<div dir="ltr">Okay, now I have read the ruling. While I am certainly pleased with the outcome, the court's ruling strikes me as short on legal content. The argument appears to be that the 14th amendment allows a court to declare unconstitutional anything which is deemed to violate a general sense of liberty, since it says that liberty may not be taken away without due process. It also argues, plausibly I think, that threats to liberty can be discovered over time - perhaps it is relevant to that particular claim that the author of this opinion voted against overturning state laws banning sodomy in Bowers, famously asking a clerk "have you ever met a homosexual?" In any case, this makes sense to me - the Hippocratic oath includes, for instance, not recklessly spreading infection, even though Hippocrates didn't know the germ theory of disease.<div><br></div><div>So this sort of sets SCOTUS free from the responsibility to put forth a legal argument, and instead makes it into a learned council that makes decisions based on its best notions of policy. Needless to say, I find that concerning, even though, as I said, I fully support the outcome, and believe an argument could have been made for same-sex marriage being Constitutionally protected without taking this step. </div><div><br></div><div>Scalia, in my opinion, makes a worse argument in dissent, since he seems confused about how freedom of association works. His counsel to "ask the nearest hippie" as evidence that marriage takes away freedom to intimacy rather than increasing it seems fundamentally to deny how freedom of association works. If I make a voluntary agreement (such as joining an organization and following its bylaws) I haven't given up freedom, I've exercised it. Similarly, if I get married, I haven't given up the freedom to have sex, I've used that freedom to form an association I desire.</div><div><br></div><div>I think that the arguments about trying to use this ruling to force states to recognize gun rights do not match the text, since the argument relies heavily on the particulars of marriage, as I expected it would. Once you've cracked open the system and replaced law with the policy preferences of judges, there need be no parallel between cases. A council of learned elders considers seriously the merits of each case, rather than having any hard and fast rules as to what freedoms need to be protected.</div><div><br></div><div>Which brings me to the largest concern the LP should have with this ruling. Our platform calls for the separation of marriage and state. I have my doubts about whether or not this goal is attainable and how exactly it translates into policy, but it's our platform. It is, I think, perfectly reasonable, in my view obligatory, to also hold that, so long as government does grant marriage privileges, it must do so on an equal basis, and so same-sex marriage must be respected - and perhaps other forms of marriage as well. The concern, though, is that the argument made in this ruling depends heavily, not just on the desirability of marriage, but in particular on the importance of civil marriage to society. The reasoning here is built upon a foundation we wish to oppose. While we should, absolutely, cheer the outcome, it is very difficult for us, I think, to consistently cheer the particulars of this decision, which strengthen the case for the state's role in marriage. We should, I guess, follow Roberts's advice - celebrate this important right and the extension of equality, but not the means by which it was argued for.</div><div><br></div><div>The reasoning in the ruling, by the way, also doesn't lend itself well, in my opinion, to support for polygamy, despite Scalia's claims to the contrary. Scalia claims that the number '2' is arbitrarily scattered about. I respectfully disagree - one of the key premises in the ruling is that marriage is a unique thing for the individual involved, which seems hard to extend to an argument for allowing a person to marry more than one person. A desire to marry 2 people cannot be described as a desire for something of unique value - at least, not in an obvious way.</div><div><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Joshua A. Katz<div>Westbrook CT Planning Commission (L in R seat)</div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Scott L. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scott73@earthlink.net" target="_blank">scott73@earthlink.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="blue">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black">Has the Alabama State
Senate been reading our Platform?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> <a href="http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/" target="_blank">http://truthinmedia.com/alabama-senate-approves-bill-to-abolish-marriage-licensing/</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"> Scott Lieberman<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">
<hr size="2" width="100%" align="center">
</span></font></div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div><span class="">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="3" color="black" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">“</span></font>I
also have not yet read the opinion, but from what little I've read in the news
so far, the SCOTUS didn't say government has no business licensing marriage at
all. Platform plank 1.4 (among other things) says:<u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="margin-left:33.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">"Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships."<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span class=""><br>
I don't think we can yet say that our position is now the law of the
land. The approach that OAI took is a good one.<br>
<br>
</span><font color="black"><span style="color:black"> </span></font>Alicia<font color="black"><span style="color:black">” <u></u><u></u></span></font></span></font></p>
</div>
</div><span class="">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" color="black" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" color="black" face="Verdana"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Verdana;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1" color="black" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="1" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial">The Supreme Court issues opinions,
not verdicts (except in trials, of which they have very few).<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><font size="1" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial">We will be out with a press release
applauding that the position the Libertarian Party has held for over 40 years
is no<font color="black"><span style="color:black">t</span></font> the law of the
land.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial">-Nick<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="1" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Arial"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Lnc-business mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lnc-business@hq.lp.org">Lnc-business@hq.lp.org</a><br>
<a href="http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>