SCOTUS refuses to stop same-sex marriage in DC.

[SirNitram]

And isn't that a tortured title?

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block the District of Columbia's gay marriage law, freeing the city to issue its first marriage licenses to same-sex couples the following day.

Opponents of gay marriage in the nation's capital had asked Chief Justice John Roberts to stop the city from issuing the licenses on Wednesday while they appealed. They argued that D.C. voters should have been allowed to vote on the issue. Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments.

"It has been the practice of the court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclusively local concern," said Roberts, writing for the court.

He also pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop the city government from putting the law into effect and didn't.

Opponents have also asked city courts to allow a voter referendum on gay marriage, and they "will have the right to challenge any adverse decision ... in this court at the appropriate time," Roberts said.

The Stand4MarriageDC Coalition, which tried to get a vote on the issue, said Tuesday it was disappointed in the court's ruling. It said it would continue to work for this effort among voters who believe in traditional marriage.

The city has said Wednesday probably will be the first day same-sex couples can apply for marriage licenses. Couples still will have to wait three full business days for their licenses before exchanging vows.

Same-sex marriages are also legal in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and Vermont.

Yay, small victory.

[Gil Hamilton]

Damn those activist judges, refusing to legislate from the bench.

This is good news. The more places that have gay marriage, the more that Americans will be exposed to it and the most that the republican conservative BS on gay marriage being sme Inscrutable Menace that will Destroy America will be transparantly false.

This, of course, it why the conservatives were begging the Justices on the Supreme Court to act on this. The more gay marriage is revealed the be harmless, the more the Republican position will be proven to be false.

[eion]

I know you can get married at the Jefferson Memorial and other monuments with just a demonstration permit, but does anyone know if you can get permits for the steps of the Capital?

[hunter5]

Sweet the SCOTUS realizes the federal government has no buisness dictating who can and can't get married.

[CmdrWilkens]

I know you can get married at the Jefferson Memorial and other monuments with just a demonstration permit, but does anyone know if you can get permits for the steps of the Capital?

Sure...but they have to be issued by the office of either the Architect of the Capital or by the Capital Police (not sure which of the two) and the likelyhood of getting that depends entirely on how well connected one is.


On a related note Maryland is headed there too (warning big PDF). Similair to hwo DC first recognized out of state marriages then later passed the bill above Maryland's AG stated that it is the considered opinion of his office that the state should (and likely shall) recognize marriages performed in other states/jurisdictions (taken to include foreign nations that currently allow for such).

So anyway DC has gone full acceptance and Maryland is inching there.

[eion]

Groups of fewer than 20 do not require a permit, but are encouraged to notify the Capital Police of their activities beforehand.

Conducting an Event on United States Capitol Grounds

I believe there may be wedding demonstrations in our future.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Let freedom ring, baby!

[Rogue 9]

Sweet the SCOTUS realizes the federal government has no buisness dictating who can and can't get married.

No it doesn't; the Chief Justice pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop it, but didn't. He did not say that Congress couldn't do so in the least, and indeed that isn't what the case was about.

[Bernkastel]

This is definitely good news. Let's hope that nothing happens to affect this.

[General Zod]

The sheer amount of hypocrisy involved is delicious. I guess it's only legislating from the bench when the judges rule in favor of gay people.

[CmdrWilkens]

Sweet the SCOTUS realizes the federal government has no buisness dictating who can and can't get married.

No it doesn't; the Chief Justice pointed out that Congress could have voted to stop it, but didn't. He did not say that Congress couldn't do so in the least, and indeed that isn't what the case was about.

Following up on this a bit in the case of DC it is constitutionally the business of the Federal Government who can marry as it is charged with the administration of DC. That said Roberts correctly pointed out that A) The Home Rule bill means the the people's elected representatives have the right to make the laws for the city subject to review by Congress. As this bill was passed by the council, signed by the mayor, and not objected to by Congress (nor does it violate any principal of law) there is no valid reason for striking it down.

[Benedick-Arnold]

My only question is... If the relationship is that good, why would you want to get the Government involved?

[Teebs]

My only question is... If the relationship is that good, why would you want to get the Government involved?

The various rights that you get such as inheritance, control over medical operations, the right to visit your partner in hospital, custody over any children, any tax benefits that might arise, that kind of thing. Also societal acknowledgement of the validity of your relationship.

[Einzige]

My only question is... If the relationship is that good, why would you want to get the Government involved?

Does that question extend to married heterosexual couples as well?

I, personally, advocate getting the State totally out of marriage, and allowing each spiritual institution to establish its own by-laws regarding marriage. The fundamentalist nitwits will then have their way without having the opportunity to drag everyone else down.

[The Spartan]

I, personally, advocate getting the State totally out of marriage, and allowing each spiritual institution to establish its own by-laws regarding marriage. The fundamentalist nitwits will then have their way without having the opportunity to drag everyone else down.

So then how do you propose dealing with all the things the state should be involved in during a marriage like taxes, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc?

[Einzige]

I, personally, advocate getting the State totally out of marriage, and allowing each spiritual institution to establish its own by-laws regarding marriage. The fundamentalist nitwits will then have their way without having the opportunity to drag everyone else down.

So then how do you propose dealing with all the things the state should be involved in during a marriage like taxes, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc?

Ideally, aside from taxes, most of that could be taken care of on an individual basis. But that's only ideally. So perhaps I ought to rescind what I wrote and say this instead: the State ought to permit each spiritual institution to define its own concept of marriage, and accept all as valid provided they don't conflict with previously established laws regulating human sexual behavior. I would extend this to include consensual polygamy; however idiotic the practice is, I don't feel the need to save people from themselves.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ideally, aside from taxes, most of that could be taken care of on an individual basis. But that's only ideally. So perhaps I ought to rescind what I wrote and say this instead: the State ought to permit each spiritual institution to define its own concept of marriage, and accept all as valid provided they don't conflict with previously established laws regulating human sexual behavior. I would extend this to include consensual polygamy; however idiotic the practice is, I don't feel the need to save people from themselves.

You are a Libertarian arn't you?

I am still trying to get over the concept of how monumentally horrible an idea it is to let: " the State ought to permit each spiritual institution to define its own concept of marriage"

Exactly how are you going to define a "Spiritual Institution" ?
How are you going to define what their "Marriage" is?

If some wacko religious sect of Christianity comes-up and says that "Marriage will involve the Female giving all her worldy possessions to the man"
Well I guess thats a good thing huh?

[Einzige]

Ideally, aside from taxes, most of that could be taken care of on an individual basis. But that's only ideally. So perhaps I ought to rescind what I wrote and say this instead: the State ought to permit each spiritual institution to define its own concept of marriage, and accept all as valid provided they don't conflict with previously established laws regulating human sexual behavior. I would extend this to include consensual polygamy; however idiotic the practice is, I don't feel the need to save people from themselves.

You are a Libertarian arn't you?

A left-libertarian, yes. But I've parsed that difference before.

I am still trying to get over the concept of how monumentally horrible an idea it is to let: " the State ought to permit each spiritual institution to define its own concept of marriage"

Exactly how are you going to define a "Spiritual Institution" ?
How are you going to define what their "Marriage" is?

By simply not allowing the ones that can reasonably be considered cults to perform marriages. It doesn't have to be consistent; there's no legal reason to treat them 'fair'. One could easily codify it into law: "No marriages shall be sanctioned to any organization deemed oppressive, or which abuses its position of trust for ill-gain."

[The Spartan]

So what happens when there isn't a spiritual institution, as in the case of atheists, or a mixed religion marriage where each institution has differing views of what's acceptable?

[Liberty]

I, personally, advocate getting the State totally out of marriage, and allowing each spiritual institution to establish its own by-laws regarding marriage. The fundamentalist nitwits will then have their way without having the opportunity to drag everyone else down.

So then how do you propose dealing with all the things the state should be involved in during a marriage like taxes, inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc?

Simple. I suggest that we have the state in charge of issuing "civil unions," which are essentially contractual agreements, to any two adults who want them. This would cover taxes, etc. Then, let religious bodies be in charge of "marriage," religiously defined. They can have their own ceremonies, and these don't have to include gays (gays could find denominations that support their rights if they want to get "church" married), and they can throw people out of their denomination if they get divorced, etc. Believe it or not, this is already how the Catholic Church does it (they don't count state marriage as actual, God-ordained marriage. For that you have to go through their process and get married by a priest in a church).

Finally, some fundies are already doing what you suggest:

http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/ge ... e-wedding/
None of my daughters or their husbands asked the state of Tennessee for permission to marry. They did not yoke themselves to government. It was a personal, private covenant, binding them together forever—until death. So when the sodomites have come to share in the state marriage licenses, which will eventually be the law, James and Shoshanna will not be in league with those perverts. And, while I am on the subject, there will come a time when faithful Christians will either revoke their state marriage licenses and establish an exclusively one man-one woman covenant of marriage, or, they will forfeit the sanctity of their covenant by being unequally yoked together with perverts. The sooner there is such a movement, the sooner we will have a voice in government. Some of you attorneys and statesmen reading this should get together and come up with an approach that will have credibility and help to impact the political process. Please contact me when you do and I will assist with publicity.

[Einzige]

So what happens when there isn't a spiritual institution, as in the case of atheists, or a mixed religion marriage where each institution has differing views of what's acceptable?

Then those atheists could start an organization, along the lines of the Unitarian Universalists, to sanction their marriage. In the instance of a mixed-religion marriage, it would be up to the couple to choose which faith to go with, or to find an institution dealing in marriage with no ties to any religion (I'm using the word "spiritual institution" as an intentionally vague term to cover anything from established Christian churches to non-denominational ones to psychological workers).

[Liberty]

So what happens when there isn't a spiritual institution, as in the case of atheists, or a mixed religion marriage where each institution has differing views of what's acceptable?

Then those atheists could start an organization, along the lines of the Unitarian Universalists, to sanction their marriage. In the instance of a mixed-religion marriage, it would be up to the couple to choose which faith to go with, or to find an institution dealing in marriage with no ties to any religion (I'm using the word "spiritual institution" as an intentionally vague term to cover anything from established Christian churches to non-denominational ones to psychological workers).

Or...you could go with my suggestion and have the state in charge of simple civil unions between two adults to cover tax and custody purposes, and then people can also get "church" married by spiritual institutions if they want. At least that way there is some universal regarding custody, inheritance, divorce, etc.

[Einzige]

So what happens when there isn't a spiritual institution, as in the case of atheists, or a mixed religion marriage where each institution has differing views of what's acceptable?

Then those atheists could start an organization, along the lines of the Unitarian Universalists, to sanction their marriage. In the instance of a mixed-religion marriage, it would be up to the couple to choose which faith to go with, or to find an institution dealing in marriage with no ties to any religion (I'm using the word "spiritual institution" as an intentionally vague term to cover anything from established Christian churches to non-denominational ones to psychological workers).

Or...you could go with my suggestion and have the state in charge of simple civil unions between two adults to cover tax and custody purposes, and then people can also get "church" married by spiritual institutions if they want. At least that way there is some universal regarding custody, inheritance, divorce, etc.

We were suggesting essentially the same thing, except I was talking more about the religious end of the deal, as opposed to the civil one. But I do concur with your proposal.

[Liberty]

Or...you could go with my suggestion and have the state in charge of simple civil unions between two adults to cover tax and custody purposes, and then people can also get "church" married by spiritual institutions if they want. At least that way there is some universal regarding custody, inheritance, divorce, etc.

We were suggesting essentially the same thing, except I was talking more about the religious end of the deal, as opposed to the civil one. But I do concur with your proposal.

Oh, okay, then we're on the same page. I thought you were suggesting to completely do away with any kind of government involvement? Maybe that was someone else.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ideally, aside from taxes, most of that could be taken care of on an individual basis. But that's only ideally. So perhaps I ought to rescind what I wrote and say this instead: the State ought to permit each spiritual institution to define its own concept of marriage, and accept all as valid provided they don't conflict with previously established laws regulating human sexual behavior. I would extend this to include consensual polygamy; however idiotic the practice is, I don't feel the need to save people from themselves.

You are a Libertarian arn't you?

A left-libertarian, yes. But I've parsed that difference before.

I just read the thread and want to apologize if I seemed flippant in that comment. You are defiantly a different type of Libertarian then I am used to and am actually quite refreshing to read how you view things. Also I too was in the camp that thought you meant to get rid of ALL government involvement in marriage. Personally however I think its religious groups that should not be allowed to form marriages, and all couples should get a government marriage license