LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

[RunningMn9]

Ah, no problem. There's a much greater chance that you know people that would support this than me, and I'm just trying to figure out what the problem actually is that they are trying to solve.

For instance, if two gay women or men get married, I cannot conceive of any way that it impacts me negatively (positively yes, because I can and would be happy for them).

But there is an element out there that honestly believes that this harms them in some way. I can't figure out how. Like, what does it even mean to "support traditional marriage"? I understand that in practical terms, that means "stop homosexuals from getting married" - but what does that achieve?

Is the fear that they are going to be told that their church must marry same sex couples? My immediate reaction is that I would be against forcing say, the Catholic Church to do that, but it occurs to me that it would bother me if the Catholic Church was refusing to marry interracial couples, and I don't have any reason to treat interracial couples different than same sex couples. So who knows? I think that as a principle, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry a same sex couple, that's a pretty good indicator to the couple that the Catholic Church doesn't deserve their affiliation.

If the fear that God will be unhappy because we have become a modern country of sin or something? I would love to just have someone that "supports traditional marriage" explain to me why they care. Like...at all.

[RunningMn9]

Well, that article is talking about just doing away with all tax exempt status for non-profits (religious or otherwise).

I guess my position is that I would frown heavily on any religion that refused to marry same-sex couples (using the same logic that I would use to frown on them for refusing to marry interracial couples), I would never advocate forcing them to perform the ceremony against their will.

[Daehawk]

Marriage has and is the best thing in my life. With all my heart I found my soul mate.

[Captain Caveman]

Haven't religious figures always been able to refuse performing a marriage ceremony at their own discretion? The first rabbi my now wife and I approached to conduct our ceremony declined because he didn't approve of our interfaith marriage, so we found somebody else who was okay with it.

The concern that religious figures might have to conduct same sex marriagest against their religious beliefs seems like a made up issue, created in the hopes of finding some legitimate justification for objecting to same sex unions. And, of course, to frame the issue in terms of an attack on "religious liberty" and Christian persecution.

[msduncan]

Ah, no problem. There's a much greater chance that you know people that would support this than me, and I'm just trying to figure out what the problem actually is that they are trying to solve.

For instance, if two gay women or men get married, I cannot conceive of any way that it impacts me negatively (positively yes, because I can and would be happy for them).

But there is an element out there that honestly believes that this harms them in some way. I can't figure out how. Like, what does it even mean to "support traditional marriage"? I understand that in practical terms, that means "stop homosexuals from getting married" - but what does that achieve?

Is the fear that they are going to be told that their church must marry same sex couples? My immediate reaction is that I would be against forcing say, the Catholic Church to do that, but it occurs to me that it would bother me if the Catholic Church was refusing to marry interracial couples, and I don't have any reason to treat interracial couples different than same sex couples. So who knows? I think that as a principle, if the Catholic Church doesn't want to marry a same sex couple, that's a pretty good indicator to the couple that the Catholic Church doesn't deserve their affiliation.

If the fear that God will be unhappy because we have become a modern country of sin or something? I would love to just have someone that "supports traditional marriage" explain to me why they care. Like...at all.

The people around me in the deep south break down into several groups:

1. I'm happy for them
2. I really don't care and I'm tired of hearing about it
3. It's a sin and if we allow this God is going to rain death down upon Babylon(the US).
4. I oppose it because it's not simply a matter of marriage rights, it's an agenda pushed by the far left that is yet another block in the ever expanding federal and government grip on our lives.

[Smoove_B]

I would never advocate forcing them to perform the ceremony against their will.

As a data point, in Jersey City the Russian Orthodox church refused to marry my mother and father in 1970 because my mother is Catholic. The Catholic church was more than happy to perform the ceremony, but they had their own conditions. I never asked what would have happened if the Catholic church refused. I'm guessing it would have been a civil ceremony.

EDIT: I see the Capt'n is already on it with his blasphemous union. Carry on.

[msduncan]

I would never advocate forcing them to perform the ceremony against their will.

As a data point, in Jersey City the Russian Orthodox church refused to marry my mother and father in 1970 because my mother is Catholic. The Catholic church was more than happy to perform the ceremony, but they had their own conditions. I never asked what would have happened if the Catholic church refused. I'm guessing it would have been a civil ceremony.

My wife and I had to get a Methodist preacher to marry us because I wasn't Catholic and so the church wouldn't do it.

[Fireball]

Well, that article is talking about just doing away with all tax exempt status for non-profits (religious or otherwise).

I guess my position is that I would frown heavily on any religion that refused to marry same-sex couples (using the same logic that I would use to frown on them for refusing to marry interracial couples), I would never advocate forcing them to perform the ceremony against their will.

+1

[Defiant]

Are you anti-marriage equality? Do you have gay friends that you're ok with but you believe marriage is between a man and a woman? Don't worry, you're not alone in your suffering.

And there's already a parody

[Little Raven]

Considering there was an article written on that very subject, I think it's a valid fear.

To be fair, he's talking about ending the non-profit tax exception across the board - not just for churches. Everyone - Planned Parenthood, educational institutions, churches - they all start paying tax again.

It's definitely a radical proposal, but it's not singling out religion.

[msduncan]

Considering there was an article written on that very subject, I think it's a valid fear.

To be fair, he's talking about ending the non-profit tax exception across the board - not just for churches. Everyone - Planned Parenthood, educational institutions, churches - they all start paying tax again.

It's definitely a radical proposal, but it's not singling out religion.

True. But I do think this is where some of the rumors and concern is coming from.

[Alefroth]

While I am supportive of homosexuals being able to marry, I have to wonder if there is a way out of this for State governments that don't support the decision:

Pass a constitutional amendment to the State constitution that removes government from the equation. If you want to get married you don't need a license. You find a church willing to marry you. This puts the contract between you, your spouse, and your god.

Obviously for monetary reasons I doubt this would happen, but it does beg the question as to why you effectively have to ask permission from government to marry someone (via being issued a license) in the first place.

How does that allow the state to prevent same sex marriages?

The Church of Me issues a license to Adam and Steve. Don't mess with my religious freedom.

[Blackhawk]

I'd also wonder if the state mandating church weddings would pass muster.

[RunningMn9]

MSD, I guess it comes down to the #3 and #4 that you list. Understanding the you personally aren't in either camp (I thought you were in your #1 camp, albeit with reservations over HOW this was done, you can correct me if I'm wrong), those seem work exploring.

#3 is something that I can understand. I mean - I think it's superstitious nonsense, but I at least understand that fundamentalists are going to believe some things that seem crazy to me.

#4 is (I suspect) a much larger group than I'd like, and that reason seems pathological to me. "I'm against this because you're for it." A piss poor line of reasoning considering we are talking about someone else's freedom. IMO at least.

[Zarathud]

This whole "religious freedom" kerfuffle conflates the state recognition of marriage with the religious ceremony. Maybe that's the point for religious fundamentalists, but it's the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state. In this circumstance, it works in favor of the religious fundamentalists. If you want to keep your man-and-wife wedding ceremony, you can keep your man-and-wife wedding ceremony.

For the state's purpose, you're not married until you sign the paper afterwards regardless of which church conducts the ceremony and how many times you kiss the bride (or more). In Illinois you can have anyone marry you who you recognize has authority to do so. Your pastor, your captain, a judge, your friend who received a FSM license online, etc. The state has little interest regulating churches -- that's why Scientology can get away pretending to be a church.

Cancelling the non-profit tax exception is madness -- no one is going to support it no matter how many articles are written. Philanthropy is very favorably viewed in Congress, and no politician is willingly going to propose to "shut down all the churches" and charities. Don't be ridiculous.

The Bob Jones University Supreme Court case involved racial discrimination in education -- a separate Constitutional battleground. The Supreme Court made clear that its decision dealt only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions." This whole line of argument is bullshit propaganda in its most transparent and willfully ignorant form.

[Skinypupy]

4. I oppose it because it's not simply a matter of marriage rights, it's an agenda pushed by the far left that is yet another block in the ever expanding federal and government grip on our lives.

I find it strange that government telling an minority group that they can't get married is just fine, but that telling a minority group that they can get married qualifies as "ever expanding government grip on their lives". Seems like it should be the other way around.

[LawBeefaroni]

4. I oppose it because it's not simply a matter of marriage rights, it's an agenda pushed by the far left that is yet another block in the ever expanding federal and government grip on our lives.

I find it strange that government telling an minority group that they can't get married is just fine, but that telling a minority group that they can get married qualifies as "ever expanding government grip on their lives". Seems like it should be the other way around.

It's simple. Something I want? Freedom. Something I don't want? Intrusion of the all-too-powerful federal government into our private lies.

[RunningMn9]

I've been reading an awful lot of late regarding what is often described as the Confederate mentality, and that describes perfectly some of these objectors. The way they see it, their position has the authority of divine providence. If they can achieve their position through the force of government, that's fine. If they can't, they will try to achieve their position through obstruction. If they can't, they will try to achieve their position through violence or intimidation (for a clear example of these stages, just look at their response to the abortion issue).

The rule of law only applies if the law says what they believe it should say. If it says something else, that represents an unacceptable tyranny that must be resisted at all costs.

[hepcat]

4. I oppose it because it's not simply a matter of marriage rights, it's an agenda pushed by the far left that is yet another block in the ever expanding federal and government grip on our lives.

I find it strange that government telling an minority group that they can't get married is just fine, but that telling a minority group that they can get married qualifies as "ever expanding government grip on their lives". Seems like it should be the other way around.

+1000

[Smoove_B]

It's simple. Something I want? Freedom. Something I don't want? Intrusion of the all-too-powerful federal government into our private lies.

You can hear it coming directly from Ted Cruz. After epic butt-hurt over this decision, he's suggesting that the Supreme Court is influenced too much by the political process. To fix that, he believes we should modify the Constitution and add re-election (a political process) to the Supreme Court positions. It's like...he doesn't even understand what he's saying.

[El Guapo]

It's simple. Something I want? Freedom. Something I don't want? Intrusion of the all-too-powerful federal government into our private lies.

You can hear it coming directly from Ted Cruz. After epic butt-hurt over this decision, he's suggesting that the Supreme Court is influenced too much by the political process. To fix that, he believes we should modify the Constitution and add re-election (a political process) to the Supreme Court positions. It's like...he doesn't even understand what he's saying.

To be fair, this case aside, we really should end lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Importantly, it makes each Supreme Court nomination super high stakes and incentivizes the nomination of young partisan nominees rather than established legal luminaries. Eventually we're going to see the nomination of someone in their late 30s, and everyone will go nuts. It also encourages sitting justices to cling to their desks no matter what when a president of the opposing party is in office.

Personally, I would suggest something like a 10 year term, with the possibility of being re-nominated once.

Of course that would require (I believe) a constitutional amendment, so it's never going to happen.

[Fireball]

It's simple. Something I want? Freedom. Something I don't want? Intrusion of the all-too-powerful federal government into our private lies.

You can hear it coming directly from Ted Cruz. After epic butt-hurt over this decision, he's suggesting that the Supreme Court is influenced too much by the political process. To fix that, he believes we should modify the Constitution and add re-election (a political process) to the Supreme Court positions. It's like...he doesn't even understand what he's saying.

To be fair, this case aside, we really should end lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Importantly, it makes each Supreme Court nomination super high stakes and incentivizes the nomination of young partisan nominees rather than established legal luminaries. Eventually we're going to see the nomination of someone in their late 30s, and everyone will go nuts. It also encourages sitting justices to cling to their desks no matter what when a president of the opposing party is in office.

Personally, I would suggest something like a 10 year term, with the possibility of being re-nominated once.

Of course that would require (I believe) a constitutional amendment, so it's never going to happen.

I would strongly oppose this. There are ways to reform our Supreme Court nomination process, but limiting their terms in office to a known number of years, or allowing them to be re-upped by a future President, would take an already too-politicized process and hyper-politicize it. One need only look at the Supreme Courts of states where such judges are elected or appointed to limited terms to see how bad this system would be nationally.

Like legislative term limits, this sounds good to the general public, but would actually be one of the worst possible "reforms" you could make to our system.

[El Guapo]

It's simple. Something I want? Freedom. Something I don't want? Intrusion of the all-too-powerful federal government into our private lies.

You can hear it coming directly from Ted Cruz. After epic butt-hurt over this decision, he's suggesting that the Supreme Court is influenced too much by the political process. To fix that, he believes we should modify the Constitution and add re-election (a political process) to the Supreme Court positions. It's like...he doesn't even understand what he's saying.

To be fair, this case aside, we really should end lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Importantly, it makes each Supreme Court nomination super high stakes and incentivizes the nomination of young partisan nominees rather than established legal luminaries. Eventually we're going to see the nomination of someone in their late 30s, and everyone will go nuts. It also encourages sitting justices to cling to their desks no matter what when a president of the opposing party is in office.

Personally, I would suggest something like a 10 year term, with the possibility of being re-nominated once.

Of course that would require (I believe) a constitutional amendment, so it's never going to happen.

I would strongly oppose this. There are ways to reform our Supreme Court nomination process, but limiting their terms in office to a known number of years, or allowing them to be re-upped by a future President, would take an already too-politicized process and hyper-politicize it. One need only look at the Supreme Courts of states where such judges are elected or appointed to limited terms to see how bad this system would be nationally.

Like legislative term limits, this sounds good to the general public, but would actually be one of the worst possible "reforms" you could make to our system.

I certainly wouldn't want Supreme Court justices to be elected - as you say we can see all sorts of current issues with electing judges. I don't see how appointing for a long term would make it more politicized - though - it's already hyper-politicized, and only getting more so (the day is coming, for example, when a Senate flat out refuses to confirm any justice appointed by a president of the opposing party). Lowering the stakes for any one appointment should (in theory, at least) reduce the brinksmanship at least somewhat.

I'm certainly open to other ideas, though. What if Supreme Court justices were appointed for a 20 year term? That wouldn't be all that different than a lifetime appointment (for practical purposes), but it would at least remove the incentive to appoint teenagers to the Court.

[Zarathud]

Someone under 40 is unlikely to be approved by any Senate and guessing a judge's likely voting philosophy is less accurate that early.

[Fireball]

I don't see how appointing for a long term would make it more politicized - though - it's already hyper-politicized, and only getting more so (the day is coming, for example, when a Senate flat out refuses to confirm any justice appointed by a president of the opposing party).

One of the worst things in politics is a set schedule for elections or appointments. When you know that a term is ending or an election is coming on a date certain, campaigning and maneuvering for that upcoming election/selection grows longer and longer and louder and louder. One of the nice things about parliamentary elections is that the date of the election isn't actually known until the election is called (though the UK has now messed this up, thanks Lib Dem).

What if Supreme Court justices were appointed for a 20 year term? That wouldn't be all that different than a lifetime appointment (for practical purposes), but it would at least remove the incentive to appoint teenagers to the Court.

It is very unlikely that someone much younger than the justices we've seen so far would be appointed, and much more likely that someone appointed so young would drift ideologically over time.

If I were to reform SCOTUS appointments, I would require the President to appoint from a list of five potential nominees selected by unanimous consent of a six-member panel comprised of retired judges, three of whom were appointed by the party in power and three of whom were appointed by the party out of power, selected by the party leader for each party in the Senate.

[El Guapo]

If I were to reform SCOTUS appointments, I would require the President to appoint from a list of five potential nominees selected by unanimous consent of a six-member panel comprised of retired judges, three of whom were appointed by the party in power and three of whom were appointed by the party out of power, selected by the party leader for each party in the Senate.

What happens when one member of the Commission, selected by the opposing party, refuses to put forward any potential nominees not belonging to his (opposing) party? Or refuses to put any nominees forward unless the opposing party receives (potentially unrelated) concessions of some sort?

Seems like this would just add another point where the opposing party can gum up the machinery of governance, of which there are already too many.

[Fireball]

If I were to reform SCOTUS appointments, I would require the President to appoint from a list of five potential nominees selected by unanimous consent of a six-member panel comprised of retired judges, three of whom were appointed by the party in power and three of whom were appointed by the party out of power, selected by the party leader for each party in the Senate.

What happens when one member of the Commission, selected by the opposing party, refuses to put forward any potential nominees not belonging to his (opposing) party? Or refuses to put any nominees forward unless the opposing party receives (potentially unrelated) concessions of some sort?

Seems like this would just add another point where the opposing party can gum up the machinery of governance, of which there are already too many.

Set a time threshold after which it becomes a 5/6, then a 4/6 vote requirement.

[El Guapo]

If I were to reform SCOTUS appointments, I would require the President to appoint from a list of five potential nominees selected by unanimous consent of a six-member panel comprised of retired judges, three of whom were appointed by the party in power and three of whom were appointed by the party out of power, selected by the party leader for each party in the Senate.

What happens when one member of the Commission, selected by the opposing party, refuses to put forward any potential nominees not belonging to his (opposing) party? Or refuses to put any nominees forward unless the opposing party receives (potentially unrelated) concessions of some sort?

Seems like this would just add another point where the opposing party can gum up the machinery of governance, of which there are already too many.

Set a time threshold after which it becomes a 5/6, then a 4/6 vote requirement.

So then Boehner finds three former judges and current nutballs who vote no on everyone. At some point the president's party has to be able to pick someone of their choice or you're giving the opposition party a veto over the nomination selection.

I am also inclined to doubt whether such a statute would be constitutional in any event. Congress would be passing a law (which at least in theory could be over a presidential veto) limiting the president's ability to nominate who he or she wants. The constitution doesn't give Congress any role in the nomination, just in the advice and consent part (and the House doesn't even get a role in that).

[El Guapo]

One of the worst things in politics is a set schedule for elections or appointments. When you know that a term is ending or an election is coming on a date certain, campaigning and maneuvering for that upcoming election/selection grows longer and longer and louder and louder. One of the nice things about parliamentary elections is that the date of the election isn't actually known until the election is called (though the UK has now messed this up, thanks Lib Dem).

This is certainly true for elections, but is it really also true for appointments? After all, there is no real 'campaign' for an appointed position. Federal Reserve chair is also appointed for a term, is also important, but there is no public circus leading up to that. Nor for chairs of commissions (SEC, FTC, FCC, etc.).

[stessier]

Rather than a term, I think I'd prefer a mandatory retirement age. I'm thinking 70.

[Defiant]

To be fair, this case aside, we really should end lifetime Supreme Court appointments. Importantly, it makes each Supreme Court nomination super high stakes and incentivizes the nomination of young partisan nominees rather than established legal luminaries. Eventually we're going to see the nomination of someone in their late 30s, and everyone will go nuts. It also encourages sitting justices to cling to their desks no matter what when a president of the opposing party is in office.

Personally, I would suggest something like a 10 year term, with the possibility of being re-nominated once.

I could probably support something like a single 20(?) year term - long enough so they can have an impact on the court and they aren't constantly rotating, but short enough that the membership of the supreme court will change with the times - and maybe put a minimum age of 50. But I would be strongly against any sort of renomination.

[Jeff V]

18 year term, the last 2 years as chief justice. Staggered so every 2 years, after being chief justice, the judge is retired.

I would also like to see some other method of appointment that doesn't encourage partisan stacking. Or, perhaps as a more effective counter-balance, allow the minority party to select new justices (in the event of split congress, the party controlling the pres is considered the majority).

[Pyperkub]

I think all of these ideas go a bit against the general idea of the way the Supreme Court was setup to balance the other branches of Government as well as to prevent wholesale rash changes. I think that lifetime appointments are still probably the way to go, though I think that a minimum age (as with the President) is called for, at least until there are more than one justice still adjudicating past the age of 100 (if medical advances get us there), in which case looking at upper limits would be good too.

What I think would be a better change, would be more justices - say 15. This would ensure more turnover, and less power to a particular appointee, as well as to the President appointing them. It would serve to marginalize the most radical of justices.

[Enough]

Really? I honestly was shocked when I read your response to RM and was about to dredge up this info but saw others beat me to it. Same sex relationships have been around and recognized in various forms for millennia. I was also surprised to see you speak in such black and white absolutism for a guy I know to be quite thoughtful and who usually easily sees through partisan haze to see the various shades of gray. But sure, go with the cynical response if it makes you feel better. Look I am glad you are happy with the outcome and am happy to debate the process that led us here. But if you bring up a red herring in OO R and P you should know by now it will get cooked. It has happened to me too.

So, instead of taking it as a figure of speech and the spirit in which it was uttered, with a fact correction, you have to get into a huge waste of time debate about it. You know as well as I do, it was a fringe deal.

Moving on...

There were two posters before me and one after who corrected you on that same point, so if it was a figure of speech it wasn't obvious to many of us. It sounded like a dog whistle to me, glad it wasn't. I still stand strong on the point that speaking in absolutes is something you normally don't do, so it definitely caught my attention.

[Defiant]

I think all of these ideas go a bit against the general idea of the way the Supreme Court was setup to balance the other branches of Government as well as to prevent wholesale rash changes.

The Supreme Court justices on average used to serve about 15 years. Now it's over 25, even though the world is changing far more quickly than it used to.

[Fireball]

I think all of these ideas go a bit against the general idea of the way the Supreme Court was setup to balance the other branches of Government as well as to prevent wholesale rash changes. I think that lifetime appointments are still probably the way to go, though I think that a minimum age (as with the President) is called for, at least until there are more than one justice still adjudicating past the age of 100 (if medical advances get us there), in which case looking at upper limits would be good too.

What I think would be a better change, would be more justices - say 15. This would ensure more turnover, and less power to a particular appointee, as well as to the President appointing them. It would serve to marginalize the most radical of justices.

I generally agree with all of this. Particularly the larger Court size, which wouldn't require amending the Constitution. Unfortunately, we're unlikely to see a change in that, unless we have huge supermajorities in Congress on the same side as the President.

[Jeff V]

I think all of these ideas go a bit against the general idea of the way the Supreme Court was setup to balance the other branches of Government as well as to prevent wholesale rash changes.

The Supreme Court justices on average used to serve about 15 years. Now it's over 25, even though the world is changing far more quickly than it used to.

Sure; for starters, it's a lot more difficult to find new jobs, so people are naturally reluctant to leave what they have.

A bigger problem is that it is apparently too much of a cush job. If people are still doing it into their 90's, how hard can it be? The effort/reward must be way out of whack when someone that old decides they might as well keep doing it rather than enjoy retirement.

The job itself should be more like jury duty -- that might keep justices from wearing out their welcome. Make the job as anonymous as possible -- media appearances are not allowed; and their names are not listed on any decisions (rather, they are reduced to a number: Justice 1, 2, 3...9) If you really want to make it unpleasant, sequester them in North Dakota during the winter; Arizona during the summer. Pay them a little more than other judges while acting on the supreme court. You might wind up with 100% turnover between sessions -- and there's nothing wrong with that. A stint on the supreme court might become an obligation that many lower court judges must perform at sometime during their career. When a justice decides he or she no longer wishes to do that job, they become a justice emeritus and may participate in the selection process for future justices. Rather than have partisan politicians determine who is on the court, justices would be selected by their peers -- which is more likely to produce justices there on merit and not because their are politically convenient.

[stessier]

Rather than have partisan politicians determine who is on the court, justices would be selected by their peers -- which is more likely to produce justices there on merit and not because their are politically convenient.

You don't think judges are political? That's pretty naive.

[Jeff V]

Rather than have partisan politicians determine who is on the court, justices would be selected by their peers -- which is more likely to produce justices there on merit and not because their are politically convenient.

You don't think judges are political? That's pretty naive.

Some, yes, but not all. If you start with a set of apolitical judges and part of the selection criteria is to have a proven record of political impartiality, then judges who aspire to the pinnacle of their profession will learn to be politically neutral in their rulings (as it was meant to be).

[Zarathud]

What evidence is there that old Justices don't work hard or produce decent opinions? Just political disagreement -- the "bad thing" we're talking about preventing. SCOTUS judges work hard and don't retire because the job is important and a rewarding life ambition. You don't get nominated if you're a slacker (sorry, Jeff V).

These proposals would only make politicization worse -- and are based on politics to begin with. The Senate and politics should have less of a role, not more.