MARRIAGE EQUALITY NATIONWIDE

[Cato]

In either case you can be certain we did not do it democratically.

Probably a good thing we're not a democracy then.

[robvalue]

I thought the majority of the U.S. now supports gay marriage?

So a referendum would support the decision. Support it more strongly than the high court probably.

[Silver]

I am certain Anima would have bringing up the same arguments in relation to the legality of interracial marriage had he been alive back then.

[Ace]

I thought the majority of the U.S. now supports gay marriage?

So a referendum would support the decision. Support it more strongly than the high court probably.

Hmmmm.

A continues statement by the majority is that more than half of the people in the United States support same sex marriages. If this is true, why are the gay communities not going through the democratic process? Inserted they are seeing the power of the court or the support of government committees/organizations.

If people do support you, then there is [b] NO REASON[/b] to continue to keep the issue out of the hands of the people in decide how both the state and nation should be.

If majority of people support same sex marriage then why is the organization now asking to be classified under federal and state law as a protected classes? What is the need for protection in the work force and in housing? True some have in the gay community have been discriminated but it is no more then other's who have also been. There is not massive crowed of people standing in the street because they have no job or home. In fact the homelessness in the U.S. has gone down since 2005. However, if such a mass discrimination were to happen would not there be a massive out-cry by all those large amount of supporters? Yet, is seems to be implied that they people allow such an event to happen.

But what of their support?
Are not the people's support not to be trusted that they will not  pass equal and just laws that help the gay community?If anything in keeping the issue away from the peoples vote  it looks like the gay community actually has NO TRUST trust of its supporters?

From who do you fear if your numbers are so great?

I find that the argument made that homosexuality can be fire from their jobs and can be thrown from their homes as more of a scare tactic then showing if that is occurring so dominion the gay communist. Instead, because the numbers actually are less then assumed, that the possibility that [i]“they could be[/i]” discriminated against is not different then the damn religious say that  they  [i]“could be forced[/i]” to marry same sex couples. And just like the homosexual community, they too are asking for protection. (i.e. religious laws) Like homosexuals, the actual number of this even occurring has been extremely over estimated

[Regina]

I feel like that's a simplistic view

I would assume a majority of Americans either support gay marriage or are passive on the issue (meaning they don't really have an opinion either way and are not against it). However, you have to look at the people in power. You've got one of the two major political parties (The Republicans) vehemently opposing it and they hold so much power to veto the decision to allow gay marriage, regardless of what the average American thinks. The Christian right-wing holds a disproportionate amount of power in America, so even if they're a minority they hold a lot of political clout to have the greater say in matters. It's not so much about majority support, it's about who holds the power.

[Anima]

I am certain Anima would have bringing up the same arguments in relation to the legality of interracial marriage had he been alive back then.

I would not. Loving v Virginian was about miscegenation laws (interracial breeding) not about interracial marriage. Furthermore, interracial marriage is in keeping with a fundamental right to marriage and equal protection without redefining marriage under some BS to dignity and security that renders any prohibition on conduct unconstitutional.

[Anima]

I doubt Chief Justice John Roberts is acting as if the 14th Amendment does not exist.  Rather he is saying

I didn't bring up the 14th amendment for Roberts' elucidation or consideration, but as counterpoint to your argument centered on the Commerce and Supremacy clauses. Your previous post came off as if Obergefell didn't even warrant standing.

I think Roberts' invoking "it's always been this way" is a poor defense for his concern. I don't think we really need to unpack the various other traditions whose gaping wounds have been closed by the courts in order that they may heal, some leaving significant scars. I think Roberts' biggest concern was the conference of fundamental right via due process meaning any future law will have to pass strict scrutiny requirements. This combined with changed public opinion on the matter definitively settles the matter.

Is now a good time to again state the obvious in that Roberts' was writing for the minority?  

Jesus will have to make a personal appearance if this bit of religiously motivated prohibition is to be resurrected and I have my doubts he would show much interest.

Actually it may be said that Obergfell did not warrant standing. As ruled by the Supreme Court numerous times and even in US V. Windsor, "The entirety of domesticity issues is and has always been under the jurisdiction of the States." Even now the people wanting to get married go to the State clerc, justice, and courthouse. The Federal govenment is not nor has it even been in a position to marry people.

Roberts is not invoking it has always been this way. Roberts is saying the Federal government does not have the right to force the States to change their way (except under the commerce or supremacy clause).

Though I would definitely not say public opinion and laws have settled the matter. After all democracy enacted the bans in the first place and public opinion was staunchly opposed (and may still be so secretly). Just like that did not settle the matter then it is unlikely this will settle the matter now. It is going to be interesting to see who else uses the Obergfell argument and how the court will have to trip over itself to keep it that ruling and not accept the rest.

[Anima]

I feel like that's a simplistic view

I would assume a majority of Americans either support gay marriage or are passive on the issue (meaning they don't really have an opinion either way and are not against it). However, you have to look at the people in power. You've got one of the two major political parties (The Republicans) vehemently opposing it and they hold so much power to veto the decision to allow gay marriage, regardless of what the average American thinks. The Christian right-wing holds a disproportionate amount of power in America, so even if they're a minority they hold a lot of political clout to have the greater say in matters. It's not so much about majority support, it's about who holds the power.

But who holds the power is determined by the majority. That is a representative democracy. It would seem to me what you are talking about is more when someone states one thing to a pollster in public and votes another in the privacy of the ballot box.

Sort of like saying if you ask people if they are racists nearly everyone will say they are not. Yet somehow, someway racism is alive and well in society. How can this be if no one is racists according to our public polls?

[popeyespappy]

But who holds the power is determined by the majority.  That is a representative democracy.  

Unfortunately representative democracy in the US doesn't always work that way. In the 2000 presidential election Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 and lost the election. In 2012 House republican candidates received fewer total votes than their democrat opponents yet won 54% of the seats.

In any case a majority does not give you the right to discriminate against minorities. White males currently hold 65% of all elected seats in the US, but they are only 31% of the population. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are a white male. If so how would you feel if the rest of the population got together and started passing laws that didn't let white males participate in activities such as voting when everyone else was allowed to do so.

[Anima]

But who holds the power is determined by the majority.  That is a representative democracy.  

Unfortunately representative democracy in the US doesn't always work that way. In the 2000 presidential election Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 and lost the election. In 2012 House republican candidates received fewer total votes than their democrat opponents yet won 54% of the seats.

In any case a majority does not give you the right to discriminate against minorities. White males currently hold 65% of all elected seats in the US, but they are only 31% of the population. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are a white male. If so how would you feel if the rest of the population got together and started passing laws that didn't let white males participate in activities such as voting when everyone else was allowed to do so.

Actually I am a brown skinned native american member of the Ysleta Pueblo del Sur or Tigua tribe and registered Democrat. So I am familiar with oppressed minority experience and stereotyping. I am also sufficiently brown skinned as to be followed around the store and pulled over for being suspected as an illegal immigrant in the great state of Arizona where I live (and have been on more than one occasion). As I have said in a previous thread, I will not determine my understanding of law, biology, sociology, or teleology on my subjective sentiment.

Even with all of that I would not be so quick to depart from democracy. While I do not disagree with your statistics (though would contend your Gore example is the exception not the rule. I voted for Gore too) it is more a representation of people voting and gerrymandering of districts by those who did vote. While I would argue voting should be mandatory and punishable by increasing fines; and that voting and the districts of voting should be conducted and determined by the post office. I would once again not be so quick to say our democracy is not representative of the people or comprised of the people. Polls and online forums are poor substitutes for engaging in the political process which is our civic duty.

And by definition of ethics (particular ethical utility) a majority does give you the right to discriminate against minorities. Particularly minorities which represent a harm to the society which is comprised of a given majority. It makes no sense to say the majority is to be beholden unto the minority. By that argument the majority should abide by the determination of the group of nuts, and the group of nuts should abide by the determination of a single crack pot.

To paraphrase CS Lewis (I expect the ad hominem attacks to follow):

"Either the day must come when the majority prevails and all the minorities are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the minority can destroy in the majority the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye'll accept no system which leaves even a single minority outside. But watch that sophistry or ye'll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe."

Do we still not realize that equality is not fair and fairness is not equal. If you treat all things the same regardless of their condition all you do is harm the superior and inferior. The reality is there is a difference. Some people and conduct is better and some is worse.