I LOVE the dissent in the 6th circuit's inane decision to uphold bans on SSM

"The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal. … Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent."

Absolutely fantastic. The majority (both G. W. Bush nominated no less...) fail to even consider the Constitutional/legal merits of the plantiff's claims - instead suggesting that gay people would be better off if marriage discrimination were resolved by direct democracy... an argument that wouldn't have been out of place in a certain Virginia district holding declaring that interracial marriage bans are Constitutional. Judge Sutton isn't giving a legal argument - he is abdicating his role to uphold the Constitution and enforce the system of checks and balances, and as the dissenting judge rightly pointed out, undermining the whole concept of judicial scrutiny.

The only redeeming feature of this incomprehensible and nonsensical ruling is the fact it will force the Supreme Court to act - and most legal watchers are convinced the only outcome will be a nationwide right to marriage regardless of gender.

 

Oh hell no.

Direct democracy is mob rule which is lynch mob.

No thank you.

I prefer CONSTITUTIONAL rule, with PROPER decisions being made in deference to the CONSTITUTION.

If we're not going to obey it and just use it as toilet paper, then I just can not see the point of having one at all.

And the point of it was to limit government power and define for the people and the states the rights that they, and all decent freedom loving people want.

There is no liberty in an all powerful all seeing government.

None at all.

 

Not sure what you are saying.

I'm confused, Are you for or against states being free to mandate a certain gender configuration in conferring the rights of marriage on its citizens?

 

I believe that the proper decision on homosexual marriage should be left to the states because of the tenth amendment. Marriage is NOT covered by the constitution, and anything not covered is rendered unto the state.

But my previous post was not about homosexuality.

Why are you people so obsessed with either homosexuality of african americans.

You guys are so indoctrinated.

 

Equal protection and application of the law (due process) is covered by the Constitution. That applies to ALL laws. The idea that marriage is somehow exempt is ridiculous, to say the least. Marriage is one of the most important laws governing domestic relations, hence people's lives... For any state to arbitrarily deny hundreds of rights for no valid reason, to the detriment of millions of Americans, is something that cannot simply be "left to the states".

 

any just that can not put the constitutions above his religion for any given case, should exclude himself from said cases, it's unethical for a judge like this to even take such a case as it's a conflict of interest


.

 

No, it does not. There is a list of things that the Constitution does not cover.

For example, where is unlawful combatant located in the Constitution? The USA Patriot Act? THE CIA, FBI, NSA?

If you are declared an unlawful combatant then you do not have the right to due process.

Other things include:


Congressional Districts
The Electoral College
Executive Orders and Privilege

And if marriage is damned important why does half of all marriage fail?

If marriage was that important as you think it is, it should have a far less of a fail rate, don't you think?

 

14 times since 1888 the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (188: Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (197: “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

I would submit that marriage is certainly covered by the constitution.

 

Marriage is just a State contract. It applies to heterosexual marriage and treats all in that contract the same allowing them to use the courts to settle disputes. There is no 'right' to homosexual contracts.

 

Actually, marriage is a fundamental right as per the rulings above.

The question is, can a fundamental right be denied to same-sex couples?

 

According to the Constitution, do States have to legally honor the contracts signed in other States?

 

No, they are State contracts. There are many different State laws that do not apply in other States.

 

So my wife and mine's marriage license does not have legal standing in Wyoming or Hawaii?

 

When they amend the bor, call me.

 

Fair enough, though IMO it falls under Due Process of the 5th Amendment;

 

Hoosier?

 

Also, I have been going through those cases, and I get the suspicion that those decisions are actually from a religious, Christian, standpoint.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

None of the cases state that in there reasoning, in fact as far as I can see there is no reference to religion at all, the earlier cases may have religion as the underlying mandate, but the latter ones don't.

The point being though that through numerous Supreme court rulings there is a right to marriage, and that right is not confined to opposite sex couples alone.

 

Riiiiiiiiiight

Everybody that doesn't agree with you is indoctrinated.

 

There must be a legitimate state interest for the different treatment based on classifications like this. There might not be a right specifically to "heterosexual" or "homosexual" contracts, there is a right to equal protection. If the stats cant support their bases for making this contract limited to heterosexuals, then it will fall... as we have seen.

 

It really is a social issue more than any legal issue. Legal follows social. Times change and this has been a push for a relatively short time, mostly due to the current speed of communication, using all sorts of appeals. It was bound to happen sooner or later after marriage was changed from something that really was a survival issue to something about love.

 

I would generally agree, although I might argue that what marriage changed from was arguably wasnt just about survival, at least not entirely... unless you are talking about women. While failure to consummate a marriage was grounds for nullifying it, infertility was generally not ground for divorce in american history. Marriage served as a way of passing on the rights and responsibilities for women, which was arguably necessary for their survival in a day and age when they could not own property or function in society without a male providing for them. The responsibility for women and children in a society that had deeply segregated notions about the rights and responsibilities of the genders are at the heart of the origin of our marriage laws. The equality of women has changed everything about those social dynamics. Why on earth would a same sex couple want to subject themselves to such a thing through marriage? They wouldn't. Like you said, it is only the change of the function of marriage into what it is today which has made it desirable, to women and same sex couples. A truly traditional marriage would not be desired by either.

 

link please, in the future.


From the majority opinion:

"What we have authority to decide instead is a legal question:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining
marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman?"

"In trying to figure out the original meaning of a provision, it is fair to say, the line
between interpretation and evolution blurs from time to time. That is an occupational hazard for
judges when it comes to old or generally worded provisions. Yet that knotty problem does not
confront us. Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment is old; the people ratified it in 1868. And yes, it is
generally worded; it says: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.” Nobody in this case, however, argues that the people who adopted the Fourteenth
Amendment understood it to require the States to change the definition of marriage. "

You see, there are two very different approaches to how the judges have seen the question before the court. I'll lay it out again for clarity.

1. whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit a State from defining
marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman



What I find interesting is the mishmash of Constitutional interpretations that people have. The interpretation of the 14th taken by the dissenting justice is strictly textualist, and liberals seem to laud that, but when another person takes a strictly textualist interpretation on, say the 2nd amendment, liberals call that crazy. What annoys me is that, in general, neither side seems to approach the rule of law faithfully.

I find your own analysis to be marred. I suspect you haven't read the case, or even a case brief, but have read a highly biased "news" article. The judge did not "fail to even consider" the plaintiff's argument, the Justice did consider it - and found it wanting. The judge didn't find that the 14th amendment requires states to legalize gay marriage - just like it's creators didn't, and just like the Warren court would not have (as he states - I'm iterating the majority's opinion so that we can have a fair discussion of the case).

 

Marriage between MEN AND WOMEN was stated to be a fundamental right. Only marriage between men and women is a fundamental right. Only marriage between men and women is the foundation of the family and society. Only marriage between men and women is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” When every one of your quotes above was stated, marriage was exclusively between men and women.

 

None of the cases quoted specifically state that the fundamental right of marriage is between a man and a woman, so another failure on your part, and as usual you ignore the fact that homosexual people can and do procreate.