One of my favorite early West Wing bits.

I need to watch more of that show.

I'm still mad at the hyperbole that people actually believe allowing two people who aren't a man and a woman to get married would force their church to perform the ceremony. A hetero couple can't go into any house of worship or faith and demand to be married, so why would that be any different for any other couple? Even for people who follow or practice a faith that are an opposite sex couple can't get married just for being baptized or members.

Maybe California will get it right this time and not let outside money from the Land of Zion influence the state vote.

Politics and lawsuits.

Want the Catholic Church to stop begging for the right to not adopt to gay couples and then screeching discrimination when they're being paid state money. They can't refuse to adopt to non-Catholics, why should they be allowed to discriminate on state time.

I oppose "gay marriage" but believe it is the States right to make whatever laws they believe is in the best interest of the people who live within their borders so long as these laws do not disregard or trample on the Bill of Rights. So, in that same vain, I believe it is perfectly fine for a State to outlaw abortion and/or limit its scope. I do not believe that laws of one state should/would necessarily bind other states.

Well, the Bill of Rights protects a woman's right to choose and guarantees equal protection under the law...

All I'm going to say is the Catholic Church needs to handle their issues about moving priests who have abused people to new areas before they start dealing with marriage or adoption, or they will be bankrupt from the lawsuits it won't matter what they think or feel about marriage or adoption.

I do know that in many places Mormons have to have a wedding by a judge or at a court house because their temple weddings (sealings for all eternity) are not "public" and therefore temple weddings where only Mormons with a temple recommend are present are not legally valid. For those who don't live near a temple there may be a legal marriage long before a religious marriage.

Where? The Bill of Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Which one gives a woman the right to choose?

Well it was argued by the court during Roe v Wade that either the 9th or the 14th amendment gave it. It gets confusing unless you are a student of the law.

Not trying to make any friends in here I see.

Why the Bill of Rights? It's not a super-Constitution; it's part of the Constitution, no more and no less important or binding, legally speaking.

The right to choose, according to the Supreme Court, is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, though the case law on that issue, and on the broader right to privacy, sometimes invoke the Ninth Amendment. That amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, states that the fact that only some rights are enumerated in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean that the government can violate other, non-enumerated rights that the people have.


I agree, though, with what some others have said: that this is an issue made much more complicated by the way civil marriage and religious marriage are intertwined and entangled in our current system. I think that's why this isn't the problem in, say, Catholic Spain that it can be here -- in Spain, a civil marriage is a completely seperate thing from a religious marriage, and the civil marriage is the only one that has any legal effect. Here, a religious marriage has legal effect.

I always wondered about that. To me the process for recognition here in the US is more Civil than Religious in respect that you must have a license, must be married in the US to make it legal, and in some states must be done 30 days from filing the license for it to be recognized. Don't know from state to state, but it seems for some of the states I have experience with, it could be argued that the recognition has nothing to do with religion but by an state recognized officiant.

That's why i say this whole thing is political because certain interest see gay marriage as against their financial interest.

Against whose financial interest is it?

On Maddow's show, she mentioned that gay marriage is expected to pump a little over $100 million into NYC's economy, in part because NY State has no residency requirement for getting married. To me, it seems like it's in a lot of people's financial interests.

The bolded is what I'm talking about. In every state, so far as I know, a religion-related officiant (priest, minister, rabbi . . . ) is a state-recognized and state-empowered officiant, so that the religion-related officiant's participation in the marriage ceremony (and signature on the marriage license) makes the marriage legally recognized and legally binding.

In many countries, this is not the case. In Spain, to continue the example I was using, a church wedding means that the couple are married in the eyes of the church, but they are not married in the eyes of the state. They must be married by a civil authority for the state to consider them married. So what happens is that to get married, a couple goes first to the civil authority (the magistrate's office or whatever) and gets married civilly. They then go to the church for the religious ceremony, if they want that.

Hardly a scientific survey, I know, but almost every member of the clergy I have heard express an opinion on the subject dislikes the way we do things here. They dislike being agents of the state and would rather keep civil marriage and religious marriage separate.

This decision is controversial and I believe it tramples on states rights. It also does not recognize the child as a viable being/person deserving protection. It is all opinion and hence the reason I stated specifically the Bill of Rights and not all amendments. It is the reading/interpretation of the amendments that I disagree with. I suspect that if Roe v. Wade were to come up now a different opinion might be forthcoming. I simply do not read the 14th as the court did. The 9th has been ruled to not have bearing on abortion so that argument is most probably moot.

The XIV Amendment also states "without due process" so one may be denied life, liberty etc if the States deem it. States restrict polygamy, bigamy, drugs, gambling (I can't legally gamble in NC, does this restrict liberty?) and many other actions so my reasoning is that a State can make a law restricting abortion. Hence the same argument which has haunted us since the decision was handed down. What is "due process", really? Books have been written on this so we will not resolve it in these threads.

Bottom line with me is that I would support a States right to abolish abortion as well as a States right to allow abortion and anything in between. I would not, however, live in the State that allowed it if it were truly an option available. Same with "gay marriage" as it should be up to the States.

I line up with White and Reinquist in their dissents. IMO this was Judicial activism with no true Constitutional foundation. The Justices should have left it to the States as it was at the time.

There is no question that the decision in Roe is controversial, nor is there any question that lots of legal scholars -- including many who support abortion rights -- think that Roe is terrible decision, both in its legal analysis and its jurisprudence. That said, it's still (at least in part) valid precedent, so whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it or not, it's the law and will be the law until the Supreme Court reverses its position or the Constitution is amended.

But I still don't get why you singled out the Bill of Rights as opposed to all amendments. The amendments that come after the Bill of Rights amend the entire Contitution, including (often) the Bill of Rights. The question shouldn't be "does it violate the Bill of Rights"; it should be "does it violate the Constitution." By what legal basis do the Bill of Rights take precedence over the rest of the Constitution?

Yes, but also in many states, the person does not have to be religious as well be it a justice of the peace, judge, ship captain (LOL) that's why I said it could be argued we are not so much in bed with religion as we think we are sometimes.

That's nice, Maddow is biased so I take her opinion and counter with another opinionated source that is contrary, Fox News (LOL); the cost it places on healthcare to cover domestic partners and blah blah.

I'm sure somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer it better.

I'm under the understanding that the current legal precedent is set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Well, she had to get those numbers from somewhere. :D

This is from the New York Daily News--hardly a hotbed of elite liberalism:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...ge-gay-couples

Their projection--$184 million--is a little higher than I've heard.

My question remains--in whose "best financial interest" is it to not legalize gay marriage? The cost it would take to cover same-sex partners isn't that much more than it would be now, considering most gay households consist of dual-income earners (both of whom typically carry their own insurance).

That's the key in your article.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...e=domesticNews

We really don't know, but the key in this article is this.

"Parties on both sides of the issue frequently invoke the hypothetical economic impact of same-sex marriage, Leonard pointed out, so the influx of real-world data from New York could go a long way toward changing those hypotheticals into concrete facts."

Like I said, somebody smarter and more opinionated on the counter can answer the question better than I can.

This is the crux of the issue for my family members (evangelical Christians) who are vehemently opposed to the legal recognition of any marriage other than one man and one woman.

I think that they are most angry, for several reasons.

1) They feel that the values they consider fundamental to this country are doing down the drain.

2) They feel that proponents of the "Gay Agenda" (both gay advocates and allies) are pushing to legislate acceptance, which is something they will never do.

3) They simply refuse to separate civil partnership from religious marriage.

When I've suggested that, perhaps, we should begin moving in the direction of civil partnerships for all (both homosexual and heterosexual couples) in the eyes of the law, I'm told that "the gays" would never approve, because they want their relationships to be as socially valid as heterosexual marriages. Well...duh. Who doesn't want equality? But, social acceptance, in my opinion, isn't ever going to be the first step.

In any case, I wouldn't suggest it if I didn't want it for myself. I'd rather the state not have the power to deem my relationship a marriage. The state has nothing to do with it. All I want from the government is certain rights.

At some point, we're going to have to figure out a way to accommodate a variety of legally recognized family configurations. Marriage equality doesn't end here.

Not necessarily. Consider homosexual marriage, polygamy, or marriages where no one bothers to get a license and there's no common law marriage provision in the state's law.

In many states, the only aspect that gives religious marriage the power to legally marry someone is that we authorize certain people to act for the state in obtaining, filling out and filing marriage licenses.

You're the one who said that gay marriage is not in "the best financial interest" of "certain parties." Since you asserted that, I'm simply asking who you mean by these "certain parties." That's all. :D It seems like a slightly more involved question than you're able to answer, and that's okay.

It is, but Casey didn't change the basic legal analysis of Roe. While some aspects of Roe have been overturned, the basic idea of the right to choose as being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment has not been overturned and continues to underlie abortion/right to choose cases.

Every state provides for some non-religious officiant -- justice of the peace, magistrate, judge, etc. That's not the point.

The point is that every state authorizes clergy to act as agents of the state in officiating at weddings. In every state, provided certain other requirements are met (licenses and the like -- thanks, Kevin), a religious wedding will also create a legal marriage. In other words, participation in a religious ceremony results in a change in legal status. I can't think of any other instance where this happens in our legal system. The result is that we think of marriage in the civil sense and marriage in the religious sense as the same thing.

Because we do not draw a distinction between marriage as a religious institution/status and marriage as a legal institution/status, the lines get blurred in a discussion on something like same-sex marriage, and it can be difficult, like preciousjeni says, to distinguish between marriage as a religious status and marriage as a legal status. This problem doesn't exist where a clear line is drawn between civil and religious understandings of marriage.

Very true, and thanks for the clarification.

And always the only thing that gives clergy the power to legally marry is that the state has authorized clergy to act for the state. But is there any state that doesn't do that? The result is that Americans generally see marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious sense as being the same thing.

Yes, at least that's what it was when I was in law school. Back to Ghostwriter's states rights comment--Even in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the anti-choice side wasn't framed as a "states rights" or 10th Amendement issue, it was that the state has a compelling interest in preserving life. Or at least that's the argument that carried the day.

Casey stood for a number of things, but the main theme is that once the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb, the states have the power to forbid abortion completely, except in cases where the health of the mother [this is not defined at all, and is arguably the exception which swallows the rule] is at risk.

Getting a little more "meta," the principles at play are the rights of the mother, i.e., the fundamental liberty interest she has in her privacy and the right to an abortion. When someone has a fundamental liberty interest, the state has to have a compelling state interest to override it. The Court found that once the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, there is in fact a compelling state interest. Not because of the 10th Amendment, but because the state has a compelling interest in protecting life.

I believe Amendment 10 says it all and should end the debates but your point is valid and I amend my statement to include the whole Constitution.

I simply disagree with the current law on abortion and its reading and would rather us allow the States to make their own laws. We as a country tend to over look the part where powers not enumerated in this Constitution are granted to the States (Amendment 10) and fall back on the life, liberty, etc clause to try to argue everything and allow everything on a National basis.

Who would those parties be? All I can think of are insurance companies...

As a divorce lawyer, I welcome expanding my client base by 10%.

This made me laugh and frown at the same time. lol

But case law says that this isn't a powers issue, which is what the 10th deals with. This is a rights issue.

In Constitutional law, just about everything can be viewed as powers of the states versus rights of the people. Those are the two forces usually at play.

The 10th Amendment would allow the states to proscribe abortion, absolutely true, BUT, case law says there's a fundamental liberty interest in abortion. That means the power of the state to proscribe abortion versus the right of the woman to have one must be weighed according to constitutional standards of review.

The applicable standard of review is often referred to as "strict scrutiny." To come out on top, the state has to prove a compelling state interest. See the above discussion for further elaboration on the point.

**Yawn**

Exactly, I'm glad you finally get it. I'm a certain believer that nothing is voted on in Congress and is a hot button issue unless it affects somebody's wallet.


That's why we've had almost 40 years and 4 republican administrations of Roe v Wade and it has yet to be overturned.

All these companies change their insurance policies because of Universal Healthcare, but now that a lot of the provisions have stalled companies aren't reinstating the "Cadillac" insurance.

Gay Marriage the same, yes there will be a big boost in revenue for cash strapped states and what not, but somebody is looking at this from their private interest and is not liking it at all. Or sometimes, the fight is more lucrative than the victory.

I'm trying to figure out who these parties would be!

Have you had to deal with any gay "divorces"? I put "divorce" in quotes because I know gay marriage is not legal, or recognized, in OK--but informal unions, especially when kids are involved, dissolve all the time.

I'm not even sure if insurance companies would suffer, since most gay households are dual-income and, it stands to reason, are insured individually. We didn't hear anything from the insurance lobby in NYS so they might not even be impacted negatively.

Yeah, I finally got it. You're full of shit and I called you out on it.

If it all ended with the 10th Amendment, Gays wouldn't be allowed in Texas (well, maybe lesbians because they're sexxxy, but only femme ones), interracial marriages would be banned, and women and minorities wouldn't have the right to vote.

I could totally be buying into foolishness, but I feel like I remember a reputable survey that estimated about 4% of the population identifies as LGBT. I assume an even smaller number of these people are going to be getting married.

How significant could the financial repercussions or windfall really even be? And, why is it a concern?

Umm that is the point. That is the state's perogative. The state feels it is in its best interest to say "Hey, you religious guy do marriage, make sure they get the paperwork in order and we will recognize that you married them."

Nothing to do with we being embedded with religion, but more so of the state just passing the buck. The proof is in the ability of having a legal marriage outside of religion. If it was the only way to have your marriage recognized is through a religious ceremony then I would agree 100% with you, but there are, have, and always be other options outside of religion.

Congratulations, you win the award.

Take your victory lap.

You called me out. I've been exposed!!!!!!!!!


Arrrgghhhh!!!!!

I don't know, but if people are tracking it, it must be a reason why to either support or dispute a position.

No, that's NOT the point - the point is that states create a quagmire by doing this. Nobody is arguing whether or not it is the state's "prerogative" - that's a silly, tautological argument that intentionally obscures the issues.

You really can't see why having a priest or pastor as state's representative in the marriage ceremony has created unintended negative consequences?

Again, you're missing the point - in most cases, the religious ceremony and legal act are somewhere between partially and completely intertwined (think "by the power vested in me by _____"). The state can (and often does) provide another option, but THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO with MysticCat's point, which is that the religious component's utter dominance over how marriages actually take place means that people view the law through a religious lens, and that this sucks.

The exception doesn't DISPROVE the rule - it actually confirms what MC is saying! I commend you on your slavish devotion to all things conspiracy, but you are indeed the one missing the point here.

Your logic does not resemble our earth logic.

It's really not that hard:

1) For a variety of historical reasons, American states have chosen to allow clergy to act as agents of the state for the purpose of solemnizing marriage. No state has limited solemnization of marriage to the clergy, but all states have authorized the clergy to act as their agents in this regard.

2) Because of this historic arrangement, Americans in general do not see a clear difference between marriage in the legal/civil sense and marriage in the religious sense.

I never said that religion is "embedded" or "in bed with" religion. Those are your words. Nor did I ever suggest that religion or the clergy control marriage in this country. What I said was that "civil marriage and religious marriage are intertwined and entangled in our current system." That's a very different thing.

Because we do not have a clear distinction between civil and religious marriage, then any discussion of "marriage" is likely to pull in and refer to both, without regard to how they may be different. And it provokes arguments about whether if same-sex marriages are legalized, clergy can be required to perform them against their consciences, or whether, say, churches can be held liable for refusing to let their facilities be used for them. In a country where there is a clear distinction between marriage in the civil/legal sense and marriage in the religious sense, such questions aren't nearly as likely to arise.


ETA: What KSig RC said.