Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

[Nick21]

So if they now declare marriage no longer a right, then yes the state could define exceptions to who could get married. That's not going to happen, thus it is a matter of how soon will SCOTUS make same-sex marriage a right.

They already ruled it is NOT a right, in Baker v. Nelson. The CA SC in it's first dealing with same sex marriage cites Baker as binding precedent. A poster mentioned Lawrence, this case does also as a possible "doctrinal development" to release the lower courts of the summary decision, BUT CA refused to do it, that is why the CA Constitution was at the crux of the ruling.

In part:

Although the United States Supreme Court has determined that there is no
right to same-sex marriage under the federal Constitution (Baker v. Nelson, supra,
409 U.S. 810), courts in other states construing their own state Constitutions in
recent years have reached differing conclusions on this question.
---------------------------------------------
Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on
all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of
equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held
that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not
violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States
Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was
appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28
U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high
court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker
v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.)
As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the
ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the
merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of
federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v.
Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent
lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented
and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.)
4
Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810,
prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a
state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal
protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution.
The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the
high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.)
That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions
on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal
developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at
p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v.
Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal
developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.
The San Francisco public officials have argued that the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558, holding
unconstitutional a state law “making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to
engage in certain intimate sexual conduct” (id. at p. 562), amounts to a doctrinal
development that releases courts and public officials from any obligation to obey
the high court’s decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810.

I know Baker very well, no news there. You frame your point as though SCOTUS is suddenly prevented from declaring SSM a right. Baker is not final, new precedent will be established by SCOTUS. 1972 was a very different time, even if the Justices wanted to declare SSM a constitutional right, it is unlikely they would. Justice O'Connor switched positions from Bowers to Lawrence, a mere 17 years later. What changed? It was probably the times. This was also a time where cases reached SCOTUS via mandatory appellate review, so they had to issue summary dispositions on every case. Perry will reach SCOTUS and the Court will formally issue an opinion on the matter and settle it.

 

[JBeukema]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

 

[lawbuff]

I know Baker very well, no news there. You frame your point as though SCOTUS is suddenly prevented from declaring SSM a right.

No, I did not frame it as such, I merely pointed out they issued a ruling on same sex marriages already.

Baker is not final, new precedent will be established by SCOTUS.

That is possible, never said they would not. The SC has overruled themselves over 200 times since 1789, mostly NON landmark decisions though.

1972 was a very different time, even if the Justices wanted to declare SSM a constitutional right, it is unlikely they would.Justice O'Connor switched positions from Bowers to Lawrence, a mere 17 years later. What changed? It was probably the times. This was also a time where cases reached SCOTUS via mandatory appellate review, so they had to issue summary dispositions on every case.

They have had "discretionary" review since the Judiciary Act of 1925, which former President and then Chief Justice William Howard Taft, a fellow Ohian, pushed through to ease the Court's workload.

Now if we are talking "Original Jurisdiction" cases, you bet they will accept them all.

Perry will reach SCOTUS and the Court will formally issue an opinion on the matter and settle it.

Quite possible, no argument there.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

There is no constitutional right to marriage period.

 

[The T]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

There is no constitutional right to marriage period.

On the mark.

 

[The T]

I know that for a time, it was illegal for a "mixed" race marriage. But does the constitution specifically cover "marriage" at all? I don't want to reread the whole darn thing. We had to read it in high school and that was nearly 45 years ago.

Not talking about court cases, but THE constitution.

The Constitution doesn't List EVERYTHING...

Don't be Absurd.

There is CLEARLY NO "Right" to "Privacy" that Allows for the Murder of Inconvenient Life in the Womb, but Damn it if it's not the Law and Referred to as a "Constitutional Right"...

Want that one Taken, rdean?... It's not in there... I Checked!



peace...

Brought to you courtesy of the ill-fated Roe v. Wade.

 

[antagon]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Why wouldn't marriage be an inalienable right? Being the most basic and fundamental relationship that human beings have.

anyone can get married. the government is not stopping that from happening. you can marry your goldfish. that the government should redefine marriage for tax or immigration purposes, etc, is not a right deferred to citizens or states. these definitions are enumerated to the legislature.

this is not a rights issue, but a political one.

 

[Gadawg73]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

Ever heard of the bill of rights?
The right to free speech and to a speedy trial by jury?

Scary stuff you claim dude. Scary as hell.
We are a nation of laws, not men and their religous beliefs.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Your right, gays have the liberty to marry someone of the opposite sex and attempt to be happy in that union. What the government can't do is tell churches who they will recognize as married. That clearly violates the separation many of you are so keen on pointing out all the time.

So a church can recognize gays as married because the government can't tell them what to do is what you are stating.
I agree.

 

[bodecea]

The Constitution may not recognise the rights of gays to marry, but the Declaration of Independance certainly does:

"...with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

If you're gay not being able to marry is a violation of both your liberty and your persuit of happiness.

Your right, gays have the liberty to marry someone of the opposite sex and attempt to be happy in that union. What the government can't do is tell churches who they will recognize as married. That clearly violates the separation many of you are so keen on pointing out all the time.

So...you support Gender discrimination.

 

[Gadawg73]

Modern day so called self proclaimed "conservatives" are whacked out and have no clue as to the US Constitution.
These clowns want to use the US Constitution, a document founded and dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
IOW, these clowns that call themselves "conservatives" believe we do not need tax reform. We do not need immigration reform. We do not need an end to run away spending in Washington. We do not need to reduce the size of government.
We do not need any of those things.
What WE REALLY NEED is to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment and that solves everyone's heterosexual marriae and all the other problems listed above.
No wonder Obama is President. You pricks have lost your friggin minds over THE GAY BOOGEYMAN.
What a buch of flippin dumbasses Americans have become.
Let gays get married.
Who cares?

 

[The T]

Modern day so called self proclaimed "conservatives" are whacked out and have no clue as to the US Constitution.
These clowns want to use the US Constitution, a document founded and dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
IOW, these clowns that call themselves "conservatives" believe we do not need tax reform. We do not need immigration reform. We do not need an end to run away spending in Washington. We do not need to reduce the size of government.
We do not need any of those things.
What WE REALLY NEED is to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment and that solves everyone's heterosexual marriae and all the other problems listed above.
No wonder Obama is President. You pricks have lost your friggin minds over THE GAY BOOGEYMAN.
What a buch of flippin dumbasses Americans have become.
Let gays get married.
Who cares?

Careful big boy. You're treading on THIN ICE. Those mandates come from Society, and on whole LOCAL Lawmakers.

 

[Gadawg73]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

 

[Gadawg73]

Modern day so called self proclaimed "conservatives" are whacked out and have no clue as to the US Constitution.
These clowns want to use the US Constitution, a document founded and dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, RATHER THAN TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO.
IOW, these clowns that call themselves "conservatives" believe we do not need tax reform. We do not need immigration reform. We do not need an end to run away spending in Washington. We do not need to reduce the size of government.
We do not need any of those things.
What WE REALLY NEED is to ban gay marriage with a Constitutional Amendment and that solves everyone's heterosexual marriae and all the other problems listed above.
No wonder Obama is President. You pricks have lost your friggin minds over THE GAY BOOGEYMAN.
What a buch of flippin dumbasses Americans have become.
Let gays get married.
Who cares?

Careful big boy. You're treading on THIN ICE. Those mandates come from Society, and on whole LOCAL Lawmakers.

So you also oppose a Federal Amendment to ban gay marriage?

 

[rikules]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Baptist Press - Nominee Kagan has record supporting gay causes - News with a Christian Perspective

Well...

She gonna Vote that way on the Bench?...



peace...

Well at least this shows she has a basic grasp of the constitution as marriage isn't part of it at all...whether hetrosexual or homosexual marriage isn't in there.

Why not? Because the constitution isn't there to give us, the people, rights....we get those from our creator and they are unalienable.....the constitution is there to limit the federal governments power.

+1 for the new nominee for understanding this basic aspect.

there is no "creator"

so, consequently, we did NOT get any rights from this non-existant creator.

the only rights we have are the rights we have agreed upon via governmental rules, laws and regulations.

we give ourselves, collectively, our own rights.

 

[antagon]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

 

[Gadawg73]

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

What do dependents have to do with marriage be it heterosexual or homosexual?
You can deduct dependents without ever being married.
Two parents can claim tax breaks assosciated with a child and do not have to be married.

 

[JBeukema]

Kagan: "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."

Does she believe there's a federal Constitutional right to marriage at all?

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

So then a state can either have a legal contract called 'marriage' or not.

Now the matter becomes one of discrimination in issuing and recognizing that contract based on race, gender, etc. SCOTUS already established precedent by specifically addressing such discrimination in Loving v. Virginia.

 

[hortysir]

Coming from a woman that's too damned ugly to marry?

 

[antagon]

Of course she does not. No one with her legal training does.
Marriage is a state's issue.

this is not entirely accurate.

marriage as a ceremony is a non-issue. what is of issue is the tax, immigration and legal status of state marriage. there's both federal and state consideration on this matter. where the federal government is concerned, tax and immigration status are defined by the legislature per the constitution, and not reserved for states. the constitution is clear as to those powers, so gay marriage is a political, not constitutional, determination.

is it discriminatory to define marriage for tax purposes as between a man and a woman, or set age limits to the definition of dependent in the tax code?

What do dependents have to do with marriage be it heterosexual or homosexual?
You can deduct dependents without ever being married.
Two parents can claim tax breaks assosciated with a child and do not have to be married.

no, that's age discrimination, gadawg. how far will it go?

can they file jointly, man? there has to be something to the hubbub over state blessing of marriage. can they get a permanent visa because their spouse is a citizen?