so my law professor taught me) in France. As I understand it, any rights and prohibitions in a code-based are specifically spelled out. Maybe there are those who would like that sort of clarity, but man, that seems like it can become unwieldy pretty quickly. We're a constitution-based government, which as I understand it means we're governed more by core principles and rely on the checks and balances of the three branches of government to sort out exactly what those principles really mean, as questions and issues come up. That's exactly what happened here. Gay marriage isn't something that was an issue for the Founding Fathers, so it wasn't spelled out in the Constitution. But the process put in place by the Constitution has worked to get us to this point.

Far from evidence of a broken system, the Obergefell decision is evidence that it's working.



It was both due process and equal protection, with the Court noting that the two are so often intertwined.

As for the tax exempt status, what part of the Constitution guarantees churches tax-exempt status?



Honestly, to me that's beautifully stated and I think as years pass it will be seen as a particularly eloquent discussion of marriage and one of the great conclusions to a Supreme Court decision.



That's what it comes down to. The basic principles that our government is based on is the equality of the citizens. I don't know why people work so hard to try to treat any group of person as lesser (other than criminals - society can't allow one citizen to harm another without repurcussion).



The tide of public opinion has changed significantly over the last 20 years. That isn't just because people with one opinion have died, and others with another opinion have matured. People holding one opinion have necessarily changed to now hold a different opinion, over time. I'm not sure why this is a criticism of anyone, including the President of the United States - that their opinion about gay marriage has changed with the passage of time. It happens. People learn and experience things, and they change their opinions.

Oh, and shame on you for believing what a politician says he thinks is really what he thinks. You should know better by now.



Well, I think he should be a little embarrassed about forgetting the prior decisions where the right to marry was found to be a fundamental interest protected by the due process clause.







Just because you don't support a legal idea doesn't mean it's not. I thought Justice Kennedy spelled it out pretty well in the opinion.

Good stuff SoCal.

The "Republican constitutional scholar" stuff reminds me of the way I'm occasionally told by some retired ophthalmologist who works for an insurance company that a potentially life-saving heart procedure isn't covered.

From a physical and psychological distance it's actually pretty easy for these insurance docs to tell these patients they can't be helped. But I guarantee if that doc had to sit in the room with a patient and family and tell them that his company would make hundreds of millions of dollars that year but was going to let the patient die in the name of profit they would chicken out.

Would any of the CS constitutional scholars with his wife really sit down with a gay couple and to their faces say "I'm sorry but you know the constitution and legal precedent blah blah blah and so you're not worthy to get married like us?

I'm pretty sure even LA Ute wouldn't have the balls to do that because he'd know in his heart it would be wrong and mean.

Who cares about insurance company rules and similar legal nonsense? Right is right and wrong is wrong.

[TripletDaddy]

Just to clarify there are zero con law scholars on this site to my knowledge. Everyone is simply conjecturing or, as SoCal pointed out, parroting what is being said on the news. If Erwin chemerinsky is posting here, please reveal yourself to the group!

[falafel]

Just to clarify there are zero con law scholars on this site to my knowledge. Everyone is simply conjecturing or, as SoCal pointed out, parroting what is being said on the news. If Erwin chemerinsky is posting here, please reveal yourself to the group!

I'm a disciple of Chemerinksy. He taught my BarBri course, in person. Who can top that?

[hostile]

I'd go to Cody for a carnival

The Buffalo Bill Art Show is coming up in August. It's a pretty fun fund raiser for the museum.

[Moliere]

Ted Cruz claims to be a constitutional scholar along with several of my FB friends that went to third tier law schools

[LA Ute]

I'd go to Cody for a carnival

I am the flame, you are the moth.

[LA Ute]

Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

Here is a shot of the Lincoln Memorial, viewed over the WWII Memorial. (I'm heretonight, running.) I must report that it is impossible to sustain a negative thought in this setting, even after two really bad SCOTUS decisions in the last three days.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I've spent more time than I care to admit going through LDS related FB posts about the whole same sex marriage thing. Such an interesting view into the congregation.

[Donuthole]

I've spent more time than I care to admit going through LDS related FB posts about the whole same sex marriage thing. Such an interesting view into the congregation.

Utes and schadenfreude, I'm tellin' ya.

[TripletDaddy]

I am the flame, you are the moth.

Congratulations you can now marry other flames!

[DrumNFeather]

Congratulations you can now marry other flames!

#LoveWins

[Nakoma]

I'm a disciple of Chemerinksy. He taught my BarBri course, in person. Who can top that?

I was taught ConLaw by Rex Lee. Stuff it.

[SoCalCoug]

I was taught ConLaw by Rex Lee. Stuff it.

Mike Lee was our Moot Court Board's little brother/mascot. We used to let him hang out with us in the Board Office sometimes.

Actually, I did then and always will consider him a friend, even though I dislike his politics. He introduced me to his father shortly before his death. Like his father, he is a good man.

[jay santos]

I'm glad it's over. My teenage/young adult kids and nearly all their LDS friends are for gay marriage rights. These are kids growing up in some of the most conservative LDS communities you will find. My kids are thoroughly confused at the arguments my Fox News loving wife makes on this point. This issue has caused a lot of cog dis for the younger generation of this church, because it just doesn't make sense to them that their church would be so unnecessarily aggressive on this point. It was only going to get worse as it was obvious the church was on the wrong side of this. Let's move on and try to pretend it never happened.