freeman3 wrote: I am a bit confused about combining equal protection with due process (apparently procedural). Isnt't the problem that two groups of people, gay and non-gay, are being treated differently without a rational basis for doing so? It doesn't seem like the problem is judicial review before property is taken.

Well, first off Due Process isn't restricted to taking property. It is also relative to Liberty. However, that also shows even more the weakness of Kennedy's opinion.

I will address Danivon's comments tomorrow when I have a little more time. However, I will say that I think Scalia's dissent does handle the issue convincingly.

Here we are talking about how courts should not be deciding what they think marriage "should be" and for Ricky's example, he points to several states who had courts decide exactly the same thing. Once again, trying to use a situation only when it suits you. That made absolutely zero sense.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

freeman3 wrote: I am a bit confused about combining equal protection with due process (apparently procedural). Isnt't the problem that two groups of people, gay and non-gay, are being treated differently without a rational basis for doing so? It doesn't seem like the problem is judicial review before property is taken.

Well, first off Due Process isn't restricted to taking property. It is also relative to Liberty. However, that also shows even more the weakness of Kennedy's opinion.

The case was about inheritance tax being deducted at the death of a spouse, and suit to return the money because they were married (but in a gay marriage). So it was about property as well as liberty.

The worst thing to me: the anti-democratic bent of the Court.

To determine that two people who voted for Prop 8 had "no standing" permits ANY governor and/or attorney general to effectively determine the law of their States and gives them veto power over the people.

Now, you can argue the people can vote them out of office. Sure, but they raise their right hands and swear/affirm they will perform their duties. One of those duties is to ensure the will of the people, as evidenced at the ballot box, is done.

Imagine California voters approve an increase in sales tax and elect a Republican governor. He immediately issues an executive order that businesses shall not collect the tax. Democrats sue. The governor refuses to defend the State's tax in federal court. Democrats claim to have standing and argue before the USSC. The Supreme Court denies the suit for a lack of standing.

This is no way to run a democracy. In a state-wide vote, the whole electorate has standing.

tom

Here we are talking about how courts should not be deciding what they think marriage "should be" and for Ricky's example, he points to several states who had courts decide exactly the same thing. Once again, trying to use a situation only when it suits you. That made absolutely zero sense

I was not talking about how courts should or should not be deciding this... I was questioning you and Fates, refuge of "The definition of marriage".
First, because the primary thing that defines marriage is its nature as a legal contract. Which requires both laws and courts to uphold.
Second, because where you claim the definition of marriage has not changed ...it in fact, has. Legally in the states noted.
For the record; I don't agree that courts should not be involved in the process either. Without the intervention of SCOTUS in Loving V, there would have been continued discrimination against couple of different races....Was that a bad thing Tom?

Be that as it may, please note that in 3 states, statewide referendums upheld the change in marriage definition in those states.... So, in at least 3 states even the popular will was involved and the legal definition of marriage changed... (Which both you and Fate claimed would never happen...)

It has since been legalized in different jurisdictions through legislation, court ruling,[34] tribal council rulings,[35] and upheld by popular vote in a statewide referendum in three of these states.[36][37]

Please read and stop assuming. DF and I have both stated in the past that we are all for States determining what they will or will not allow. We are against the courts deciding what is best for us. California decided they did not want gay marriage (yet). Bring it up again in a few years and let the people decide. I have no doubt that in a few years time this would pass. But no, you insist the courts need to decide for us!

rickyp wrote:For the record; I don't agree that courts should not be involved in the process either. Without the intervention of SCOTUS in Loving V, there would have been continued discrimination against couple of different races....Was that a bad thing Tom?

Rickyp, life is like a hard drive, with an endless amount of information. You? You're like a 1 byte hard drive.

When you posted this drivel before, and also noted that homosexual marriage was now ascendent in many popularity polls, I asked if interracial marriage was in a similar state when the USSC decided Loving. You posted a chart that clearly showed it was NOT.

So, the situations are not entirely analogous. Homosexual marriage appears to have some popularity--the trend is its friend. You keep insisting the Court should intervene. That's an opinion. We've heard it. 3 billion times.

It doesn't make it right or wrong. But, it's officially noted. Now, please note the differences between Loving and homosexual marriage and move on, will you? In other words, most people can manage more than one argument. Please try that.

Be that as it may, please note that in 3 states, statewide referendums upheld the change in marriage definition in those states.... So, in at least 3 states even the popular will was involved and the legal definition of marriage changed... (Which both you and Fate claimed would never happen...)

Not true. I did say it "Had not happened." That was true at the time. I also noted the powers that be won't even allow a vote here (they've stopped it procedurally) because they've been afraid.

In any event, your love affair for Loving has been duly noted. It covers everything from homosexual marriage to burnt toast and global climate change. Got it.

Next?

and loving changed a LEGAL definition yet did nothing for the traditional definition. Nowhere did the dictionary at the time state marriage was between same race men and women. The courts changed some legalities that applied to traditional marriage. Now we see courts changing the entire definition of marriage not simply as to how state laws are applied to the institution.

But continue to hammer away at your loving case, it does not apply to what we have been stating, but maybe if you say it enough, it will make a difference?

tom

and loving changed a LEGAL definition yet did nothing for the traditional definition

The only one that matters materially is the legal definiton.

rickyp wrote:tom

and loving changed a LEGAL definition yet did nothing for the traditional definition

The only one that matters materially is the legal definiton.

And yet RickyP was not happy with the legal definition when it did not suit his" sensibilities. Does anyone else see the dichotomy?

danivon wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:

freeman3 wrote: I am a bit confused about combining equal protection with due process (apparently procedural). Isnt't the problem that two groups of people, gay and non-gay, are being treated differently without a rational basis for doing so? It doesn't seem like the problem is judicial review before property is taken.

Well, first off Due Process isn't restricted to taking property. It is also relative to Liberty. However, that also shows even more the weakness of Kennedy's opinion.

The case was about inheritance tax being deducted at the death of a spouse, and suit to return the money because they were married (but in a gay marriage). So it was about property as well as liberty.

Did I say it wasn't?

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Danivon wrote:The case was about inheritance tax being deducted at the death of a spouse, and suit to return the money because they were married (but in a gay marriage). So it was about property as well as liberty.

Did I say it wasn't?

No, and I wasn't claiming you did. I was adding to the conversation between you and freeman. The property aspect of due process has some relevance, because the case that prompted the USSC decision was about property (money). It is about - to an extent - the fair application of a tax. Just because someone replies to you does not mean they are disagreeing.

bbauska

And yet RickyP was not happy with the legal definition when it did not suit his" sensibilities. Does anyone else see the dichotomy

No.
The point I made about Toms reference to "Definition of marriage" has nothing to do with my feeeling about the appropriateness of the law.
It was simply to explain to Tom, that the definition had indeed changed. Period.

With regard to the definition of marriage, regardless of how it has been previously defined, I will go with human reason over what a human being who lived 2000 years ago (St Paul) says God says it is. As Dan has pointed out (or at least implied)it makes no sense not to allow divorce when there is violence in the home. But regardless of the human cost involved,no, we must abide by what a human being says what God says it is....There is a reason that hearsay is not allowed in court...
I don't mind whatever people need to believe to get through the day. The problem is when religion meets the political. When we seek to solve human problems that exist today, Christianity requires that solutions do not infringe tenets laid down 2000 years ago by human beings In far less advanced and different societies than ours. How is that reasonable?

freeman3 wrote:Christianity requires that solutions do not infringe tenets laid down 2000 years ago by human beings In far less advanced and different societies than ours. How is that reasonable?

Bah. My comments were not with regard to legal, but moral definitions. Again, believe what you want.

No one here wants to admit this, but the reasoning to make polyamory legal is already being touted by some libertarian thinkers. Again, why should a brother and sister not be able to marry? Two adults not hurting anyone else--let's say they sign a promise not to reproduce. Why should they be punished by the tax code?

It's all silly really. The goal is to change a definition of a word, based on emotion, without a care for the potential fallout. Again, the reasoning is all emotional and about as sound as that which preceded Prohibition.