The Supreme Court really SHOULD talk about the LAW. Not “Millennia”.

[riqster]

https://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2015/04/29/the-supreme-court-really-should-talk-about-the-law-not-millennia/

Yesterday’s potentially historic hearing on Marriage Equality seemed to focus on almost everything BUT the law. Lots of yakkity yakyakyak about “millennia”, “dignity”, and “culture”, and only a few mentions of the legal ramifications of the matter. So this writer will step in and remind everyone of what the court ignored:

Number A: The current law robs gay people blind at tax time. Remember Edie Windsor, who was jacked out of $363,000.00 dollars by the IRS, because she is a lesbian? And she is not alone: manifold state and federal laws permit and enforce these “gay taxes”. Anybody who is gay gets ripped off by the government at tax time and it’s legal in most cases. The Supremes need to either allow LGBTQ Americans to pay no taxes, or to pay the same taxes as hetero citizens. Law.

Letter 2: LGBT citizens often have no right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. Because they can’t be married, they have no legal relationship, and they can (and are) denied entrance to medical facilities when their family members are in need. The Supremes need to ensure that the law treats all of us equally. Law.

Thirdly: There are many hundreds of discriminatory laws across the nation that cover schools, property, health, civil rights, inheritance, and on and on. And on. They treat gays like second-class citizens, or worse. Anybody who DOESN’T see the constitutional violations has their head in a very dark and smelly place. Laws.

Yeah, we need to think about culture and honor traditions. Absolutely. But is that where the Supreme Court should FOCUS their efforts? Absolutely not. Courts need to do their own f***ing jobs, which is, you know, LAW.

Our government as a whole is spending too much time dicking around in the private lives of its citizenry, and not nearly enough taking care of their legally mandated responsibilities.

Law. LAW, God-f***Ing-dammit.

[truebluegreen]

1. Hear, Hear!

"...too much time dicking around in the private lives of its citizenry...." is exactly right. Legislating morality (or some random person's definition of it) is not the job of the government.

[riqster]

3. Too many zealots, not enough competent legal types.

[Fred Sanders]

2. I always thought courts were supposed to apolitical..but look at the Fox-infected cons on SCOTUS.

The court is making a mockery of judicial independence.

Politics is not law, as you say....so stick with the law, politics is not your job.

CU was in fact decided by an unprecedented mixture of politics and avoidance of law....America can not afford many more years of a mockery of a Supreme Court.

[riqster]

4. Too say nothing of Bush v. Gore.

Partisan hacks.

[malthaussen]

5. Well, you'd be right if the question were one of law.

But it obviously is not, it is a question of power and prejudice masquerading under the cloak of law. And I am not sanguine that sufficient members of the court have an objective enough view of the question to decide it in point of law, although they are capable of the odd surprise in that area.

-- Mal

[riqster]

7. I'd say rather that the discrimination is done by USING the law.

Like past discriminatory policies that were enabled by law, they can only be undone via law.

[malthaussen]

10. Well, law is what you make it...

... unless you believe in wild ideas like natural rights. And I tend to agree with you, it is easier to change statutes than the hearts and minds of the people, although unless and until the latter do change, the law will continue to be a ping-pong ball between ideologies. But my point here is that, despite being superficially a discussion of law, the questions in front of the Court probably will be decided on other bases, since it shouldn't even be a question if natural rights apply to all persons. In other words, they're not talking about what they're talking about, since if they were there would be nothing to talk about.

-- Mal

[mopinko]

6. besides which, they are quite wrong about the history of marriage.

no culture had gay marriage? how about the many, many cultures that had NO marriage? dont know but assume that there are many around still.
many first nations right here had a great tolerance for gays. whatever they had that might be defined as equivalent to marriage would most certainly have applied to same sex relationships.

plural marriage remains common throughout the world. one man and one woman?

a century or 2 ago, marriage was about land and wealth. more of an economic alliance than a love alliance. one estate and another estate is more like it.

the idea of marriage has evolved greatly over those "millennia". these people are just flat out perjuring themselves.

[riqster]

8. S'truth.

Judeo-Christian insertion into the law. Unconstitutional.

[truebluegreen]

13. Worse than that:

it isn't even Judeo-Christian, since the bible has a wide range of marriage customs that have long since been abandoned (I'd like to see the biblical citation regarding marriage as one man/one woman. It would be as easy to find as Jesus' prohibitions about abortion and homosexuality). As usual, it is a bunch of random someones' ideas that have become customary

[Orsino]

9. "Millennia" = Privilege.

That's all.

[riqster]

16. Nicely put.

[tridim]

11. Thank you, this is a key point.

Single people have to pay extra taxes as well. Nobody gives a damn about us.

[riqster]

15. Yep. Social engineering via tax policy.

[central scrutinizer]

12. lots of things pass the "millenia" test

slavery, child labor, primogeniture. Doesn't automatically make it "right".

[riqster]

14. Very true.

[Orrex]

17. Scalia et al condemn the use of foreign law to inform US court decisions

Yet they're willing to embrace "millennia of tradition" to support their own views.

I'm not really strong on history, but how many millennia has the US Constitution been around?

[riqster]

18. .25 millennia, give or take.