Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[Qball]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

 

[konradv]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

Really?

why?

 

[bodecea]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

So, does that mean that once the Supreme Court dismisses a case, it's cast in stone for ever and ever and ever?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not necessarily. During segregation I do not think states that refused to recognize mixed race marriages were forced to do so. This is no different in that respect.

 

[Qball]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

If it's a "state matter", then states are free to choose which marriages they recognize.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

So, does that mean that once the Supreme Court dismisses a case, it's cast in stone for ever and ever and ever?

No but it does mean that someone will have to have a pretty good reason to overturn the precedent. And that doesnt exist.
Gay marriage will be thrown back to the states where it belongs.

 

[konradv]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

Really?

why?

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

 

[konradv]

Not necessarily. During segregation I do not think states that refused to recognize mixed race marriages were forced to do so. This is no different in that respect.

Nice precedent!!! Who do you think's going to bring that logic before the court?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

Really?

why?

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

Which law is that?

 

[The Rabbi]

Not necessarily. During segregation I do not think states that refused to recognize mixed race marriages were forced to do so. This is no different in that respect.

Nice precedent!!! Who do you think's going to bring that logic before the court?

ANyone who cares about jurisprudence. See, when dealing with legal issues what matters are facts and arguments, not emotion. This puts liberals at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

Really?

why?

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

It is??

Which one?

 

[Qball]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

Obviously that's up for debate. I don't think there's a good reason that supporters care about, but that doesn't mean there isn't one altogether. And I think it's wrong to assume the state has to give a good enough reason just because the pro-SSM side doesn't think one exists. I mean, democracy works when you get enough people in favor of something and are willing to stick their necks out to vote for and legalize it. I could say I think the government should give me an unlimited supply of Blue Bell banana pudding ice cream, and there's no good goddamn reason why they shouldn't. I couldn't drag them into court and make them explain to me why it's not a good idea.

Rough example, but you get my point. The state would have to explain itself if it took added measures to criminalize same-sex marriage...they would have to explain how same-sex marriage is so bad that it requires throwing people in jail over it. But it just not being of the law? It is what it is.

 

[martybegan]

It's a state matter is basically what they said. However, since some states have legalized same-sex marriage, the others are bound to recognize them.

Really?

why?

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

So I guess that should apply to concealed carry laws as well right? Its just the same as a marriage liscense, right?

 

[bucs90]

Not necessarily. During segregation I do not think states that refused to recognize mixed race marriages were forced to do so. This is no different in that respect.

Its no different?
So that means you are ok with gay marriage?
Or are against inter-racial marriage?

 

[jillian]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

race and sexual orientation aren't the same in whose mind? yours?

loving says marriage is a fundamental right and can't be denied to anyone based on discriminatory reasons.

*shrug*

 

[Seawytch]

It is unlikely that the two cases before the court are going to challenge any state's laws except CA. In CA a right already granted was taken away. The DOMA case will apply only to Federal Benefits. It will be after section 3 of DOMA is struck down that cases challenging state's anti gay marriage laws will be brought forward.

 

[Qball]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

race and sexual orientation aren't the same in whose mind? yours?

loving says marriage is a fundamental right and can't be denied to anyone based on discriminatory reasons.

*shrug*

Loving held that anti-miscegenation laws ran afoul of the 14th amendment. Dictum within the ruling isn't the holding. Stop being lazy because you're afraid of being wrong.

*shrug*

 

[Seawytch]

Really?

why?

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

So I guess that should apply to concealed carry laws as well right? Its just the same as a marriage liscense, right?

Is your marriage license in your state valid in other states? Mine isn't.

You might have an argument if my CC was valid in all states but yours wasn't.