Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[Caliga]

Beeb, if we always did things that way down here the South would still be segregated.

[Martinus]

I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

I disagree with you very strongly. Human rights issues should not be subject of a popular opinion.

[The Brain]

I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

I disagree with you very strongly. Human rights issues should not be subject of a popular opinion.

Your hatred of democracy is known.

[Barrister]

I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

I disagree with you very strongly. Human rights issues should not be subject of a popular opinion.

But they are a matter of popular opinion.

Segregation in the south was always against the Constitution, yet it persisted for decades.  It was only once public opinion shifted that the courts stepped in to end it.

Similarly, it's no coincidence this ruling is being made in 2015, not 1985.  It's only now that gay marriage is becoming accepted that the court has acted.

[The Larch]

Merkel and her conservative party don't want it despite a clear majority of the population in favor. There is no major pain for homosexuals anymore though as they have a civil partnership that grants them mostly the same rights and duties as married couples. That's why there is very little to gain politically, so no one tries to push the issue against Merkel.

So it'll have to wait until Merkel retires and/or the SPD regains power?

I guess if they really wanted it, they could force the issue. The strange thing is that the left parties have a majority in both chambers of our parliament but the SPD and Left party hate each other, so the SPD rather lets Merkel govern. But Merkels 311 MPs couldn't stop the 320 left-wing MPs from passing any law they want, especially as I suspect that there are lots of MPs among the 311 conservatives that would secretly or openly support such a law as well. So I would guess that there is a majority of MPs in favor of gay marriage, but out of fear of breaking the coalition, the SPD doesn't push for gay marriage. Maybe they'll just do it right before the next election.

Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

[crazy canuck]

Similarly, it's no coincidence this ruling is being made in 2015, not 1985.  It's only now that gay marriage is becoming accepted that the court has acted.

Not so in many cases where the Courts have led the way.  Gay marriage in Canada for example. 

[celedhring]

Is there a sizable movement pushing for gay marriage in Germany Zanza? Or is it off the headlines?

[Zanza]

I said it about Canada, and I'll say it about the US - this kind of change is better to come from the people and legislature, not the courts.

I think a legislative action to enshrine equal rights finds a higher acceptance and will lessen or stop debates down the road. An example would be abortion which is still very contentious in America.
That said, if legislative organs fail to do their jobs to protect equal rights for all citizens, the purpose of a constitutional court is enforce that.

[Syt]

Merkel and her conservative party don't want it despite a clear majority of the population in favor. There is no major pain for homosexuals anymore though as they have a civil partnership that grants them mostly the same rights and duties as married couples. That's why there is very little to gain politically, so no one tries to push the issue against Merkel.

So it'll have to wait until Merkel retires and/or the SPD regains power?

I guess if they really wanted it, they could force the issue. The strange thing is that the left parties have a majority in both chambers of our parliament but the SPD and Left party hate each other, so the SPD rather lets Merkel govern. But Merkels 311 MPs couldn't stop the 320 left-wing MPs from passing any law they want, especially as I suspect that there are lots of MPs among the 311 conservatives that would secretly or openly support such a law as well. So I would guess that there is a majority of MPs in favor of gay marriage, but out of fear of breaking the coalition, the SPD doesn't push for gay marriage. Maybe they'll just do it right before the next election.

Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

It's one of those rare - and as usual ill timed - moments the CDU remembers that their "C" stands for Christian.

[Zanza]

Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

It's both part of our political culture. SPD and CDU (and less so FDP and Greens) see it as their constitutional obligation to form a stable government, if need be as junior partner. That's one of the lessons of the Weimar Republic. As German politics is very consensus-oriented, they'll form a coalition and stick to it for four years. They write down common political projects at the start of a legislative period and then work through that list. Instances where MPs are "allowed" (despite their constitutional independence) to vote according to their conscience instead of following faction discipline are very rare. One example I can think of is a vote about the right to assisted suicide later this year.

[Syt]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6?r=US

SCALIA: The Supreme Court is a 'threat to American democracy'

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of gay marriage shows just how much trouble American democracy is in.

In a strongly-worded dissent, the conservative justice wrote that he did not care that gay marriage was now legal, but he said that the Court's ability to make this decision represented a threat to democracy.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

The conservative justice railed against his fellow justices, calling the majority opinion "egotistical" and pointing out that the justices were a homogeneous group that didn't represent the people. As proof, Scalia pointed out that many went to the same law schools, and none were evangelical or protestant Christians.

"To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation," Scalia said.

Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.

Scalia's dissent also contained unusual bits about how marriage threatens happiness.

"If intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage," Scalia said. "Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say."

[The Minsky Moment]

An example would be abortion which is still very contentious in America.

Abortion is contentious because some people believe it is equivalent to murder.  Gay marriage is not the same kind of issue.  There will be some fiery rhetoric from usual suspect, it will die down, and cease to a be a major issue.

[The Minsky Moment]

Gotta love Nino
The Court telling the legislatures that can't refuse a piece of paper to two dudes ---> threat to democracy!
The Court denying the legislature the power to impede Sheldon Anderson from buying elections ---> free speech!

[Syt]

Based on the quoted excerpts seem to be a thinly veiled call to vote Republican so that those liberal judges might get replaced at some point.

[The Larch]

Could it seriously be an issue that'd risk a break in the governing coalition? Then again I can't see what the SPD gains from being a junior party to Merkel's CDU, so maybe I just don't get German politics.

It's both part of our political culture. SPD and CDU (and less so FDP and Greens) see it as their constitutional obligation to form a stable government, if need be as junior partner. That's one of the lessons of the Weimar Republic. As German politics is very consensus-oriented, they'll form a coalition and stick to it for four years. They write down common political projects at the start of a legislative period and then work through that list. Instances where MPs are "allowed" (despite their constitutional independence) to vote according to their conscience instead of following faction discipline are very rare. One example I can think of is a vote about the right to assisted suicide later this year.

You guys would love our "My way or the highway" school of governance that is dominant around here.  I can't remember a single big issue in which there has been a consensus amongst our two major parties.