Maybe the SCOTUS is about to connect some more dots!

[Couchpotato]

A State could try to do so, certainly. It would probably go straight to the SCOTUS (at least on a fast track) and the State would have to argue that it had the right to do so.

The SCOTUS (if going strictly by their own previous ruling) would likely rule against the State's decision to stop issuing licenses. However, if the State could convince the SCOTUS (as some are trying to do) that it is within the State's rights, under the 10th Amendment. . . The SCOTUS would have to agree and might suggest that a "Constitutional Amendment" would be needed if "marriage" is to be "federalized."

The legislature had the pass a law in order to be able to issue the licenses. Why would it be illegal to stop doing so and how would it be the purview of the SCOTUS?

 

[Chuz Life]

Which makes it a right.

It's currently a constitutionally protected right.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/8HQnn97iN1qJ9xIvnnS1LPrKN

 

[Couchpotato]

View attachment 1148929

https://x.com/i/grok/share/8HQnn97iN1qJ9xIvnnS1LPrKN

Those rulings just mean that if they issue marriage licenses they have to issue them to everyone. If they isue them to no one.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That irrelevant. That they can means it's not a right.

False. People would still get married and be recognized as married. And such a move would almost certainly be reversed by the courts.

 

[Couchpotato]

False. People would still get married and be recognized as married. And such a move would almost certainly be reversed by the courts.

? Not in the state that stopped issuing licenses they wont. Under what legal precept could the court overturn the Legislature recinding the law which made the issuing of marriage licenses legal in the first place?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not in the state that stopped issuing licenses they wont.

They of course will, and such a law or EO would be reversed.

Because marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

You DO understand that the topic is that right being possibly deleted.... right?

JFC this place...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Based on?

It's 100% not a right. The state is under no obligation to marry anyone gay or straight. The State could abolish marriage as a state institution completely. Secular marriage is nothing more than a package of agreements/contracts that people enter into that they call "marriage". A lawyer could draw up a contract between 2 people which does the same thing. The state has just made it an easy one stop shop.

It's not a right by any stretch of the imagination.

Let's take one example.

If a married couple buys a house together, live there for X years and sell the house they can claim a $500,000 joint tax deduction ($250,000 each) for an amount over the purchase price (i.e. the "profit).

A non-married couple purchase a house and live there for X years and sell the house. They can claim individually up to a $250,000 each based on their percentage of ownership of the house.
.
.
.
.
Now here is the fun part. A non-married couple CANNOT claim the spousal exemption. That means the survivor can claim only a maximum of $250,000. However a married spouse can claim the full $500,000 excemption for up to 2-years after the death of their legal spouse.

You can't draw up a contract that violates tax law.

WW

 

[Moonglow]

There is no same sex marriage.

Marriage for 10,000 years is the act of holy matrimony before God for the express purpose of keeping the act pure and protecting the sanctity of the institution and the divinity of children.

Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, a perversion, a mental or emotional illness requiring treatment, and not just a choice.

But again here I go compromising and agreeing that if gays are to live together and form a partnership, they can at least form a civil union for legal purposes.

But as usual, that was not good enough and the deviant left had to be able to call it a marriage so they could claim there was no difference between fags living together and a man and wife.

There is no difference.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A lawyer could draw up a contract between 2 people which does the same thing. The state has just made it an easy one stop shop.

Not in Virginia (and a number of other states that also barred Civil Unions and contracts attempting to provide similar rights as to those of Civil Marriage).

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

? Not in the state that stopped issuing licenses they wont. Under what legal precept could the court overturn the Legislature recinding the law which made the issuing of marriage licenses legal in the first place?

To stop issuing Civil Marriage licenses does not change all the laws in the State where Civil Marriage is a component. They may not allow new marriages, but they would have to do exensive re-writing of a large chunk of state laws. Inheretiance, Tax law, parental responsibilities, divorce, child custody, etc.

Secondly, just because it stops issuing Civil Marriage licenses doen't mean that they can stop recognizing Civil Marriages in other states as long as they recognize Civil Marriges for state residents.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

They of course will, and such a law or EO would be reversed.

Because marriage is a constitutionally protected right.

You DO understand that the topic is that right being possibly deleted.... right?

JFC this place...

Technically he his correct.

A State can stop recognizging Civil Marriage as a legal status.

However, the undertaking would be MASSIVE and it will never happen.

WW

 

[Chuz Life]

It will probably get lost or buried in this thread, but all these comments (to me) beg the question.

What is the basis or reason for having laws at all, including laws that define what will and what will not be recognized as a marriage?

In my view, and as I was taught in civics classes, the purpose of laws in general and especially laws like those to define marriage is to build and maintain the most solid basis for society as possible.

The most simple starting point and building block (model) being a one man, one woman starting point, to form a family nucleus that builds the most solid foundation of a society, one family at a time.

Marriage is a legal construct that I believe should be to that end. That said, It doesn't necessarily bother me of aggravate me if some State or States want to broaden the definition of marriage in THEIR State. Or even in my own.

Because, regardless, it's only a legal construct and the one man one woman model will forever be the strongest, simplest, societal standard.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Technically he his correct.

A State can stop recognizging Civil Marriage as a legal status.

However, the undertaking would be MASSIVE and it will never happen.

WW

Yes, in the sense they can pass any law. They can pass unconstitutional laws every day, if they so choose. And a law eliminating marriage licensing would be reversed by the courts, unless everything you described were already in place and working well. The State cannot both refuse to issue licenses and then also require them at other times, for one. So if this is just a matter of removing the bureaucratic step of a state license, then anyone can claim to be married and also therefore be entitled to be treated as married. Hey, fine by me. Probably not so fine to the IRS, the State dept. of revenue, lenders, insurers, probate judges, etc.

Of course this new system cannot and won't happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is the basis or reason for having laws at all, including laws that define what will and what will not be recognized as a marriage?

It's a great question. I think, at this point, it's mostly to used for social engineering. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, don't just bristle at the term.

For example, I think we can agree that many do see it as a way to regulate who can get married. Which might be a good idea, when a dad tries to marry his daughter. No?

I think a lot of people think marriage is a way of preserving the traditional household structure and see it as pointless in even existing, if gay peole can do it, too. They would burn down the school before letting the people they don't want in go to class.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's a great question. I think, at this point, it's mostly to used for social engineering. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, don't just bristle at the term.

I think engineering is a bit of an overstatement.

Monogamous "marriage" between one man and one woman is older than any modern day government is. There are many cultures where bigamy and even incest was accepted. American laws (in my opinion rightfully) enshrined one man one woman as a societal norm and that definition stood over 100 Years until it was challenged.

One man one womn remains both the societal norm and in my opinion the most simple ideal starting point for the basis for a society.

For example, I think we can agree that many do see it as a way to regulate who can get married. Which might be a good idea, when a dad tries to marry his daughter. No?

That would be one of the safe guards, sure.

think a lot of people think marriage is a way of preserving the traditional household structure and see it as pointless in even existing, if gay peole can do it, too. They would burn down the school before letting the people they don't want in go to class.

I won't speak for them.

I can only give and share my own lines of reasoning. Which, i've now provided.

 

[Couchpotato]

To stop issuing Civil Marriage licenses does not change all the laws in the State where Civil Marriage is a component. They may not allow new marriages, but they would have to do exensive re-writing of a large chunk of state laws. Inheretiance, Tax law, parental responsibilities, divorce, child custody, etc.

Secondly, just because it stops issuing Civil Marriage licenses doen't mean that they can stop recognizing Civil Marriages in other states as long as they recognize Civil Marriges for state residents.

WW

Sure. I never said it would be easy or that it would ever happen. It wouldnt be and it won’t. That the state can and had to pass all sorts of laws to establish civil marriage is proof that it isn’t a right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think engineering is a bit of an overstatement.

No, it's the very definition of social engineering (incentivizing or deterring marriage). I think you bristled at the term. Social Engineering includes, for example, using tax policy to incentive behaviors, like marriage.

Which is precisely what we do.

Monogamous "marriage" between one man and one woman is older than any modern day government is.

And so are loin cloths and a life expectancy of 30. Times change.

One man one womn remains both the societal norm and in my opinion the most simple ideal starting point for the basis for a society.

Well, worry no more, society is already here. We don't need to start a society. We need to live together in the one that exists. In THIS reality. Not in the fever dreams of various mythologies, where people can live forever. God will handle that, if I understand the mythologies correctly..

So, to put it it bluntly... just mind your business on this one. And so will I. If someone proposes gay marriage to you, say no thanks. If someone you love gets gay married, go hide to have your tantrum. Just show the most basic of good manners, as a small child might be asked to do at the grocery store.

It's such a small ask, which makes the anti gay marriage crusaders look very ridiculous. What a bunch of freaking babies.

 

[Couchpotato]

Not in Virginia (and a number of other states that also barred Civil Unions and contracts attempting to provide similar rights as to those of Civil Marriage).

WW

View attachment 1148936

All the things civil marriage grants you can be drafted through contracts, powers of attorney etc is my point. It’s not some inherent right everyone has.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All the things civil marriage grants you can be drafted through contracts, powers of attorney etc is my point. It’s not some inherent right everyone has.

It actually is a constitutionally protected right, right at this very moment. As long as the legal institution of marriage exists, gays have equal access to it. That's the right that is protected.

 

[Couchpotato]

It actually is a constitutionally protected right, right at this very moment. As long as the legal institution of marriage exists, gays have equal access to it. That's the right that is protected.

I’ll ask again. Can you cite the portion of the Constitution which makes civil marriage a right.

What you’ve cited has zero to do with marriage.