Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 4:02 p.m. EST January 16, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to resolve the national debate over same-sex marriage once and for all.

The justices agreed to consider four cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, consolidated and heard together. They will hear 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments in April and issue a ruling before the current term ends in late June.

More at:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/

Makes me feel like a child. Six old men and three old women go into a room and decide who the rest of us are allowed to marry.

It's time. It will be a 5-4 decision, but it will happen.

Quote from: Beth Andrea on January 16, 2015, 06:57:52 PM
It's time. It will be a 5-4 decision, but it will happen.

Glad you're so confident about what's going on between Anthony Kennedy's ears. Hard to take comfort that my marriage rights are being dictated by a straight cisgender guy pushing 80 whose religion's main leader blamed trans people for all the world's ills as recently as two years ago.

OTOH, Beth, I've been nurtured by your optimism before, so I'll put my faith in your hope.

I think it will be in favor. There is clearly precedent here. It's an equal protection issue.

In my mind, the USSC isn't 9 "wise people" who carefully consider this side, that side, and the other side, and then Decide. Upon. A. Glorious. Destiny.

What they do is weigh the cases against where the ruling classes want the public to be, and then present it in such a way as to reduce the chance of a revolution being sparked. (See "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" for why I think this)

They listen to the conservative/reactionary side to let them think that they have a chance, that the clock will be turned back to the 1960's, 1950's, or even the 1870's...but it has never happened. Yet the conservatives believe with a great faith that they have a chance to enact discriminatory laws without the USSC objecting...

LGBTQ rights have been a global phenom for quite some time now...all countries are getting on board.

It is clear that there is precedent. Loving v Virginia for starters. They would have to do some real legal gymnastics to get around that one.

The "logic" I fail to understand is this- since I entered into my marriage as a supposed cishet guy, my marriage is still recognized even after I was legally declared a woman.   So if you're gay, you're out of luck in a lot of places, but if you're trans AND gay, you're still good?  WTF?

Also, whom can you marry if you were born with ambiguous genitalia? 

Same sex marriage bans are completely irrational, especially in a country that loves to throw words like "liberty" and "freedom" around.

Quote from: Jill F on January 16, 2015, 09:02:03 PM

Also, whom can you marry if you were born with ambiguous genitalia? 

Whatever you were assigned at birth, because we know doctors are never wrong.

Quote from: ImagineKate on January 16, 2015, 08:17:56 PM
It is clear that there is precedent. Loving v Virginia for starters. They would have to do some real legal gymnastics to get around that one.

Not so. In the case of L v. V, racial equality was clearly written into the constitution and into federal law. The right to marry one's own gender is not.

I agree that logic is overwhelmingly on the side of same sex unions. There are no decent arguments against them.

However, I'm concerned the supreme court majority will ask instead the question "Are constitutional protections for same sex marriage clear enough to justify forcing a state to accept them whose majority has clearly voted to outlaw them."

I'm concerned they would find that answer not quite so cut-and-dry.

I am extremely optimistic. Even forgetting inalienable rights, etc, there are endless practical reasons that make individual states outlawing same-sex unions unworkable. Given that most have legalized it, a state that does not allow it either has to refuse to ignore legal out-of-state marriages or there's effectively no impediment for many same-sex couples. In either case, the result is a ridiculous, expensive, and confusing legal situation that contributes nothing tangible aside from maybe putting a warm fuzzy feeling in the icy hearts of the anti-same-sex-marriage twits.

The current SC doesn't generally put much value in granting states the rights to make things stupid in the absence of a major financial benefit to someone. That, plus the absolute absence of convincing arguments in favor of a ban, gives me a pretty high degree of confidence.

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 17, 2015, 10:56:44 AM
Not so. In the case of L v. V, racial equality was clearly written into the constitution and into federal law. The right to marry one's own gender is not.

I agree that logic is overwhelmingly on the side of same sex unions. There are no decent arguments against them.

However, I'm concerned the supreme court majority will ask instead the question "Are constitutional protections for same sex marriage clear enough to justify forcing a state to accept them whose majority has clearly voted to outlaw them."

I'm concerned they would find that answer not quite so cut-and-dry.

States Rights became subordinate to Federal authority in 1865...in the case of civil rights (Is marriage a civil right? ) they trump States Rights as of 1964.

QuoteDefinition of "civil rights" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights)

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation...

(my emphasis)

I would say marriage is a civil right; "domestic partnership" is a relationship's equivalent to "separate but equal". This view has been struck down.

Given that marriage is a civil right, is it proper to exclude an entire class of people from it? (A "class of people" could be defined as "Anyone who has these characteristics/behaviors...") Other than minors, there are no reasons to exclude anyone.

In addition, if even one State is allowed to not recognize same-sex marriages from another State, that would be no different than the same treatment of dfferent-race marriages...which were overturned while a majority of voters approved of that method of discrimination.

I debated putting this in its own topic, but I felt this belonged here. News staff/mods - feel free to move if necessary.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-lashes-out-at-seme-sex-m#.mmrRQZkYb

An Alabama Supreme Court judge lashes out at the federal court rulings.

This judge even cited the bible to say that same sex marriage should not be legal. Wait, what? I take it he hasn't heard of the first amendment.

Oh and btw:

WASHINGTON — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore lashed out Tuesday at federal courts that "have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriage in 21 states of the Union," arguing that he will continue to follow his state's amendment barring such marriages in spite of a federal trial court ruling to the contrary.

Wow. Contempt of court... I hope fire and brimstone hails down on him. This is serious business.

Quote from: ImagineKate on January 27, 2015, 06:44:39 PM

This judge even cited the bible to say that same sex marriage should not be legal. Wait, what? I take it he hasn't heard of the first amendment.

I wonder if he's down with polygamy.

Or stoning.

Quote from: ImagineKate on January 27, 2015, 06:51:03 PM
Or stoning.

Or smiting...

Roy Moore is a #$%%*# &%#$ of a *#^$$@. He's threatened to disobey federal courts before, and I imagine he'll continue to do it until national guard troops show up at his country club and threaten to haul his publicity-seeking @$$ to prison for violation of federal law.

Yes, I know, I probably violated the TOS, but it's worth it. The guy really is a lower life form.

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 27, 2015, 07:21:12 PM
Roy Moore is a #$%%*# &%#$ of a *#^$$@. He's threatened to disobey federal courts before, and I imagine he'll continue to do it until national guard troops show up at his country club and threaten to haul his publicity-seeking @$$ to prison for violation of federal law.

Yes, I know, I probably violated the TOS, but it's worth it. The guy really is a lower life form.

For all I know, you didn't want us to think you said "wonderful example of a human being".  ;)   Don't worry, when Federal funds get cut off, they'll sing a very different tune.

Quote from: Beth Andrea on January 16, 2015, 06:57:52 PM
It's time. It will be a 5-4 decision, but it will happen.

I wouldn't be so sure. I bet no one would have guessed that religion trumped civil rights in the hobby lobby case.

Quote from: Zumbagirl on January 28, 2015, 02:36:00 PM
I wouldn't be so sure. I bet no one would have guessed that religion trumped civil rights in the hobby lobby case.

Freedom from the Government when it comes to one's religious beliefs is a guaranteed constitutional right. That decision didn't reduce anyone's civil rights. One is still free to obtain any form of birth control they please as long as they can pay for it. An employer is also free not to pay for it. Having an employer pay for anything is not a guaranteed right.

But this case isn't even nearly about the same thing. Marriage is an equal protection issue, which is why DOMA was struck down. I am betting this case's eventual ruling may be a 9-0, 8-1 or 7-2 decision. Stare decisis and all.

Quote from: ImagineKate on January 28, 2015, 04:02:11 PM
That decision didn't reduce anyone's civil rights.

Do you consider federal protections for employees a civil right?

Fifty bucks says Scalia and Thomas will dissent.   

Quote from: Jill F on January 28, 2015, 04:19:05 PM
Fifty bucks says Scalia and Thomas will dissent.

That would be a good thing.

The disaster would be if they were voting with the majority.

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 28, 2015, 05:48:47 PM
That would be a good thing.

The disaster would be if they were voting with the majority.

Nailed it.

I'd have so much more respect for Scalia and Thomas both if they didn't have a mindset that the government exists to interfere only when they want it to interfere. 

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 28, 2015, 04:09:42 PM
Do you consider federal protections for employees a civil right?

Absolutely.

Let me flip it around though. Is a free gym membership from your employer a civil right?

How about my right to carry a gun to work?

Again, we aren't talking about an employer prohibiting something. They just don't want to pay for it. One can always pay for it privately or even on a healthcare exchange policy.

Quote from: Jill F on January 28, 2015, 04:19:05 PM
Fifty bucks says Scalia and Thomas will dissent.

I'm not betting anything until I hear the orals.

Quote from: ImagineKate on January 28, 2015, 07:18:29 PM
Let me flip it around though. Is a free gym membership from your employer a civil right?

There is no federal law requires my employer to provide me a free gym membership, is there?

However there is a federal law that requires my employer to take care of my health - all of it - if they claim to offer health insurance.

Or, there used to be. Now there isn't.

Oh boy oh boy. Who brought the popcorn?

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 28, 2015, 07:51:03 PM
There is no federal law requires my employer to provide me a free gym membership, is there?

However there is a federal law that requires my employer to take care of my health - all of it - if they claim to offer health insurance.

There is no such law. The ACA doesn't mandate coverage for everything. Besides, it can't mandate something which isn't constitutional, such as forcing an employer to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the Hobby Lobby decision was very narrow and this was emphasized by the justices.

I only mention gym memberships because it is a feature of some health plans. Falls under "taking care of all of your health."

Quote
Or, there used to be. Now there isn't.

Well, there was also a law that said that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not anymore.

There was also a law that said that abortion is illegal. Not anymore!

Kind of how the whole thing works.

Anyway not gonna derail this too much...

Someone tell me the results of their ruling on this matter when they come to a ruling please.

Quote from: ImagineKate on January 28, 2015, 08:23:41 PM
Well, there was also a law that said that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not anymore.

Wait, so, you mean to tell me, we can now be married to more than 1 person? We can finally have our own "legal" harem? Does this also mean we can now even have sex with prostitutes and not get in trouble for it? To me, if you said, no we can't be married to more than 1 person, and or no we can't have sex with prostitutes without getting in trouble then THAT goes against our rights.

Quote from: Shana-chan on January 31, 2015, 02:23:00 PM
Someone tell me the results of their ruling on this matter when they come to a ruling please.
Wait, so, you mean to tell me, we can now be married to more than 1 person? We can finally have our own "legal" harem? Does this also mean we can now even have sex with prostitutes and not get in trouble for it? To me, if you said, no we can't be married to more than 1 person, and or no we can't have sex with prostitutes without getting in trouble then THAT goes against our rights.

Well I personally don't believe polygamy should be illegal and I think it's only a matter of time before the courts strike down laws banning that too.

I do draw the line at consenting adult humans though.

Despite Supreme Court actions, experts warn marriage not a done deal

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/11/despite-supreme-court-actions-experts-warn-marriage-not-done-deal/ (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/11/despite-supreme-court-actions-experts-warn-marriage-not-done-deal/)

February 11, 2015 | by Chris Johnson

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week to decline a stay on Alabama same-sex marriages was heralded as a surefire sign justices are ready to issue a decision in favor of nationwide marriage equality, but some legal experts are warning: Not so fast.

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University, said there's "no such thing as a done deal involving the Supreme Court" and justices could still determine state prohibitions on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

I'm curious what everyone thinks of that link/news article that was just posted below? Do you think same sex marriage being allowed is a done deal, or not? And, why?

It's a good article, and a good reminder not to put the chickens in the cart before spilling the milk, or something.

What do I think? It ain't over until the fat lady sings... but she's warming up pretty good. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fbiggrin.gif&hash=fa2db8a2d15c338f95b7a2cbcb46a673a808a937)

Well, that didn't take long.

According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/13/us/alabama-same-sex-marriage-ruling.html):

[Judge] Callie V. S. Granade of Federal District Court here, wrote that the county judge, Don Davis, of Probate Court in Mobile County, cannot deny a marriage license "on the ground that plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the sanctity of marriage."
<snip>
While the ruling Thursday was focused only on Judge Davis, it was intended to send a signal to judges statewide who are caught between the federal ruling and the order from Chief Justice Moore.

Judge Davis doesn't have much choice at this point, but it will be interesting to see how Chief Justice Moore, and the other probate judges, respond.

ETA: A copy of Judge Granade's actual order can be found here (http://media.al.com/news_impact/other/Gay%20marriage%20injunction.pdf). I had somehow missed that the state Attorney General was also a defendant in the suit. I wonder if that will make it harder for other parts of the state to ignore it, since he's now on the hook for what happens; I'd think this makes him directly responsible for enforcing the law.

I'm guessing he's grandstanding knowing he will lose but that the voters will somehow reward him for it.

Quote from: ImagineKate on February 13, 2015, 08:11:47 AM
I'm guessing he's grandstanding knowing he will lose but that the voters will somehow reward him for it.

I'm reading it a different way. I think extremists are sending a message to the supreme court that their decision will not be taken lying down by those who disagree. They're hoping to sway the conservative justices or at least remind them they have an alternative for signing on to a decision they disagree with.

I'm not really following this conversation. So, is it same sex marriage is in trouble of not getting passed or is it still in the clear based on what said articles say and such?

The popular thinking is that the Supreme Court has made a number of decisions, most recently refusing to temporarily halt same-sex marriages in Alabama, that would be very strange if there were a significant chance that it was not about to permanently rid the country of same-sex marriage bans. I think it's pretty sound logic but the Court is famously hard to predict.

Quote from: jeni on February 13, 2015, 12:23:23 PM
The popular thinking is that the Supreme Court has made a number of decisions, most recently refusing to temporarily halt same-sex marriages in Alabama, that would be very strange if there were a significant chance that it was not about to permanently rid the country of same-sex marriage bans. I think it's pretty sound logic but the Court is famously hard to predict.

My guess based on how the court has done it in the past is to strike down the bans with conditions. For example it would not force officiants to marry a gay (or straight) couple if it goes against their religious beliefs. Often the courts will tiptoe the line like this as they really aren't supposed to be legislating from the bench but give enough guidance so that everyone is supposed to get the message.

Quote from: ImagineKateMy guess based on how the court has done it in the past is to strike down the bans with conditions. For example it would not force officiants to marry a gay (or straight) couple if it goes against their religious beliefs. Often the courts will tiptoe the line like this as they really aren't supposed to be legislating from the bench but give enough guidance so that everyone is supposed to get the message.

"Legislating from the bench" is an accusation usually leveled at judges who make decisions with which the accuser disagrees. It's the same with "judicial activism." One person's judicial activist is another's thoughtful interpreter of the law; it depends entirely on one's politics.

As to whether the Court's decision will let officiants off the hook because of their religious beliefs, it absolutely should not. Rulings in discrimination cases, of which this is one, rely on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In the case of judges, justices of the peace, and other public servants, it is their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution; they're not permitted to pick and choose the bits they want to follow. If they're not able to do that duty for religious reasons, they need to resign. (Note that Chief Justice Moore, who is attempting to flout a federal court ruling in this matter, is doing so on religious grounds, invoking the "sanctity of marriage." It's not going to work for him, nor should it work for officials at lower levels of the system.)

The situation is less clear-cut when it comes to religious officiants; I presume that some will refuse to perform same-sex marriages, but to the extent that the marriages they perform are legally recognized, they are carrying out a function of the state and should be subject to the same imperative. (I'd like to see the case made that if a member of the clergy refused to marry certain people, the marriages they did perform ought not to be recognized by the state; but that's probably just my own wishful thinking. )

Quote from: Tysilio on February 13, 2015, 02:41:34 PM
(I'd like to see the case made that if a member of the clergy refused to marry certain people, the marriages they did perform ought not to be recognized by the state; but that's probably just my own wishful thinking. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fcool.gif&hash=d4879c0267a356dff26cd86b0fa87ea42a6199e1))

Well said, your whole post I mean. The quoted bit is an interesting idea. Personally I would rather see legal unions, ahem, divorced from non-government representatives entirely just to avoid this quagmire. Someone who feels it is important that their union be sanctified before XYZ is free to have a ceremony at the appropriate church, but this institutionalized mixing of church and state  is just begging for conflicts.

QuoteWell said, your whole post I mean. The quoted bit is an interesting idea. Personally I would rather see legal unions, ahem, divorced from non-government representatives entirely just to avoid this quagmire. Someone who feels it is important that their union be sanctified before XYZ is free to have a ceremony at the appropriate church, but this institutionalized mixing of church and state  is just begging for conflicts.

Thanks, Jeni. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fsmile.gif&hash=2c5a4907e2673dfa63557696254abe82f5c9641e)

We're in total agreement about that "divorce." Back in 2000, when Vermont passed legislation creating civil unions for same-sex couples, I thought (and said!) "Great! Get the state out of the marriage business entirely! If people want to get married in church, let that be a completely separate thing from having the government recognize their relationships. Civil unions for everyone!"

I still think that would be the sensible thing to do... but they never take my advice about this stuff.  (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fwink.gif&hash=fd49c1687b59c0ea097a7b4f1ed562a996fdaf5c)

One can only hope that someday they will because they really should. It's great advice.
Mariah

Quote from: Tysilio on February 13, 2015, 09:07:41 PM
Thanks, Jeni. (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fsmile.gif&hash=2c5a4907e2673dfa63557696254abe82f5c9641e)

We're in total agreement about that "divorce." Back in 2000, when Vermont passed legislation creating civil unions for same-sex couples, I thought (and said!) "Great! Get the state out of the marriage business entirely! If people want to get married in church, let that be a completely separate thing from having the government recognize their relationships. Civil unions for everyone!"

I still think that would be the sensible thing to do... but they never take my advice about this stuff.  (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthefiringline.com%2Fforums%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fwink.gif&hash=fd49c1687b59c0ea097a7b4f1ed562a996fdaf5c)

I'm sure I would love to see that as well but there are others in the LGBT community who see government sanctioned marriage as an inclusion and government divorce from marriage to be in reaction to gay couples wanting to get married. Look at Alabama, it's gotten so bad that in some counties they're refusing to issue licenses to anyone, same or opposite sex.

As for religious officiants I believe in strong separation of church and state and I think it is their right to refuse whomever they want. For example in my church one CANNOT be married there unless one of the persons (or their parents) attend the church for at least 6 months and is catholic. That is fine I think. There are many places to get married and if you're not wanted there then why force it.

I have to say I have never understood the opposition to the government's ditching the marriage business, though I have certainly come across it. I have seen a lot of arguments, but never one that I thought was convincing.

Your example of a church having requirements is fine with me, but I think is exactly the reason that religious "marriage" needs to be totally separate from legal unions. It is reasonable for a group to decide that they believe in restrictions on what they consider marriage, but it is not ok for the government to recognize discriminatory institutions, and I don't see any way to reconcile those.

Marriage is a legal contract that started as a religious/social thing. I can see good reason to separate the legal from the religion part.

From what I get it's not so much the benefits but more the equality argument that has both sides passionate about marriage.

Why? Even with "separate but equal" civil unions that wasn't enough for gay rights activists (and rightfully so). They want the word. They want equality. They want recognition that they are no different from a heterosexual married couple in terms of what a marriage means. To be honest I differ a wee bit on the last part but I really don't mind same sex marriage. I mean I'm kinda in one...

I think the part I don't understand is why anyone would consider their marriage to be validated because the State of XYZ proclaimed it to be one, but if the term is civil union, that doesn't count. As long as no one can obtain a "marriage" from the state, it's no longer separate but equal, it's identical. Ah well.