CNN: Boston appeals court rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional

[Larry]

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

Funny, that pesky Constitution has something to say on that subject, too.

Something about the states being required to grant full faith and credence to the rulings of the other states, or something.

[Thiebear]

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 of all citizens regardless of which state they live in.

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!!

So if we decriminalize sister wives in Utah in 2012, then pass a law allowing marriage in Utah, then remove the law after protest.

It's too late, has to be in all 50 states going forward based ib the 14th? Seems like that could be abused easy enough.

[JMS]

So if we decriminalize sister wives in Utah in 2012, then pass a law allowing marriage in Utah, then remove the law after protest.

It's too late, has to be in all 50 states going forward based ib the 14th? Seems like that could be abused easy enough.

No... Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. So decriminalizing it in Utah wouldn't mean anything... It's not like all 50 states have a law saying they accept Utah's definition on polygamy.

Now if you had a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing polygamy, and then Utah passed a law allowing polygamous marriages.. Then you'd have a case.

It's actually the opposite however... In Reynolds v. United States (1878) Mr. Reynolds asserted under the freedom of religion claus he was free to have multiple wives.. Supreme court held he wasn't. and the illegal nature of polygamy trumped Mr. Reynolds constitutional right of freedom of religion; and of coarse just a few years earlier the US went to war with the Mormon's partially because of polygamous practices going on in Utah. (May 1857 until July 1858 )

[twa]

.

By this line of reasoning...

That and a tenspot will get ya a bite to eat .....again I ask....why was this right not apparent before?

[Thiebear]

No... Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. So decriminalizing it in Utah wouldn't mean anything... It's not like all 50 states have a law saying they accept Utah's definition on polygamy.

Now if you had a Supreme Court decision decriminalizing polygamy, and then Utah passed a law allowing polygamous marriages.. Then you'd have a case.

It's actually the opposite however... In Reynolds v. United States (1878) Mr. Reynolds asserted under the freedom of religion claus he was free to have multiple wives.. Supreme court held he wasn't. and the illegal nature of polygamy trumped Mr. Reynolds constitutional right of freedom of religion; and of coarse just a few years earlier the US went to war with the Mormon's partially because of polygamous practices going on in Utah. (May 1857 until July 1858 )

Seems to me we are just following a path here: Inter-Racial before, Same Sex now, Number of next...

Other than societal preconceived notions why can't you have a white/black, or same sex or 3 wives? Because the Catholic Church said so in 1317ad?

Utah should start pushing it again...

[twa]

Funny, that pesky Constitution has something to say on that subject, too.

Something about the states being required to grant full faith and credence to the rulings of the other states, or something.

true....but is it absolute? (see public policy exceptions)

it also says something about supremacy,which would mean the federal DOMA could override a Cali law

it will be interesting to watch them sort it out

[JMS]

That and a tenspot will get ya a bite to eat .....again I ask....why was this right not apparent before?

Becuase before Gay's never had the right too contest for equal protection under the 14th ammendment because (1) they were considered criminals in some states. (2) they never had the right before. (3) nobody was trying to take that right away.

4 years is actually lightning speed for our judiciary..

(1) Gay lifestyle was illegal in many states before, which changed in 2003.

(2) Gay's didn't have the right to get married before which changed in May 2008.

(3) Then in June of 2008 began the first attemps to deny these folks equal protection under the law by recinding their legal right to marry.

And here we are 4 years latter with both State and Federal laws trying to put the cork back in the bottle ( excuse the pun) being thrown out on constitutional grounds....

[Thiebear]

Gays couldn't vote? How the hell did that 90yr old woman sitting behind the table with a ruler on the address line know a person was gay?

Wasn't Hetero sex of the same kind also illegal in many states?

They can still Marry, just not the person they want. okay take that one back off.

---------- Post added June-4th-2012 at 12:22 PM ----------

Becuase before Gay's were technically criminals, they had never had the right to vote, and nobody was trying to pass constititonal state ammendements to ensure they didn't.

This is actually lightning speed for our judiciary..

(1) Gay lifestyle was illegal in many states before, which changed in 2003.

(2) Gay's didn't have the right to get married before which changed in May 2008.

(3) Then in June of 2008 began the first attemts to deny these folks equal protection under the law by recinding their legal right to marry.

And here we are 4 years latter with both State and Federal laws trying to put the cork back in the bottle ( excuse the pun) being thrown out on constitutional grounds....

[JMS]

Seems to me we are just following a path here: Inter-Racial before, Same Sex now, Number of next...

The law is all about the details.

Other than societal preconceived notions why can't you have a white/black, or same sex or 3 wives? Because the Catholic Church said so in 1317ad?

Utah should start pushing it again...

You can have white/black or SS. But not 3 or more wives. Because all 50 states say so today, along with the Supreme court precident going back 140 years. It's a lot more than just preconceived notions.

[Thiebear]

The law is all about the details.

You can have white/black or SS. But not 3 or more wives. Because all 50 states say so today, along with the Supreme court precident going back 140 years. It's a lot more than just preconceived notions.

Thats Weak, becaus White/Black and Same sex were because all 50 states say so, along with the Supremem court precident going back 140 years...

Give it a decade, You'll drop your hatred of multiple wives and become more progressive

[JMS]

Gays couldn't vote? How the hell did that 90yr old woman sitting behind the table with a ruler on the address line know a person was gay?

I mispoke, I didn't mean vote like in voting for elected officials. I meant vote like in they case couldn't come up before the supreme court for a vote because of the afformentioned issues. being criminals, never having

had the right to marry, nobody was trying to take away a right they never had.

Wasn't Hetero sex of the same kind also illegal in many states?

Yes I believe it was.

---------- Post added June-4th-2012 at 12:33 PM ----------

Thats Weak, becaus White/Black and Same sex were because all 50 states say so, along with the Supremem court precident going back 140 years...

Give it a decade, You'll drop your hatred of multiple wives and become more progressive

If everybody drops the anti polygamy laws.. across all 50 states, ( by universal acceptance, or supreme court ruling, or federal law / constitutional ammendment)... Then you are absolutely right.

Polygamists would be on track for equal protection under the law. If there were no anti polygamist laws on the books in this country, then all they would need is for some state to pass a law allowing such unions, and they would have a case for leveraging equal protection.. but until these important interum steps are achieved, they are not remotely similar....

[twa]

.

(2) Gay's didn't have the right to get married before which changed in May 2008.

]

But you told me it already existed ,now it is because they didn't have it before?

why not just say no court recognised it as a right

[JMS]

But you told me it already existed ,now it is because they didn't have it before?

why not just say no court recognised it as a right

Yes SSM already existed after May 2008, so in June 2008 when California passed a refferendem to get rid of SSM they were violating equal protection clause...

Also SSM was not on the books prior to May 2008 so it could not have been the basis of a supreme court challenge earlier.

The key issue here is these people had a legal right. And then that right was taken away from them while remaining in tact for the majority...

That by definition is a state passing a law to deny some of it's citizens equal protection under the law... If they were criminals or had never had the right they wouldn't have a case...

[Larry]

why not just say no court recognised it as a right

You keep trying to bring this claim up, without saying why you want to bring it up.

This causes me to assume that it's simply another of the thousands of times where you try to hint at some kind of argument that you know isn't true when you type it, so instead you kind of hint at it without actually saying it. Since that's the only reason I can think of to explain why someone won't actually make a point.

But, instead, I'm going to politely ask why you seem to feel that the fact that no court has ever ruled on what the 14th amendment says about denying gays equal rights, is some kind of important point.

What's the point, or the claim, that you want to make, by pointing out, dozens of times, the fact that no ruling has specifically been made?

----------

I say "has not specifically ruled", because I have to point out that:

1). In Loving, the USSC HAS ruled that the 14th amendment DOES apply to marriage, and he attempts to deny it based on nothing other than discrimination.

2). And in Lawerence (no relation), the USSC HAS ruled that the 14th amendment DOES apply to gays, and the attempts to single them out with laws that are designed to only apply to them.

So, frankly, I have to observe that what appears to be your argument that, while the court HAS ruled that the 14th applies to gays, and to marriage, that well, they haven't actually considered a case that has both words (and to then try to claim that this means that they not only agree with you, but that they always have) seems to be even weaker than the arguments you usually try to hint at, without actually saying.

[JMS]

why not just say no court recognised it as a right

Courts don't typically say what isn't a person's right...they typically restrict themselves by saying what are peoples rights... In this case the court is saying SSM was a legislative right granted to these folks, and that right can't be then taken away...

[twa]

Courts don't typically say what isn't a person's right...they typically restrict themselves by saying what are peoples rights... In this case the court is saying SSM was a legislative right granted to these folks, and that right can't be then taken away...

Correct (unless there is a compelling reason)....and they found that right to marriage under the Cali or US constitution? (leaving aside your full faith and credit issue for now)

Larry ....if you simply want to be lectured to I would suggest a different source....the process is what I enjoy

but to humor you ...I keep bringing it up because ya'll are asserting the right existed and all the courts either ignored it or never saw it.

in short I like the inference they are all bigots

[Larry]

Our courts have a long history of failing to notice that "Oh, those people? You mean, the Constitution applies to them, too?"

How long did it take for the courts to notice that the 14th actually didn't allow segregation?

I think our nation has a very long and shameful history of bending itself into all kinds of pretzels to try to justify all kinds I'd despicable things that "we've always done it that way".

(Which, frankly, says something about the people who want to point at those despicable things and cite them as precedent which they think we should follow).

[twa]

(Which, frankly, says something about the people who want to point at those despicable things and cite them as precedent which they think we should follow).

Preach it brother

[twa]

Courts don't typically say what isn't a person's right...they typically restrict themselves by saying what are peoples rights... In this case the court is saying SSM was a legislative right granted to these folks, and that right can't be then taken away...

Which is restricted to Cali (under their constitution and law), since in Baker v. Nelson SCOTUS reserved the right of invalidating other states marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples to itself.

Didn't Baker in effect mean SCOTUS saw no constitutional right to SSM except that granted by the state itself?

which means you await their blessing or individual states acceptance

[JMS]

I keep bringing it up because ya'll are asserting the right existed and all the courts either ignored it or never saw it.

in short I like the inference they are all bigots

Dude, the right existed when California legislature passed the law legalizing SSM also when Ma passed their law legalizing SSM. That's when the federal courts are saying the right existed.

A month latter California repealed that right... But too late. The right was already in existance.... That's when the equal protection under the law or 14th ammendment came into play... Afer a right was granted, and then when they attempted to take away that right...

That's all background. Nothing controversial there.

---------- Post added June-5th-2012 at 08:34 AM ----------

How long did it take for the courts to notice that the 14th actually didn't allow segregation? .

What allowed the 14th ammendment to coexist with segregation was the theory of "separate but equal"... Supreme court decisions held that segregation didn't violate equal protection because everybody had the same "equal" access to those assets being segregated... equal water fountain, equal education, equal whatever....

It wasn't until the supreme court reversed itself and decided separate by definition was not equal; did the wheels start coming off of segregation.

[twa]

How can that be when DOMA already existed as well as Baker?

both of which effect SSM rights being exported beyond the states borders

Dude...wake me up when the controlling party sorts it out

[JMS]

Baker v. Nelson SCOTUS reserved the right of invalidating other states marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples to itself.

actually this case from the early 70's was not heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was decided in a Minn lower court and then went to the supreme court which issued a one sentence ruling refusing to hear the case.

On October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a one-sentence order stating "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."[

The lower court ruling seems to directly refute the California 2008 decision.

The Court was not persuaded that an equal-protection violation was present either. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The couple's reliance on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia (striking down an anti-miscegenation law) also failed: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."[9]

The Court acknowledged that Justice Goldberg's concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut (criminalizing contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy) found support for marital privacy partly in the Ninth Amendment. But, the Court distinguished Griswold and found no authority for the Ninth Amendment being binding on the states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

[twa]

actually this case from the early 70's was not heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was decided in a Minn lower court and then went to the supreme court which issued a one sentence ruling refusing to hear the case.

.

one sentence that created precedent w/o even hearing the case

they were not impressed then with the argument....why would they be now?

[JMS]

How can that be when DOMA already existed as well as Baker?

both of which effect SSM rights being exported beyond the states borders

Dude...wake me up when the controlling party sorts it out

DOMA is irrelivent. It was found unconstitutional.

It would seem Baker from the early 70's is also out, at least was not considered by the lower court... Baker says equal protection clause doesn't matter cause SSM's don't result in children and thus denying Marriage isn't an economic hardship for SS couples.... Which is rather laughable.

Maybe SCOTUS will factor these into their decisions when they hear the case though...

---------- Post added June-5th-2012 at 08:55 AM ----------

one sentence that created precedent w/o even hearing the case

they were not impressed then with the argument....why would they be now?

There are literally thousands of laws tied to marriage. Everything from insurance bennifits, surviver benifits, financial benifits, property rights, you name it... Claiming denying a couple the right to marry isn't a financial impact on them because they don't have kids is rather idiotic. Also many gay couples today do have kids...

I wouldn't think Baker would be a hard thing to refute....

Baker is kind of like separate but equal. It says gay people have the right to equal rights. Most of these are not tied to children.. Baker says the absense of those rights aren't a financial hardship or violate the equal protection clause?...

I would note, while not knowiing if it's determinitive, that in 1972 gay lifestyle was still illegal and undergound in many states... It's not today so this is kind of a different atmosphere from when Baker was decided.

TWA I must say both of those points are really excellent ones.. good job.

[Larry]

Which is restricted to Cali (under their constitution and law), since in Baker v. Nelson SCOTUS reserved the right of invalidating other states marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples to itself.

Didn't Baker in effect mean SCOTUS saw no constitutional right to SSM except that granted by the state itself?

which means you await their blessing or individual states acceptance

1). Thanks for actually citing something. Hadn't heard of that ruling, myself. (And I wondr why not. Maybe when the USSC doesn't overturn a state law, it isn't Big News?)

2). Now, at least from what I've read, the ruling doesn't say anything remotely like what you're claiming it says.

But, it certainly does appear to say that, when the case involves only one state, and only the laws of that one state, that the Feds aren't going to get involved.

(Which seems rather counter-intuitive, to me. The 14th was specifically written for the specific purpose of invalidating discriminatory state laws. That's it's sole reason for existence. I could see it, if the court had ruled that "the 14th doesn't apply to gay marriage because . . . ". I have trouble understanding how they can rule, in a case involving a claimed conflict between the 14th and a state law, ruling that thre is nothing federal involved in this horse race.)

Still, I suppose the ruling could be interpreted to at least imply that well, what they really ment to say was that the law doesn't violate the 14th.