SCALIA: ‘When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?’


scalia“We don’t prescribe law for the future,” Scalia said. “We decide what the law is. I’m curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?”

Read more at businessinsider.com.

56 comments
DanARou
DanARou

Why isn't Fezzie screaming that a man should be able to marry his gay brother?

REDDYROG
REDDYROG

not the first to say this,but I'm married and if the gays want to marry...go for it!

Someone
Someone

Marriage isn't a constitutional right because its never been defined in the constitution. It was just grandfathered in (and it was done so when women were equal to property). End the benefits which are there own kind of prejudice against singles, legally adopt domestic partnership and just call it what you want in your personal life.

cigarsNscotch
cigarsNscotch

Around the same time the government involved itself it religious sacraments. I feel all legally binding relationships should be considered civil unions as far as the government is concerned.

CamfromToronto
CamfromToronto

Let me be the millionth person to make the observation that the founding fathers were just a bunch if dudes who drank heavily and weren't worthy of anywhere near the deference and adulation they get to this day. My country's "fathers of confederation" were no better but I'm glad we don't look back on them like they were godddamn prophets...

rexdart936
rexdart936

the argument for gay marriage should be made on equal protection grounds.

TurdJerguson
TurdJerguson

It should be constitutional if you go by the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Tbone1120
Tbone1120

Just let them get maried so the queens can stop crying about it.

HummusMagnate
HummusMagnate

Hmm... I'm gonna say that the government can't "exclude" people from government sponsored activities like marriage because that in my opinion violates civil rights. Now the way for religion to get around this is to not be in bed with the government when marrying people. I.e. no judge or JOP no tax benifits etc. Problem solved. If you're that serious about your religious beliefs then you would keep the government out of them. If your contract is between your lover and God you should not be worried about a rubber stamped government document "legalizing" it in the eyes of the court system. Is this making any sense?

ecupirate
ecupirate

for the most part marriage is dumb anyhow

SarahMcPants
SarahMcPants

Around the same time women could vote and black men stopped being 3/5ths of a person.

TwizzlesMcNasty
TwizzlesMcNasty

I have had a similar point of veiw on the constitution but then you consider the thoughts of some of the founding fathers who felt like they were laying the ground work for the ending of slavery.  I do not think that we are completely beholden to these men from 200 years ago but they did seem to be men who considered freedom precious  Homosexuality never should have been illegal based on our contitution but there is a question for the of how is marriage defined?  Is it an agreement between two people?  No Is it an agreement between two people and a church?  No.  Is it an argeement between two people and the state?  Yes.  Is it improper discrimination for the state to resrict people of the same sex to enter into the argeement?  Scalia thinks an amendment like the one that abolished slavery is necessary and that would be the cleanest solution but they could argue the intent of the constitution restrict this type of discrimination. 

 

Marriage and the state shouldn't mix at all.  Marriage should be the realm of the people.  Churches, individuals, whoever makes something up, what business is it of the state?

edrooney
edrooney

If Jesus came back and became a citizen of the USA.  Not a dual Israeli/US citizenship but a Straight up US citizen, what political party do you think he would be registered with ( for drivers license purposes, of course)   If you think Jesus would be a republican, I challenge you to tell me why.  

JonNockels
JonNockels

Right around that "We hold these truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" part.

DerekJamesSmith
DerekJamesSmith

I wonder if Scalia would apply the same thinking to the 2nd Amendment

Vami
Vami

Thanks for a very angry, smug and confused 20 minutes of radio tomorrow, Scalia!

DanARou
DanARou

Since Marriage is legally for the intent of procreation; 8====) (====8 does not make babies, neither does O/O (scissoring)

indpendnt
indpendnt

 @CamfromToronto Canada!? A fucking preacher can't preach fucking scripture in your SHIT country without getting prosecuted. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP!

elephant_droid
elephant_droid

 @CamfromToronto Do you have confidence any of today's equivalents to create the country's government and bill of rights?

indpendnt
indpendnt

 @rexdart936  Everyone has the right to Marry now. Just the member of the opposite sex. So no one is denied any right. Now if a couple of the same sex want a "legal" union. It should be called a civil union, with THE EXACT SAME PROTECTIONS. Marriage is a religious term. Next, the gays will want the right to preach and marry inside the churches. Why should their rights trample other rights?

indpendnt
indpendnt

 @HummusMagnate  But your government demands to be part of a Marriage. Mainly their claim for it is, divorces. I think they should stay the fuck out of it.

 

Fuck, they discriminate against single people. They tax them/us at a higher rate. WTF!?

edrooney
edrooney

 @SarahMcPants At least women were a no/yes decision and not valued as a "compromise" at 60% competent.

edrooney
edrooney

 @TwizzlesMcNasty  The founding fathers did 0.00 for ending slavery.  Slavery was an issue that they skirted for another 80 or so years.

galactictraveler
galactictraveler

@edrooney he would be a dictator. ! Another cult of personality !

indpendnt
indpendnt

 @edrooney Because he'd want people to do things for themselves, he'd also want charity and not forced philanthropy

HummusMagnate
HummusMagnate

@DanARou ...fuck! I totally forgot babies can't be made without a marriage license

CamfromToronto
CamfromToronto

@indpendnt @CamfromToronto the idea that the value of someone's opinion can be determined by the country they were born in is an excellent follow up example of this sort of childishness, so thank you. I don't stand behind Canada's record on free speech and I'm not so blindly patriotic to recognize that free speech is an area where the U.S. has a better track record. I just find the uncritical belief that this great and noble group of politicians all happened to converge at the time the country was born to be kinda ridiculous. The U.S. Constitution is great but blind deference to these noble heroes while interpreting/applying it seems crazy to me.

Hoboken Guy
Hoboken Guy

 @indpendnt  @rexdart936 How is this "trampling other rights"?  So if you only had the right to marry a woman from, say, Georgia but not one from any other state, would you consider that the same as others rights to marry?  Because it's the same argument.

 

Sounds an AWFUL lot like separate but equal just like Sarah notes.  "Hey if you're black you have the right to eat at a restaurant, just not at the same restaurant where I eat.  You can ride on the bus, in the last four rows".

SarahMcPants
SarahMcPants

 @indpendnt  @rexdart936 Was separate but equal ok with you when it was black vs whites too? And why do you think gays would be forcing their way into churches they are not welcomed in? They dont do that now, and I as an agnostic straight person dont have the right to get married or preach in a church that doesnt accept me, so why would a gay person? Marriage is a religious term but it is used by the government for some but not others, why should the government be involved in what couples "god" thinks are ok to get married vs the ones that arent?

SarahMcPants
SarahMcPants

 @edrooney  The 3/5ths thing started in 1783 until black men counted as 100% in 1865. Women didnt get the right to vote until 1920. Its pretty clear its bros before hoes here.

BurettoGaku
BurettoGaku

 @edrooney  Jefferson wrote in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, with regard to King George III :

 

"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither."

 

The fact that it was removed at the insistence of the southern states is unfortunate, but necessary to assure the ratification of the Declaration.  As Benjamin Franklin stated, and I'll have to paraphrase:  First Independence, without that, what does it matter?

 

So, as for 0.00... not truly much more, but some.

BurettoGaku
BurettoGaku

 @indpendnt  @edrooney Actually, he would want people to follow unquestioningly, leave their families, take no thought of the morrow.   Sounds pretty Gingrichy to me.

edrooney
edrooney

 @HummusMagnate   @edrooney  I think I was in some kind of Nyquil trance last night.  I despise liberals and religion which makes me a man with no party.  That being said,  They can all go to hell and I don't give a shit who marry's who. 

JonNockels
JonNockels

@HummusMagnate Not according to my American public school education. #AndLincolnWasThe5ThPresident.

BurettoGaku
BurettoGaku

 @CamfromToronto  I respect the point you are making regarding undue adulation. But I might just add that, the flag-wavers notwithstanding, there are good reasons to hold people like Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, and Adams (John and Abigail) in high esteem.  Not that any were without flaws, but for the time, and with wildly different lifestyles among them, they helped create a new nation, built on ideas, rather than bloodlines or geographic proximity.  Has it lived up to its promise all the time? Absolutely not.  But the ideas are worth holding onto, and the people worth admiring.

CamfromToronto
CamfromToronto

 @SarahMcPants  makes a lot of sense, I think the greatness is in the document itself and that intelligent people probably use the "founding fathers" as more of a metaphor or representation of the document (which on occasion has needed enhancement and correcting, in spite of the infinite wisdom of its authors).  Having said that, I get the sense that a lot of people actually believe that the focus needs to be realizing their initial intent which just seems crazy to me and gives them way too much credit.  It is similar to the contrast between people who think the bible is a fictional document that has inherent value as a moral guide versus those who literally believe it to be the word of God and that it contains stories that actually happened...

SarahMcPants
SarahMcPants

 @CamfromToronto  @indpendnt  @CamfromToronto I dont think people rely so heavily on the founding fathers because they are so dear to us, I personally think its more of a leverage point for bridging the gap between parties. Conservatives and liberals disagree and cant work things out on their own so they go back to the 'rule book' to try to get a leg up. They both interpret that their own way too of course, so its pointless but boy do they try. 

SarahMcPants
SarahMcPants

 @edrooney I thought we were talking about what was in the constitution and not how well those laws were actually implemented. I wasnt there, I will have to take your word for it.

edrooney
edrooney

 @SarahMcPants Right.  "Bros" could "vote" just as easily in 1865 as they could in 1965.  Hoes win.  They always do.