CNN: Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

[Burgold]

Not to mention, as we get better and better at genetics... soon humans won't be a nessary part of the equation at all or at least sex won't be.

[twa]

Not to mention, as we get better and better at genetics... soon humans won't be a nessary part of the equation at all or at least sex won't be.

precisely....at the time of the Loving decision it was a different matter

we have largely moved beyond the need for marriage in society...for good or ill

the strongest case for SSM imo remains the benefits of marriage to any offspring/dependants ,though as I mentioned,even that has weakened in todays world vs 50 yrs ago

add

Larry ....why not stick to what I say?

I never said Loving mentioned SSM

Nor is LOVE the factor in the right to marry asserted in the Loving decision.

FUTHERMORE you are WRONG on mixed race marriage not being a crime....but don't let facts get in the way of your BS

[Burgold]

precisely....at the time of the Loving decision it was a different matter

we have largely moved beyond the need for marriage in society...for good or ill

the strongest case for SSM imo remains the benefits of marriage to any offspring/dependants ,though as I mentioned,even that has weakened in todays world vs 50 yrs ago

Actually, I think that's kinda right. If you take procreation out of it... I believe most evidence suggests a two parent household is best for the child... Whether that's grandmother and mother, husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or some other permutation matters less than the benefit of having two healthy stable people to raise the child.

SSM would have equal value in raising the child therefore that traditional marriage would except for the hurdles faced previously overcome by interracial or inter-religious couples.

[Teller]

I believe most evidence suggests a two parent household is best for the child...

That's fine, as long as you don't say it HAS to be only two.

[SnyderShrugged]

If no government at any level were in the marriage business at all, this would never be an issue for anyone.

[Larry]

FUTHERMORE you are WRONG on mixed race marriage not being a crime....but don't let facts get in the way of your BS

1). I have trouble believing that, pre-Loving, people were sent to jail for marrying outside their race. Not sure. Just doubtful.

2). And I've already pointed out why, even if it were criminal, it's still irrelevant. (I know you read it. You quoted it, and tried to claim I said something else).

The court didn't rule that it was unconstitutional to jail people for marrying outside their race. It ruled that it was unconstitutional to refuse to marry them.

[LadySkinsFan]

1). I have trouble believing that, pre-Loving, people were sent to jail for marrying outside their race. Not sure. Just doubtful.

2). And I've already pointed out why, even if it were criminal, it's still irrelevant. (I know you read it. You quoted it, and tried to claim I said something else).

The court didn't rule that it was unconstitutional to jail people for marrying outside their race. It ruled that it was unconstitutional to refuse to marry them.

In Virginia, they had to move out of state (DC I believe where they married in the first place) and if they were caught in Virginia, they could be arrested. Yes, it was a crime.

[JMS]

Walker ruled on prop 8,not SSM rights outside Cali

and even that ruling is stayed

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700222917/Prop-8-declared-unconstitutional-by-9th-Circuit-Court.html?pg=1

you're still reaching

Read the Decision. You are correct that Walker rulled that the popular resolution banning SSM in California was in violation of the US Constition... You are right that far...

Why he did it is key. He didn't do it because he said Gay people have a constitutional right to marry. He didn't do it because he thought 12 month earlier SSM should have been the law of the land. What he said was before prop 8, where a California popular resolution overturned the SSM bill. Gay people had a right. This popular resolution recinded that right. What he said was the majorty can not take away a right from a minority that the majority enjoys. That is unconstitional. Key is that Gay folks had this right, and now it was being taken away...

Why that is important nationally is because when Californai and MA passed their SSM laws... all states had legal SSM on their books cause they all recognized California and Ma law.....

Thus the logic of why Judge Walker over turned one anti SSM law in California could apply to every state. Which makes it a very broad ruling indeed.

---------- Post added June-3rd-2012 at 02:43 PM ----------

If procreation is a fundamental factor, then why are heterosexuals who are infertile allowed to marry? Why are heterosexuals who are past menopause allowed to marry? Why are heterosexuals who have erectile dysfunction allowed to marry?

Why would a marriage continue after the kids were born? Why is sterilization legal for married people? Why is the pill legal? It's a poor argument

[twa]

In Virginia, they had to move out of state (DC I believe where they married in the first place) and if they were caught in Virginia, they could be arrested. Yes, it was a crime.

Indeed

If Larry is interested ....Loving was a direct result of Loving being arrested in Virginia after being married in another state(DC,not a state ,before I'm called a liar)and moving there

they furthermore were legally exiled from the state to avoid being jailed

these circumstances have no real comparison to the non recognition of SSM or denial of benefits that effect SSM today

http://lovingday.org/the-loving-story

JMS...I have read the decision....your attempt to assert other states are bound by a different interpretation of marriage(than the one assumed at the time of state reciprocity) is a faulty one ....though it is asserted by proponents, it does NOT exist in reality.

legal definitions cannot be changed by one party to a agreement w/o voiding it

[Thiebear]

Didn't know about Loving..

That seems to be about 2 steps away from charges of witchcraft and re-instituting the Inquisition.

Virginia is going to have to change its motto.

How hateful do you have to be to want to arrest people for doing the same thing behind doors that you do from said same angle.

You fear and dissapprove of what you can't see and have no business being into that you exiled someone from your Commonwealth?

That should be enough to get you removed from office for sponsoring or voting for it.

Where do we file the 56000 recall votes to go the Wisconsin route?

[JMS]

Indeed

If Larry is interested ....Loving was a direct result of Loving being arrested in Virginia after being married in another state(DC,not a state ,before I'm called a liar)and moving there

they furthermore were legally exiled from the state to avoid being jailed

these circumstances have no real comparison to the non recognition of SSM or denial of benefits that effect SSM today

http://lovingday.org/the-loving-story

:doh: As of 2003... Lawrence v. Texas, where the supreme court found sodomy laws unconstitutional invalidating the laws of 13 states including Virginia which had such laws on the books.

JMS...I have read the decision....your attempt to assert other states are bound by a different interpretation of marriage(than the one assumed at the time of state reciprocity) is a faulty one ....though it is asserted by proponents, it does NOT exist in reality.

Which is rediculous. You are saying if Virginia changes their marrriage law then Texas changes theirs to match Virginia? That's just not true. The way the states deal with marriages outside of their territory is to simple recognize them, they don't review those states marriage critera and revalidate their acknoleged recognition every time Alaska or Maine changes their critera.

Hell man have you ever ever ever known a dude who was married legally in one state and had to get remarried cause he was moving to another state? I don't think so...

legal definitions cannot be changed by one party to a agreement w/o voiding it

Bunk... Happens all the time.. States are constantly changing criteria for marriage. adjusting the age, etc... None of that has every triggered a new vote by Texas or NC or anybody else in recognizing those certificates.

[Predicto]

these circumstances have no real comparison to the non recognition of SSM or denial of benefits that effect SSM today

Nonsense. There is a direct comparison. Just because you can find a nuance of distinction does not change the basic and obvious correlation between the two situations (unless, of course, you simply don't want to acknowledge it).

[twa]

Are you still saying a right to SSM in Cali(under their state constitution) means all states and the feds must reciprocate DESPITE reality showing otherwise?

Why is SSM still forbidden then?

Lawrence is a totally different matter, but YES if SCOTUS finds SSM a right (not limited to a state granting it) ,it certainly would change matters

Minor changes are not comparable to fundamental ones, the one we are addressing is clearly not minor

---------- Post added June-3rd-2012 at 07:22 PM ----------

Nonsense. There is a direct comparison. Just because you can find a nuance of distinction does not change the basic and obvious correlation between the two situations (unless, of course, you simply don't want to acknowledge it).

BS....you can draw a connection,but in doing so you must ignore the differences which are vast.

You cannot be jailed or exiled for SSM,nor denied housing/service ect as the Lovings were....NUANCE my ass

[Larry]

Are you still saying a right to SSM in Cali(under their state constitution) means all states and the feds must reciprocate DESPITE reality showing otherwise?

I guess, in twa world, "reality showing otherwise" = "lots if states running around, changing their laws, to prevent reciprocity, which was automatic for hundreds of years"?

[Larry]

BS....you can draw a connection,but in doing so you must ignore the differences which are vast.

You cannot be jailed or exiled for SSM,nor denied housing/service ect as the Lovings were....NUANCE my ass

Did the court, in Loving, rule that the states cannot refuse to marry interracial couples?

Not "did they rule that the states couldn't jail people for being married?". Did the court rule that Virginia (and everybody else), had to perform interracial marriages?

[twa]

You left out the DOMA

But YES reality is if you fundamentally change a term there are reactions against it

Reality is also one state not being able to impose it's view on another....UNLESS there are enough of them

[Larry]

Did the court, in Loving, rule that the states cannot refuse to marry interracial couples?

Not "did they rule that the states couldn't jail people for being married?". Did the court rule that Virginia (and everybody else), had to perform interracial marriages?

[twa]

Did the court, in Loving, rule that the states cannot refuse to marry interracial couples?

Not "did they rule that the states couldn't jail people for being married?". Did the court rule that Virginia (and everybody else), had to perform interracial marriages?

You tell me what the Liberty deprived here w/o due process was

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=388&invol=1

Would the case have been decided solely on the merits of mixed marriages w/o the states punishment included ?....might be a good waste of time

As is assuming a right to SSM will be found by SCOTUS when it is not similarly criminalized

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

I have previously expressed the belief that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 198

[Larry]

Did the court, in Loving, rule that the states cannot refuse to marry interracial couples?

Not "did they rule that the states couldn't jail people for being married?". Did the court rule that Virginia (and everybody else), had to perform interracial marriages?

[twa]

Yes......But why they ruled so matters....as does the need and harm demonstrated

To use Loving to assert the right to SSM is reaching and ignores the reality the courts in general do not see what you seem to

You might as well go back to your equal under the law tack...it has more merit

---------- Post added June-3rd-2012 at 09:46 PM ----------

To revisit JMS's Lawrence reference

It was the criminalization that ultimately mattered , and the lack thereof in the SSM issue could well be a critical factor

[Larry]

Yes.

.

See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

.But why they ruled so matters

Agreed. Now we get to your attempt to come up with an excuse to ignore the decision and focus on anything you can pull up that was in any way different.

Are you now going to actually state (as opposed to kind of hint at, while avoiding actually saying) that the court looked at Virginia, saw that they were throwing people in jail (or threatening to throw them in jail), and that he court decided that the correct way to remedy these jail sentences was to mandate that they must immediately recognize, and perform, interracial marriages?

Did it just slip the court's mind that they had the power to reverse the jail sentances, but to leave Virginia free to not perform interracial marriages?

You might as well go back to your equal under the law tack...it has more merit

Funny you should mention that. Cause according to what I'm reading, that's EXACTLY the reason the court gave for their ruling.

I'm on the iPad right now, so I can't cut and paste from a web site. But I'm reading the courts opinion. And the very first paragraph states that the state's attempt to PREVENT MARRIAGE (not "to jail people for being arrived", "to prevent marriage"), violates both the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. The opinion's concluding paragraph, again references the freedom to marry, and the 14th amendment.

(I will also observe that the ruling concludes that denying citizens of equal treatment, without a compelling state reason to do so, is discrimination.)

Course, I'm reading the actual opinion which 8 if the 9 justices agreed to. Not picking the opinion of one justice.

[twa]

Please explain the failure of SCOTUS to see this right to SSM after all these years in light of this revelation of yours

Sexual orientation fundamentally differs from race....as does the need for marriage/harm done

perhaps a easier question for you

how did mixed race marriage differ from same race ones?

[JMS]

Are you still saying a right to SSM in Cali(under their state constitution) means all states and the feds must reciprocate DESPITE reality showing otherwise?

Dude, The California legislature passed a law allowing SSM.... Then there was a popular refferendume to overturne that law ( proposition 8) which was voted on and passed.....

California never changed their constitution to allow SSM.

I am saying the court which threw out proposition #8 did so for very broad reasons... They said any right given to a minority, can not then be taken away by the majority while they still enjoy that right. It fundimentally goes against teh entire reason we are a republic rather than a democracy.... The constitutional republic which protects minorities from the tierrany of the majority... A Democracy killed Sacrates, and every founding father knew it.

Why is SSM still forbidden then?

Why is it still forbidden in California? Because the judge to threw out proposition 8 granted a stay on the marriages knowing his ruling would be taken up by a higher court.

If that higher court upholds the california federal superior court, then the next step is to test the precident of that law.

Lawrence is a totally different matter, but YES if SCOTUS finds SSM a right (not limited to a state granting it) ,it certainly would change matters

It would be a pretty big fundimental change if majorities could vote away the rights of minorities too.

Minor changes are not comparable to fundamental ones, the one we are addressing is clearly not minor

I think to not allow SSM would be an even bigger change.

You cannot be jailed or exiled for SSM,nor denied housing/service ect as the Lovings were....NUANCE my ass

You can't be jailed any longer for being gay... that's true as of 2003... You can't be jailed for SSM, you just can't be married. And their is really not good reason why they can't...

Somebodies religious code usually isn't determinitive to our laws.... Least they aren't supposed to be. Gay folks work, pay taxes, and vote, what possible harm does it do to allow them to marry? None..

---------- Post added June-4th-2012 at 12:10 AM ----------

Reality is also one state not being able to impose it's view on another....

TWA, If you say you will eat anything I eat, and I eat a bug..... How am I controling you? You proclaimed you would do what you would do for your own purposes, not mine....

Texas and NC recognize marriages in the other states for their own purpose... To do otherwise would bring economic hardship on their states as well as scorm... Folks wouldn't want to go their on vacation or for jobs if they didn't recognize their marriages and the rights that term conveys.

To now say... OHHHHH NOOOOOO we didn't mean all marriages...... It's laws those states passed and that's what matters now that they are trying to take rights away.

---------- Post added June-4th-2012 at 12:17 AM ----------

Please explain the failure of SCOTUS to see this right to SSM after all these years in light of this revelation of yours

Obviously because the lower federal courts are keying off of the fact that SSM rights were granted to gays... That is what has changed... The court wasn't about to say gay folks could marry..

But now that gay folks could marry the courts are saying you can't take that away...... That's what's changed, that's why SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it, because the SSM laws are/were new.

Sexual orientation fundamentally differs from race....as does the need for marriage/harm done

I don't think that's accurate... Is your sexual prefference a choice? Mine's not.

how did mixed race marriage differ from same race ones?

I would say they are both examples of law abiding minorities being denied the rights that folks in the majority enjoy.. Rights that have not only emotional benifits but real world economic benifits as well. One was corrected a few decades ago, and we're getting around to correcting another hopefully soon.

[twa]

Dude, The California legislature passed a law allowing SSM.... Then there was a popular refferendume to overturne that law ( proposition 8) which was voted on and passed.....

California never changed their constitution to allow SSM.

Never said they did, they claim the right was already there

If SCOTUS finds it is a universal right beyond the state constitution then you will be correct voting it away is not possible....till then you are still reaching

But feel free to take a stab at the question above while we await the wisdom of our betters.

[JMS]

If SCOTUS finds it is a universal right beyond the state constitution then you will be correct voting it away is not possible....till then you are still reaching

Federal Judge Walker who overturned the California anti SSM refferendum, broadly, didn't do it because he said SSM was a Universal Right. He threw it out, because he said it violated the 14th ammendment. The Due Process Clause of the US Constitution.

Equal Protection under the law for all citizens is a Constitutional Right regardless of which state they live in.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor 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.

Once California granted the right of SSM.... Taking that right away was in effect using the legislature to deprive gay folks of equal protection under the law. Key is they had the right legally, and that right was being taken away....which is what the entire equal protection clause is about disallowing.

So the decriminalizing of Gay behavior, in 2003, makes them citizens instead of criminals. And citizens have rights which are constitutionally guaranteed.

By this line of reasoning... Texas and NC's new laws are also unconstitutional. These states are taking away a right, which Gay folks enjoyed before this new legislature hit. Which was the entire purpose of the legislation. And that purpose is fundimentally unconstitutional!!