Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's a qualified right and the jury is not unanimous on whether same sex applicants qualify. Especially on a Federal Level.

You're sounding increasingly desperate to score a point.

 

[Chuz Life]

Thank you for admitting that the majority supports gay marriage

There's nothing to admit.

I don't trust the (biased) polls, and I doubt the SCOTUS does either.

EDIT:

Dissent

• John G. Roberts, Jr. (Author)
• Antonin Scalia
• Clarence Thomas

This is a policy decision that should be left to legislatures, as demonstrated by the writings of the Framers and earlier decisions of this Court. The majority has engaged in inappropriate judicial activism by taking this issue out of their hands. States should be free to define marriage as they see fit.

Dissent

• Antonin Scalia (Author)
• Clarence Thomas

The majority's decision threatens the democratic principles at the core of American society by allowing the judgment of an elite few to substitute for the will of the many.

Dissent

• Clarence Thomas (Author)
• Antonin Scalia

The majority distorts the principles expressed by the Framers of the Constitution by portraying human dignity as granted by the government rather than emanating from the individual. The Constitution is meant to provide freedom from government intervention rather than the right to receive a government entitlement.

Dissent

• Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (Author)
• Antonin Scalia
• Clarence Thomas

There is no textual basis in the Constitution or the history surrounding it that prevents states from developing their own definitions of marriage. Rather than focusing on what the states are constitutionally required to do, the majority substitutes a more nebulous view of what they should do, which is not within the Court's power to determine."

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)

Obergefell v. Hodges: Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all states must license a marriage between two people of the same sex and recognize such a marriage if it was lawfully licensed and performed in another state.

supreme.justia.com

 

[Chuz Life]

You're sounding increasingly desperate to score a point.

Your projection is noted.

 

[Chuz Life]

What is your of Federal recognition based on the state action?

I have no idea what you are asking here.

 

[Couchpotato]

Bullshit red herring logical fallacy. Your little fantasy is not happening, At issue is the rights of gay people to marry in an environment where- regardless of what the law says- marriage has always been treated as a right, straight people have always been able to claim it as a right and the SCOTUS has said numerous times that it is a right. Deal with that

Your inability to engage with a hypothetical is noted.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's a qualified right and the jury is not unanimous on whether same sex applicants qualify. Especially on a Federal Level.

Marriage is not a right.

 

[Chuz Life]

Marriage is not a right.

It's a qualified right.

Like driving.

Once you meet the minimum requirements (pass driving exam etc. and you qualify) - You have the right to license and operate that which you met the qualifications to operate.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's a qualified right.

Like driving.

Once you meet the minimum requirements (pass driving exam etc. and you qualify) - You have the right to license and operate that which you met the qualifications to operate.

Sorry it just isnt.

What Is an Absolute Right vs. a Qualified Right?

Learn the legal distinctions that make some rights untouchable while others can be balanced against legitimate societal interests.

legalclarity.org

Understanding Qualified Rights​

In contrast to absolute rights, qualified rights are entitlements that can be lawfully restricted under specific and limited circumstances. The government may interfere with a qualified right, but only if it can satisfy a strict, multi-part test. First, the interference must be prescribed by a clear and accessible law. Second, the restriction must pursue a legitimate aim, like protecting national security, public safety, or the rights of others.

The final part of the test is the principle of proportionality. This means the interference must be necessary and the measure taken no more than what is required to achieve the legitimate aim. A court will balance the harm of the restriction on the individual’s right against the public benefit. If a less intrusive measure could have achieved the same goal, the restriction is deemed disproportionate and unlawful.

The state is under no obligation to issue a marriage licenses to anyone or at all, ever. The state can limit a qualified right under certain circumstances, they cant outright abolish them like they can with marriage. I don t know why everyone seems unable to grasp that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Your inability to engage with a hypothetical is noted.

Your hypothetical is a distraction from the actual issue

 

[Couchpotato]

Your hypothetical is a distraction from the actual issue

Your inability to engage in hypotheticals is your issue not mine.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sorry it just isnt.

What Is an Absolute Right vs. a Qualified Right?

Learn the legal distinctions that make some rights untouchable while others can be balanced against legitimate societal interests.

legalclarity.org

Understanding Qualified Rights​

In contrast to absolute rights, qualified rights are entitlements that can be lawfully restricted under specific and limited circumstances. The government may interfere with a qualified right, but only if it can satisfy a strict, multi-part test. First, the interference must be prescribed by a clear and accessible law. Second, the restriction must pursue a legitimate aim, like protecting national security, public safety, or the rights of others.

The final part of the test is the principle of proportionality. This means the interference must be necessary and the measure taken no more than what is required to achieve the legitimate aim. A court will balance the harm of the restriction on the individual’s right against the public benefit. If a less intrusive measure could have achieved the same goal, the restriction is deemed disproportionate and unlawful.

The state is under no obligation to issue a marriage licenses to anyone or at all, ever. The state can limit a qualified right under certain circumstances, they cant outright abolish them like they can with marriage. I don t know why everyone seems unable to grasp that.

Thank you for making my case. Excluding same sex couples from marriage meets none of the stated criteria

 

[Chuz Life]

Sorry it just isnt.

What Is an Absolute Right vs. a Qualified Right?

Learn the legal distinctions that make some rights untouchable while others can be balanced against legitimate societal interests.

legalclarity.org

Understanding Qualified Rights​

In contrast to absolute rights, qualified rights are entitlements that can be lawfully restricted under specific and limited circumstances. The government may interfere with a qualified right, but only if it can satisfy a strict, multi-part test. First, the interference must be prescribed by a clear and accessible law. Second, the restriction must pursue a legitimate aim, like protecting national security, public safety, or the rights of others.

The final part of the test is the principle of proportionality. This means the interference must be necessary and the measure taken no more than what is required to achieve the legitimate aim. A court will balance the harm of the restriction on the individual’s right against the public benefit. If a less intrusive measure could have achieved the same goal, the restriction is deemed disproportionate and unlawful.

The state is under no obligation to issue a marriage licenses to anyone or at all, ever. The state can limit a qualified right under certain circumstances, they cant outright abolish them like they can with marriage. I don t know why everyone seems unable to grasp that.

We are not speaking in a vacuum, here.

You may be correct in that nothing in the Constitution mandates that States must issue marriage licenses to anyone.

That said, once the State does set the qualifications for and does start issuing licenses to marry, any citizen of that State who meets those qualifications has the "right" (valid claim, expectation) to be able to marry.

 

[Couchpotato]

We are not speaking in a vacuum, here.

You may be correct in that nothing in the Constitution mandates that States must issue marriage licenses to anyone.

That said, once the State does set the qualifications for and does start issuing licenses to marry, any citizen of that State who meets those qualifications has the "right" (valid claim, expectation) to be able to marry.

That's not a right to get married. That's a right to be treated equally under the law which may apply to marriage laws but that's not the same thing as a right to marriage. You have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to due process. You don't have a right to drive. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Couchpotato]

Thank you for making my case. Excluding same sex couples from marriage meets none of the stated criteria

LOL. Ok champ.

 

[Chuz Life]

That's not a right to get married. That's a right to be treated equally under the law which may apply to marriage laws but that's not the same thing as a right to marriage. You have a right to a lawyer. You have a right to due process. You don't have a right to drive. Do you understand the difference?

When the State creates a license for what it will recognize as a "marriage" and a citizen meets that qualification, they have a right to "marry" - under the law that the State established.

It is a "qualified right."

 

[WorldWatcher]

If a state recognizes Civil Marriage between same-sex couples and allows them to Civilly Marry...

What is your of Federal recognition based on the state action?

(Not a got'cha question, really curious.)

WW

I have no idea what you are asking here.

Last count there were about 1,100 federal laws that pertained to Federal rights, responsibilities, benefits or that were impacted by marital status. Such as:

Some example:

• Military service and the relocation of the spouse when the military member receives orders.
• Immigration status for those married to a US Citizen, and special consideration for acquiring citizenship
• Social Security benefits and being able to draw a spouses SS if higher than their own
• Medicaid/Medicare
• Income Tax
• Joint filing of bankruptcy
• Federal recognition of parental rights of a spouse married when a child is born
• Federal recognition rights for spouses concerning visitation on Federal hospitals
• Domestic violence prevention
• Preferential hiring of spouses for government jobs where the spouse is relocated on official orders
• Probate proceedings in the event of the death of a spouse
• Federal bereavement leave for the loss of a family member on the spouses side of the family
• Family Medical Leave for those whose spouse has a child
• Recognition of certain insurance, coverage, eligibility. For example my Wife is allowed to be the "Survivor" on my military retirement pension receiving a portion of my retirement if I pass.
• Home sale exemption where the spouse can claim up to $500,000 on the "profit" on the sale of a home for up to 2 years after the death of the spouse. Without spousal recognition the amount is limited to $250,000.
• Legal authorization to make spousal medical decision in the event of incapacity.
• Etc. Just to name a few.

Without spousal recognition at the Federal level, these a just a few of the impacts.

So again, should the Federal government recognize all Civil Marriage licenses issued by a State?

WW

 

[Couchpotato]

When the State creates a license for what it will recognize as a "marriage" and a citizen meets that qualification, they have a right to "marry" - under the law that the State established.

It is a "qualified right."

View attachment 1149446

That's not a right to marry. That's a right to access state services. If the State doesn't issue marriage licenses can you go to court and compel them to? The answer is no. Which is why it's not a right.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Andy Cohen Obliterates Kim Davis Over Her Anti-LGBTQ+ Crusade

The notorious ex-county clerk wants the Supreme Court to undo same-sex marriage, and Cohen has a few things to say — none of them polite.

www.huffpost.com

Kim Davis is a sorry, hypocritical piece of shit

Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who did time behind bars in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has resurfaced in headlines after petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn its decision guaranteeing marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Lady, you’ve been married four times to three different people, reportedly getting pregnant with husband number three while still married to husband number one,” Cohen said. “And you want to lecture us on the sanctity of marriage?”

 

[Chuz Life]

Last count there were about 1,100 federal laws that pertained to Federal rights, responsibilities, benefits or that were impacted by marital status. Such as:

Some example:

• Military service and the relocation of the spouse when the military member receives orders.
• Immigration status for those married to a US Citizen, and special consideration for acquiring citizenship
• Social Security benefits and being able to draw a spouses SS if higher than their own
• Medicaid/Medicare
• Income Tax
• Joint filing of bankruptcy
• Federal recognition of parental rights of a spouse married when a child is born
• Federal recognition rights for spouses concerning visitation on Federal hospitals
• Domestic violence prevention
• Preferential hiring of spouses for government jobs where the spouse is relocated on official orders
• Probate proceedings in the event of the death of a spouse
• Federal bereavement leave for the loss of a family member on the spouses side of the family
• Family Medical Leave for those whose spouse has a child
• Recognition of certain insurance, coverage, eligibility. For example my Wife is allowed to be the "Survivor" on my military retirement pension receiving a portion of my retirement if I pass.
• Home sale exemption where the spouse can claim up to $500,000 on the "profit" on the sale of a home for up to 2 years after the death of the spouse. Without spousal recognition the amount is limited to $250,000.
• Legal authorization to make spousal medical decision in the event of incapacity.
• Etc. Just to name a few.

Without spousal recognition at the Federal level, these a just a few of the impacts.

So again, should the Federal government recognize all Civil Marriage licenses issued by a State?

WW

Fair question.

Sincerely, because I believe the States each have a right to define what they will and will not recognize what qualifications are for "marriages" in each State, Federal Lawmakers could and per your list, probably should define what qualifications the Federal Government will use to define what the Federal Government will recognize as a "marriage."

Not as a dictate for how the States must define it, but as a qualification for Federal recognitions and programs, benefits, etc.

 

[Chuz Life]

That's not a right to marry. That's a right to access state services. If the State doesn't issue marriage licenses can you go to court and compel them to? The answer is no. Which is why it's not a right.

Ok, AI agreed with me, so there's that.