Judge strikes down Arkansas's Gay Marriage Ban

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What the SCOTUS needs to do is recognize States's Rights concerning this issue and overturn the decisions of the gay, Federal activists that disregarded the will and vote of the People. The People, that is, who literally voted in a Democratic manner. The will of the one should not overrule the will of the many where the results of an honest and legal vote expressed the will of the people of those States.

Interesting the hypocrisy of conservatives when you and others on the right abandon the ‘will of the people’ rhetoric after a state bans ‘assault weapons.’

I cannot lay my finger on the provision in the BoR which protects the supposed right to a state issued marriage license.

For someone who blows so hard, you really aren't all that bright.

That’s because you’re ignorant of Constitutional case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying American citizens access to state laws, where gay Americans are in fact eligible to participate in each state’s marriage law, and the states lack a compelling governmental interest to do so:

[T]he State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law.[]A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass … cannot be reconciled with” the Equal Protection Clause. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S., at 239 (Powell, J., concurring).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And we now see Federal and state courts acknowledging and following this accepted and settled precedent of Constitutional jurisprudence, which prohibits the states from seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties absent a legitimate state interest.

 

[Silhouette]

..The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying American citizens access to state laws, where gay Americans are in fact eligible to participate in each state’s marriage law, and the states lack a compelling governmental interest to do so:

[T]he State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law.[]A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass … cannot be reconciled with” the Equal Protection Clause. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S., at 239 (Powell, J., concurring).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And we now see Federal and state courts acknowledging and following this accepted and settled precedent of Constitutional jurisprudence, which prohibits the states from seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties absent a legitimate state interest.

Setting the qualifications to marry as "between a man and a woman" doesn't seek out citizens to deny "rights". The PRIVELEGE of marriage in that legal definition also disqualifies polylgamists, minors and in many states it is expressly denied to people related too closely by blood.

States have a right to define the privelege of marriage according to the way their population decides it should be. The only exceptions would be denying someone based on their race, gender, country of origin or religion. Gay sexual BEHAVIORS and other deviant sexual relationships don't qualify for the 14th. Nor does "Lawrence" cover them in a blanket way that extends out in any direction their whim takes them.

well captain in america you cant vote to strip people of rights. Since you and others seem to have an issue with this fact, you think the judges are being activist. Scotus's recent ruling already paved the way for gay marriage rights. These judges are just following the law set.

You can't judge to strip people of their rights if the US Supreme Court's most recent interpretation of the issue at hand [gay marriage] was Upheld in Windsor last Summer to be the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states, retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution iintended". The highest Court in our nation ruled last Summer that an individual state's broad consensus [that will be the default when challenged] is what decides if gays or polygamists, incest etc. can marry in a given area.

You might want to read Windsor instead of acting like it was found in the favor of judicial activism overriding state law.

Read it. It says the opposite of what you think it does. United States v. Windsor [pages 12-20 of the Opinion should illuminate their position for you on state's consensus & gay marriage]

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Interesting the hypocrisy of conservatives when you and others on the right abandon the ‘will of the people’ rhetoric after a state bans ‘assault weapons.’

I cannot lay my finger on the provision in the BoR which protects the supposed right to a state issued marriage license.

For someone who blows so hard, you really aren't all that bright.

That’s because you’re ignorant of Constitutional case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying American citizens access to state laws, where gay Americans are in fact eligible to participate in each state’s marriage law, and the states lack a compelling governmental interest to do so:

[T]he State cannot single out one identifiable class of citizens for punishment that does not apply to everyone else, with moral disapproval as the only asserted state interest for the law.[]A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass … cannot be reconciled with” the Equal Protection Clause. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S., at 239 (Powell, J., concurring).

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

And we now see Federal and state courts acknowledging and following this accepted and settled precedent of Constitutional jurisprudence, which prohibits the states from seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties absent a legitimate state interest.

Nobody is talking about moral disapproval, Wally Windbag.

As the previous poster correctly pointed out, statutory marriage is a privilege extended by the state, not a right, civil or otherwise. Were it a right, you would not need a license, or any other form of assent, from any third party.

Furthermore, since there is no federal marriage statute, the federal courts are interjecting themselves beyond their lawful jurisdiction.

And to think that you have the arrogance to accuse others of ignorance.

 

[ron4342]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

This Supreme Court???? I would not trust they to make a decision on anything involving the Constitution. Their credibility is zero thanks to their wise decision that a corporation is really a person.

 

[Nyvin]

Wow, this is moving crazy fast....Idaho's ban has just been struck down!!!

 

[deltex1]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/judge-strikes-down-arkansas-gay-marriage-ban-state-220917700.html

State number 8 on the list of appeal court decisions in favor of gay marriage. That's pretty heavy momentum for gay marriage. I don't see how it's remotely possibly for the SCOTUS to turn down national gay marriage at this point.

Utah
Oklahoma
Texas
Kentucky
Virginia
Ohio
Michigan
and now Arkansas

I hear the pigs are getting nervous...Sooooooooiiiieeee!

 

[Plasmaball]

So you would be first in line to give special rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his consenting daughter? C'mon ... no moral standards allowed. Just rights.

Same-sex couples aren’t seeking ‘special rights,’ only the acknowledgement by the state of the rights they’ve always possessed, as is the case with every American.

And the issue has nothing to do with ‘giving rights to NAMBLA or to a father who wants to marry his daughter,’ the notion is ignorant demagoguery.

And yet you, too, fail to answer the question. Does a father have a right to marry his consenting daughter? Does a 60 year old man have the right to marry a consenting 16 year old boy (with his parents' approval)? Does an adult man have the right to marry 5 other consenting, adult men and 2 consenting adult women? It's a simple question (group of questions). Do they have the "right" to marry who they want or not? If your answer is NO to any of the above questions then from whence do you draw your moral basis?

what consenting adults do is their business, and you should mind your own.