Recognition of same sex marriage: Reasoned vs. Legal argument - 2

Even when a person declares that he believes marriage should only be between different sexes that by itself does not imply a position against legal recognition for same sex marriage. That is because his believe could be based on starting from point zero while his position for legal recognition of it could be starting from after all the legal precedents that currently exist. After all, even if it comes simply as a consequence of the making of a general rule or special treatment of something it should be taken into account the everyday life common phenomenon that the making of rules anywhere may expand their application beyond what they were created for. Yes, courts , especially the final one, probably give themselves more freedom in not following rules they themselves established than they do that with statuary laws. But if I were a judge facing this issue then as much as I am required to follow already established rules made by common law as much as I may consider myself in luck for applying those rules on something that seems as far from causing injury to others as this and would question how justly I am dealing with the matter if I choose to exclude it from being treated the same way as its precedents carelessly. 

Can the Supreme Court justly take or refuse cases with this work load? -3

One could also say that because of its position as the final judiciary point the Supreme Court has a duty not only to rule on individual cases but also to rule on the effectiveness of the judicial system in applying justice as a whole through the individual cases reaching it. A significant step in that direction could be made if  simply when looking at cases for selection each of the judges of the court at least based on first impression indicates whether a non selected case deserves to be reviewed had there been sufficient time. I don't see how the justices were not formulating these first impression opinions on the fly while selecting cases but they simply don't reveal that which would cost them very little additional effort if they do. That is very much needed in order to enable all legislators to have a wider view about how effective in applying justice their judicial systems work. 

Since the Supreme Court is the final judiciary point each case reaching it has two types of defendants.One type of defendants are those mentioned in the complaint while the other is the judicial system itself. In other words stating the deficiency of the judicial system on the basis of individual cases would not push the court away from its judicial rule.

Recognition of same sex marriage: Reasoned vs. Legal argument

Unlike the issue of guns and firearms my main concern here was about the process itself and not the end result. It sounded to me as if some where fighting for their existence not to be lost by fusing it with that of the world through the removal of the borderline between the two. It sounded to me as if the line between forcing that a table should not be used as a chair and forcing recognizing (although there still could be different meanings for the word "recognizing" here) it as a chair was not being seen clearly and to me each of those exists in its own universe. But that had a big part of it based on the common moral and reasoned arguments I hear for the issue and when I started trying to get into the legal part I began to recognize that there seem to be a different argument. I recognized that even courts that ruled for such recognition were not necessarily all fans of it but may not have found a way out of previous rulings on discrimination based on sex and interpretations of the 14th amendment.

So while I am not convinced with the reasoned and moral (the one related to rights) arguments or even those related to the degree of need by same sex couples for such recognition these were not themselves my concern when I wrote about the issue. On the other hand as much as such recognition is based on legal bases,even if through loopholes, as much as the concern I had is not an issue.   

Can the Supreme Court justly take or refuse cases with this work load? -2

The fact that cases not taken by the Supreme Court do not seem to be cited legally as an agreement with lower courts decisions or a significant probability for such agreement , suggests very strongly that it is common knowledge that time constraint is a factor in selecting cases that more often than not can overwhelm the case deserve to be heard factor. Otherwise it is not possible for a final judiciary point like the Supreme Court not to rule on a case whether it take the case or not.  

Can the Supreme Court justly take or refuse cases with this work load?

It is hard not to see it as a moral duty on  Supreme Court Judges , being the final point for decisions on all complaints, to let Congress and even state legislators know if there are cases they are refusing despite deserving to be taken because of the load of work they have. With a load of work from all states and federal courts it is hard to see how the situation could be otherwise. The court can do that directly or indirectly by stating that as the reason for not taking a case whenever it applies so that Congress and other legislators can carry their duties based on such feedback. 

At least for federal courts the Constitution gave Congress the power to put as many intermediate courts as needed before reaching the Supreme one. More levels of intermediate courts would increase the chance for sufficiently handling more cases.The Supreme Court shouldn't support keeping such deficiency in the judicial system by abstaining from giving a required feedback in that regard. One could also say that being the final point for the judiciary system also puts the court in the position of monitoring the performance of that system in applying justice and through that apply the moral responsibility of such position on the court  .

   

Same Sex Marriage Vs. The Civil Rights Movement - 2

It seems very probable that the argument questioning why the marriage recognition should not also include other things like groups (which ironically seems to be strengthened better with same sex recognition itself because it allows for every member in the group to be married to every other member) can be expanded to other processes where the type of sex or gender is also an essential part of the process and that in turn can also be expanded to other processes where things other than the sex or gender are the essential parts.

Same Sex Marriage Vs. The Civil Rights Movement

I think that seeing the demand for recognition of same sex marriage as similar to the demands of the civil rights movement is erroneous at least because of these two substantial differences. First, with the civil rights movement it is very clear that the difference in color was not an essential factor allowing or disallowing the same rights or treatments to one group and not the other but was clearly superimposed on that process. The same thing clearly cannot be said about the issue of same sex marriage where the issue being contested , the difference in sex, is  a very essential part to the level that the process would need a redesign to fit the demanding entity.

Second, the civil rights movement demand was also a formula that showed the reasoning path to apply that demand. It was a simple general formula applicable to not only blacks but all colored people and people from all ethnicities and origins. The same thing clearly cannot be said about same sex marriage where the demand did not show how it should be applied and left the question of why it should be applied to one group and not the others unanswered. On what basis should recognizing same sex marriage of a man to man or a woman to woman and not a group of three or more of different - or even same later- sexes stands? Why should the number be taken as more essential to the marriage than the requirement of being from different sexes? I think that human history would provide indications contrary to such understanding.

Remember that as much as there are other paths that give the same marriage rights to same sex couples using different names as much as the question here is about applying the word "marriage" on same sex couples and not about the recognition of their marriage.