Will the Challenge to Michigan's Ban on Same Sex Marriage Be Reviewed By the Supreme Court?

Same-sex marriage advocates are eyeing the end of a decades-long fight as they ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a nationwide ruling that would cap a transformation in the legal rights of gay Americans.

The justices may say as soon as Friday whether they will hear arguments that the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights. High court review would threaten bans that remain in effect in 14 states.

and

The Michigan case may be the best candidate for Supreme Court review. Unlike the Tennessee and Ohio cases, the Michigan appeal directly challenges the state’s ban. And in contrast to Kentucky, where Attorney General Jack Conway is no longer resisting same-sex marriage, Michigan officials have mounted a full-scale defense of their prohibition.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-08/same-sex-marriage-primed-for-review-as-u-s-high-court-gathers.html

I'll save ya my usual spiel because I realize I'm annoying as fuck...

But jesus H it seems like a lot of wasted time and wasted resources on a topic whose outcome should be fairly obvious if we all value liberty and freedom, at least to me.

P.S. Despite my admission of realization I'm still going to be annoying when certain topics come up. Downvote (i.e. pass-aggro) me, homes.

xsanguine wrote: if we all value liberty and freedom, at least to me.

Not everybody does values those things the same. There is significant variations. More traditional conservatives are willing to sacrifice freedom to achieve greater social order. Therefore, here we are arguing what is otherwise a no brainer to you, me, and lot of other people.

However, even if you put emotion aside and look to the law, how do bans on same-sex marriage get around the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

Turtleneck is right.. as usual. Conservatives are only interested in true freedom as it pertains to their narrow agenda.

Turtleneck wrote:

Not everybody does values those things the same. There is significant variations.

Holy shit, you're absolutely right. That sucks.

I've always just assumed that if you were to actually sit someone down and explain the process of how we manage our society that most people would see it as I do; tyranny of the majority.

Turtleneck wrote: More traditional conservatives are willing to sacrifice freedom to achieve greater social order. Therefore, here we are arguing what is otherwise a no brainer to you, me, and lot of other people.

Right. You're right... conservatives are pretty sick fucks when it comes to the private behavior of others. I just don't get that...

But hear me out, because I still feel like if you're able to sit someone down and explain to them what it actually means to arrest someone; You are violently subduing someone against their will....even if they're allowing themselves to be arrested. Now couple that with an actual scenario... armed uniformed agents overpowering another person, kidnapping that individual from his home and then leaving them in a locked cage for a predetermined amount of time... and all because, to give you a very common example... but all because that person and say, another individual, agreed to have sex with one another in exchange for currency. Or, arrested and thrown in a cage for having a salt in a bag in your pocket... a piece of plant matter. People actually having their lives ruined because of this erroneous line of thinking...

That's ****ed up right? I'm not just crazy, am I?

Yeah, I guess you're right... there's tons of absolute fucking morons that would have a problem with that no matter how you frame it. There's people that champion being for laws that limit another individual's private options.

That's some low-grunting, beating of the chest, pre-human alpha primate shit.... which is another example of why governments acts as an evil conduit (sorry... I can't resist)

Turtleneck wrote:
However, even if you put emotion aside and look to the law, how do bans on same-sex marriage get around the 14th Amendment of the Constitution?

I'm sorry, Turtleneck, I don't have anything constructive to add beyond this so you can check out now if you want. I explain why below... but essentially trying to modify a system I feel is an actualization of rule by one group over another is a waste of time.

TL;DR - Gov't sucks

I've come to the realization that I've been an anarchist since I was a small child. Practically my entire life... before I even considered whether I was Democrat or Republican. Never in my life have I ever stopped myself before doing something....anything... and thought, "Is this illegal?" or "Will I get in trouble (with the law)?" or anything of that nature, nothing of that srt. My thought process has always centered around questions like "Will anyone get hurt by this?" or "Does this wrong someone in some way?" or "Will someone get angry with me if I do this?"

If you're still with me the reason I mention all that is because I'm unable to get up when it comes to bans and amendments and any other government sponsored "managing" of affairs. I just don't believe in the initiation of violence and in order for government to force people to do the things the "majority" wants/needs them to do... it takes violence either in the form of physical or the arbitrarily determined amount of tax owed.
I've acted in accordance with this very principle my entire life without even thinking twice about it and I also realize that's how my father is.... which is probably what leads me to wondering what is so difficult for people to understand... how can you NOT advocate leaving someone alone until they actually affect you in some way negatively or otherwise? How CAN you advocate for an entity that steals money from you? How can anyone think that is okay?!

See... this is what I'm talking about... I get lost in my ramblings and go on and on and I've lost everyone. Probably explains my lack of popularity on Wells Hall over on the RCMB. Who cares, they downvote... which is kinda a creepy way of expressing oneself on the internet.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Turtleneck is right.. as usual. Conservatives are only interested in true freedom as it pertains to their narrow agenda.

Yeah, TN is usually right... I'm sure he'll tear apart my post and explain why it's incorrect and stupid... very politely, of course, he's not a savage.

Bobby Sak, you're my homie, you know this... and I'm down to throw an anti-conservative party because those that fancy themselves as "conservative" in the pop culture realm are weird in some of their obsessions with the social lives of those that are diametrically opposed....

But we must remain fair... and if we value freedom as an overture to theme our existence by then we must point out the hypocrisy with which the left finds itself by championing the concept of taxation. The forced forfeiture of assets to the government in virtually every currency transfer... but especially in regards to income.

Where does a LARGE chunk of that money go? It goes towards guns and bombs and sending poor brown people, prematurely, to see their 72 virgins... far earlier than they should. Liberals have done jack shit to reduce the DOD budget.

I simply contend that you and Bullwrinkle, for example, are actually voting for the same policies... despite the difference in names on the ballot.

xsanguine wrote:

Holy shit, you're absolutely right. That sucks.

I've always just assumed that if you were to actually sit someone down and explain the process of how we manage our society that most people would see it as I do; tyranny of the majority.



Right. You're right... conservatives are pretty sick fucks when it comes to the private behavior of others. I just don't get that...

But hear me out, because I still feel like if you're able to sit someone down and explain to them what it actually means to arrest someone; You are violently subduing someone against their will....even if they're allowing themselves to be arrested. Now couple that with an actual scenario... armed uniformed agents overpowering another person, kidnapping that individual from his home and then leaving them in a locked cage for a predetermined amount of time... and all because, to give you a very common example... but all because that person and say, another individual, agreed to have sex with one another in exchange for currency. Or, arrested and thrown in a cage for having a salt in a bag in your pocket... a piece of plant matter. People actually having their lives ruined because of this erroneous line of thinking...

That's ****ed up right? I'm not just crazy, am I?

Yeah, I guess you're right... there's tons of absolute fucking morons that would have a problem with that no matter how you frame it. There's people that champion being for laws that limit another individual's private options.

That's some low-grunting, beating of the chest, pre-human alpha primate shit.... which is another example of why governments acts as an evil conduit (sorry... I can't resist)




I'm sorry, Turtleneck, I don't have anything constructive to add beyond this so you can check out now if you want. I explain why below... but essentially trying to modify a system I feel is an actualization of rule by one group over another is a waste of time.

TL;DR - Gov't sucks

I've come to the realization that I've been an anarchist since I was a small child. Practically my entire life... before I even considered whether I was Democrat or Republican. Never in my life have I ever stopped myself before doing something....anything... and thought, "Is this illegal?" or "Will I get in trouble (with the law)?" or anything of that nature, nothing of that srt. My thought process has always centered around questions like "Will anyone get hurt by this?" or "Does this wrong someone in some way?" or "Will someone get angry with me if I do this?"

If you're still with me the reason I mention all that is because I'm unable to get up when it comes to bans and amendments and any other government sponsored "managing" of affairs. I just don't believe in the initiation of violence and in order for government to force people to do the things the "majority" wants/needs them to do... it takes violence either in the form of physical or the arbitrarily determined amount of tax owed.
I've acted in accordance with this very principle my entire life without even thinking twice about it and I also realize that's how my father is.... which is probably what leads me to wondering what is so difficult for people to understand... how can you NOT advocate leaving someone alone until they actually affect you in some way negatively or otherwise? How CAN you advocate for an entity that steals money from you? How can anyone think that is okay?!

See... this is what I'm talking about... I get lost in my ramblings and go on and on and I've lost everyone. Probably explains my lack of popularity on Wells Hall over on the RCMB. Who cares, they downvote... which is kinda a creepy way of expressing oneself on the internet.

I am not sure I agree that "if you were to actually sit someone down" you would be able to accomplish all that much. First, you have to overcome years of socialization. Growing up we take cues from family, friends, and our educational or religious experiences. As people acquire their political beliefs they spend quite a lot of time validating those beliefs. However, I am becoming increasing inclined to believe that our political beliefs are not 100% environmental, but also biological. For example, see here and here. Good luck overcoming DNA. The relevance of me including this is that it is one thing to overcome socialization but a another to overcome biology. In the form of a question, how much change can we actually expect?

As for my comment about the Constitution and 14th Amendment, I was not talking about modifying the current system. I was asking about the present. In other words, within the context of our current political institutions, as they exist in the now, how can such a thing as gay marriage be illegal given the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause? However, interesting enough, I can phrase it in moral terms as much as I can legal terms. For example, I could have asked "is the 14th Amendment not there to prevent the states from harming us or otherwise wronging citizens?"

As for you comments about anarchism, well, we never really continued that conversation. But anarchy does not buy into the concept of private property. I sometime struggle to see the difference between anarchy and orthodox communism where there is no state, but anarchy believes that much of society's problems is rooted not just in the state but also market economies and private property. In fact, for the anarchist, the two - the state and capitalism - are inseparable. I am not sure you are prepared to go that far...or maybe you are.

Xsang is an idiot.

xsanguine wrote:

Yeah, TN is usually right... I'm sure he'll tear apart my post and explain why it's incorrect and stupid... very politely, of course, he's not a savage.

Bobby Sak, you're my homie, you know this... and I'm down to throw an anti-conservative party because those that fancy themselves as "conservative" in the pop culture realm are weird in some of their obsessions with the social lives of those that are diametrically opposed....

But we must remain fair... and if we value freedom as an overture to theme our existence by then we must point out the hypocrisy with which the left finds itself by championing the concept of taxation. The forced forfeiture of assets to the government in virtually every currency transfer... but especially in regards to income.

Where does a LARGE chunk of that money go? It goes towards guns and bombs and sending poor brown people, prematurely, to see their 72 virgins... far earlier than they should. Liberals have done jack shit to reduce the DOD budget.

I simply contend that you and Bullwrinkle, for example, are actually voting for the same policies... despite the difference in names on the ballot.

you're might be on to something..

the way I see it is that the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is the special interests that each is beholden to. I just find it easier to laugh at Republicans because they hold themselves up as beacons of freedom and morality when nothing could be farther from the truth. Are Democrats as corrupt as Republicans? Absolutely. But I don't see Democrats (not as many, anyway) thumping on the bible and hiding behind the flag telling everyone how they should live..

also, I'm not down with the way that conservatives view women or minorities. All the fiscal stuff I don't really care about - I simply have a desire for people to be treated with compassion and respect. And with all of the Democrats faults, they are light years ahead of Republicans in those areas.

xsanguine wrote:

Yeah, TN is usually right... I'm sure he'll tear apart my post and explain why it's incorrect and stupid... very politely, of course, he's not a savage.

Bobby Sak, you're my homie, you know this.... and I'm down to throw an anti-conservative party because those that fancy themselves as "conservative" in the pop culture realm are weird in some of their obsessions with the social lives of those that are diametrically opposed....

But we must remain fair... and if we value freedom as an overture to theme our existence by then we must point out the hypocrisy with which the left finds itself by championing the concept of taxation. The forced forfeiture of assets to the government in virtually every currency transfer... but especially in regards to income.

Where does a LARGE chunk of that money go? It goes towards guns and bombs and sending poor brown people, prematurely, to see their 72 virgins... far earlier than they should. Liberals have done jack shit to reduce the DOD budget.

I simply contend that you and Bullwrinkle, for example, are actually voting for the same policies... despite the difference in names on the ballot.

oh, and, thanks. You know I dig you, too.

I don't get all of the personal vitriol here at tSwill - though it's significantly better than the vitriol was at tRCMB. We're all Spartans.

I'm an Athenian.

Anyway, so you're saying you don't like conservatives because their politics come embedded in some traditional moral authority? Yeah, that is annoying and also contradictary. When it comes to matters of the economy and personal wealth, they believe individual freedom should prevail; that we are rational enough to make choices that are in our best interest, and therefore should be responsible for ourselves. However, when it comes to matters of morality and ethics, individual rationality goes out the window and we need state intervention to protect us. They also hate science. Conservatives are the reason we do not know how magnets work.

Turtleneck wrote:I'm an Athenian.

Anyway, so you're saying you don't like conservatives because their politics come embedded in some traditional moral authority? Yeah, that is annoying and also contradictary. When it comes to matters of the economy and personal wealth, they believe individual freedom should prevail; that we are rational enough to make choices that are in our best interest, and therefore should be responsible for ourselves. However, when it comes to matters of morality and ethics, individual rationality goes out the window and we need state intervention to protect us. They also hate science. Conservatives are the reason we do not know how magnets work.

yep..

conservatives are big advocates of freedom.. until the freedom in question is either aimed a woman or minority.. or is something that is in direct opposition to their narrow-minded political agenda. At that point, they become very much opposed to freedom.

A little update to the actual topic

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/01/supreme-court-coy-on-samesex-marriage-200925.html

Bump.

Gay marriage officially back at the SCOTUS.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/01/16/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_gay_marriage_cases.html

On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court agreed to review the 6th Circuit’s decision upholding gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The decision will bring the question of marriage equality before the court for the first time since 2013’s United States v. Windsor, when five justices voted to strike down a federal gay marriage ban as a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees.