RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 7:39:09 PM)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/9th_Circuit_punts_gay_marriage_case.html

The federal appeals court panel considering the constitutionality of California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage is punting the closely-watched case, at least for now, to the California Supreme Court.

The three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit judges on the case, Stephen Reinhardt, N. Randy Smith and Michael Hawkins, issued an order Tuesday referring a critical procedural "standing" question to the California state court. The federal judges are essentially asking the state whether proponents of a ballot measure, like the same-sex marriage ban passed in 2008 as Proposition 8, can defend the measure in court.

Ordinarily, the state would defend a proposition but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and other state officials refused to do so. In a separate opinion Tuesday, the federal appeals judges said other local officials — at least the relatively low-ranking Imperial County Deputy Clerk who sought to intervene in the case — lacked the authority to, in essence, step into the state's shoes and defend the proposition.

And then it got kicked back

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/California/News/2011/10_-_October/Ninth_circuit_to_take_up_gay_marriage_trial_tapes/

There is no rush to get a ruling on this issue.



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 2:21:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

No, Im not. But no one has to accept a gay marriage until the governments tell them they do. The government has told them they do not. See the problem?


Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

No other state has to recognize the same sex marriage of NH.


Which is, of course, unconstitutional, as it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Remember, Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT.

And I'm pretty sure that CONTRACTS are meant to be enforcible across state lines. Otherwise the Cellphone companies are in a world of fuck.

Here's a better status update on prop 8. ( Fuck you, NYT, btw... )

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/proposition-8-appeals-case-winds-down.html?_r=1



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 2:34:04 AM)

no, i'm afraid article iv doesn't really apply. it has long been established that a state doesn't have to accept a law or judgment from another state that is counter to its own laws, so if a state has a law against same-sex marriage then the full faith and credit clause doesn't seem to apply. its a pity though, it would be nice if there were multiple clauses that were being violated.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 8:31:01 AM)

quote:

Which is, of course, unconstitutional, as it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause.


What part did you not understand?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause

According to Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, "No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to."[17] This issue first arose with regard to interracial marriage. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states.[17] Thus, states were required to recognize an interracial marriage under the Equal Protection Clause and not under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on how or whether these laws are affected by the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Until the SC rules, which is what everyone is pushing for because those who are in favor believe as you do, and those who are against are banking the Court is now conservative enough to agree with them.

There is a huge push for less government. This would fall under the "less government" and, supposedly, something the state itself should handle. How does it feel to finally understand how state governments would act tyrannically against the best interests of the people if allowed to their own devices?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 9:09:42 AM)

Marriage is not just a civil contract. It is also a creature of statute. That's the problem. The states, within their police powers, have the right to decide who can contract. You can argue your point all you want fargle, but you are wrong.
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl



No other state has to recognize the same sex marriage of NH.


Which is, of course, unconstitutional, as it violates the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Remember, Marriage is a CIVIL CONTRACT.

And I'm pretty sure that CONTRACTS are meant to be enforcible across state lines. Otherwise the Cellphone companies are in a world of fuck.

Here's a better status update on prop 8. ( Fuck you, NYT, btw... )

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/proposition-8-appeals-case-winds-down.html?_r=1



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 10:43:47 AM)

quote:


Until the SC rules, which is what everyone is pushing for because those who are in favor believe as you do, and those who are against are banking the Court is now conservative enough to agree with them.


The supreme court doesn't make something Right or Wrong. ( See Also Dred Scott )




tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 10:53:47 AM)

We arent talking wrong or right. Everyone agrees gay marriages should be allowed nationwide and recognized by every state in the union.

We are talking about legality and the realities.



GotSteel -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 5:11:49 PM)

"Supporters of the ban have said releasing the video would lead to intimidation or harassment of their witnesses."

Am I the only one wondering what those witnesses were saying?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/14/2012 5:15:46 PM)

Cant be good... or very accurate. It may even be business owners who fear reprisal through economic avenues.



Icarys -> RE: Gay marriage (1/21/2012 10:43:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

you're right, marriage isn't a right, but having the law apply equally regardless of gender is. so if a man cannot marry a man, neither can a woman.


Why because it's not listed in the original papers? If you look at all of the papers, the original ones, you'll understand what the idea of it all means.

Bullshit, it is a right. The eleventh article below.


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

It may not be written out but we humans know that it is inherent to our nature to want to couple, to make unions and so on. The government has no say so in the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of an individual and is their to protect those positions.

They don't respect those values anymore and you can see many individuals have lost those ideas as well.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/23/2012 1:17:33 PM)

Looks like Washington will be the next state to legalize gay marriage.  The House has approved it, there are enough votes in the Senate, and the Governor is the one who suggested it. 



farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/23/2012 2:12:04 PM)

Can't compete on the world market if you can't hire the best people.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02