The Federal Courts that have ruled differently clearly disagree- and have stated that marriage is a right, and that equal protection and due process apply.
6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Silhouette
- Start date
The Federal Courts that have ruled differently clearly disagree- and have stated that marriage is a right, and that equal protection and due process apply.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #122
[EXCERPTS FROM ACTUAL 6TH DECISION CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE ON THIS THREAD]
ENTER...POLYGAMY BORN FROM PRECEDENT. Honorable Judge Sutton addresses the slippery slope in real legal terms:
14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
(Page 23)
How, the claimants ask, could anyone possibly be unworthy of this civil institution? Aren’t gay and straight couples both capable of honoring this civil institution in some cases and of messing it up in others? All of this, however, proves much too much. History is replete with examples of love, sex, and marriage tainted by hypocrisy. Without it, half of the world’s literature, and three-quarters of its woe, would disappear. Throughout, we have never leveraged these inconsistencies about deeply personal, sometimes existential, views of marriage into a ground for constitutionalizing the field. Instead, we have allowed state democratic forces to fix the problems as they emerge and as evolving community mores show they should be fixed. Even if we think about today’s issue and today’s alleged inconsistencies solely from the perspective of the claimants in this case, it is difficult to call that formula, already coming to terms with a new view of marriage, a failure. Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own. Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails.
ENTER...POLYGAMY BORN FROM PRECEDENT. Honorable Judge Sutton addresses the slippery slope in real legal terms:
14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
(Page 23)
How, the claimants ask, could anyone possibly be unworthy of this civil institution? Aren’t gay and straight couples both capable of honoring this civil institution in some cases and of messing it up in others? All of this, however, proves much too much. History is replete with examples of love, sex, and marriage tainted by hypocrisy. Without it, half of the world’s literature, and three-quarters of its woe, would disappear. Throughout, we have never leveraged these inconsistencies about deeply personal, sometimes existential, views of marriage into a ground for constitutionalizing the field. Instead, we have allowed state democratic forces to fix the problems as they emerge and as evolving community mores show they should be fixed. Even if we think about today’s issue and today’s alleged inconsistencies solely from the perspective of the claimants in this case, it is difficult to call that formula, already coming to terms with a new view of marriage, a failure. Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own. Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails.
No idea who Sutton is- since you didn't provide any links....but Sutton is wrong.
IF every state defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman 'from the founding of the Republic'- why did so many States rush to define marriage as being between a man and a woman in the last 10 years?
The answer is that no state did so- Puerto Rico is the only jurisdiction that I have seen that had that definition prior to 10 years ago.
That might be worth reading if I had any reason to read it. Like knowing who wrote it- and where it was published.
But since you haven't provided any of that.......
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #125
No slippery slope exists.
Slope along, Sil.
Slope along, Sil.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #126
A Clash of Opinion Key Excerpts from Sixth Circuit 8217 s Gay Marriage Ruling - Law Blog - WSJ a weirdo article and a strange blog
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #127
Here are the paragraphs right here that explains why SCOTUS will have to take this up IMMEDIATELY. And it will be the most hotly debated part about the whole question:
*******
(page 24)
The debate over marriage of course has another side, and we cannot deny the costs to the plaintiffs of allowing the States to work through this profound policy debate. The traditional definition of marriage denies gay couples the opportunity to publicly solemnize, to say nothing of subsidize, their relationships under state law. In addition to depriving them of this status, it deprives them of benefits that range from the profound (the right to visit someone in a hospital as a spouse or parent) to the mundane (the right to file joint tax returns). These harms affect not only gay couples but also their children. Do the benefits of standing by the traditional definition of marriage make up for these costs? The question demands an answer—but from elected legislators, not life-tenured judges. Our task under the Supreme Court’s precedents is to decide whether the law has some conceivable basis, not to gauge how that rationale stacks up against the arguments on the other side. Respect for democratic control over this traditional area of state expertise ensures that “a statewide deliberative process that enable(s) its citizens its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage” can have free and reasonable rein. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2689.
Animus.
Given the broad deference owed the States under the democracy-reinforcing norms of rational basis review, the cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down a state law on that basis are few. When the Court has taken this step, it usually has been due to the novelty of the law and the targeting of a single group for disfavored treatment under it....
In another case, a statewide initiative denied gays, and gays alone, access to the protection of the State’s existing antidiscrimination laws. The novelty of the law, coupled with the distance between the reach of the law and any legitimate interest it might serve, showed that the law was “born of animosity toward” gays and suggested a design to make gays “unequal to everyone else.” ...
...None of the statewide initiatives at issue here fits this pattern. The four initiatives, enacted between 2004 and 2006, codified a long-existing, widely held social norm already reflected in state law. “[M]arriage between a man and a woman,” as the Court reminded us just last year, “had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.” Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2689. Neither was the decision to place the definition of marriage in a State’s constitution unusual, nor did it otherwise convey the kind of malice or unthinking prejudice the Constitution prohibits...And if there was one concern animating the initiatives, it was the fear that the courts would seize control over an issue that people of good faith care deeply about. If that is animus, the term has no useful meaning. ...
...Just as state judges have the authority to construe a state constitution as they see fit, so do the people have the right to overrule such decisions or preempt them as they see fit. Nor is there anything static about this process. In some States, the people have since re-amended their constitutions to broaden the category of those eligible to marry. In other States, the people seemed primed to do the same but for now have opted to take a wait-and-see approach of their own as federal litigation proceeds. See, e.g., Wesley Lowery, Same-Sex Marriage Is Gaining Momentum, but Some Advocates Don’t Want It on the Ballot in Ohio, Wash. Post (June 14, 2014), Same-sex marriage is gaining momentum but some advocates don t want it on the ballot in Ohio - The Washington Post (explaining that Ohio same-sex marriage advocates opted not to place the question on the 2014 state ballot despite collecting nearly twice the number of required signatures). What the Court recently said about another statewide initiative that people care passionately about applies with equal vigor here: “Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”
*************************************
The issue of debate will be, do sensitivities and concerns towards adults [and children swept up in it] a new and untested social culture seeking to replace an old one, thousands of years older and diametrically opposed to it, have rights to use fascism to control "legal outcomes" by citing that any resistance to its spread is by definition "rancorous" or *yawn* "bigoted", "hateful", "homophobic"...etc. etc. etc...??
Do officials in Ohio have a right to deny a legitimate petition for the ballot with twice the required signatures? Do officials like Governor Brown and AG Harris in California have the right to order county clerks to defy initiative law that has been neither legally altered or revoked, nor rendered federally dead ( by illegal attempts to overturn Baker, 1971 from underneath) by new intiative law [as required by the California Constitution}?
These questions will take up most of the Supremes' time in the hearng that will becoming soon to a legal theater in DC.
*******
(page 24)
The debate over marriage of course has another side, and we cannot deny the costs to the plaintiffs of allowing the States to work through this profound policy debate. The traditional definition of marriage denies gay couples the opportunity to publicly solemnize, to say nothing of subsidize, their relationships under state law. In addition to depriving them of this status, it deprives them of benefits that range from the profound (the right to visit someone in a hospital as a spouse or parent) to the mundane (the right to file joint tax returns). These harms affect not only gay couples but also their children. Do the benefits of standing by the traditional definition of marriage make up for these costs? The question demands an answer—but from elected legislators, not life-tenured judges. Our task under the Supreme Court’s precedents is to decide whether the law has some conceivable basis, not to gauge how that rationale stacks up against the arguments on the other side. Respect for democratic control over this traditional area of state expertise ensures that “a statewide deliberative process that enable(s) its citizens its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage” can have free and reasonable rein. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2689.
Animus.
Given the broad deference owed the States under the democracy-reinforcing norms of rational basis review, the cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down a state law on that basis are few. When the Court has taken this step, it usually has been due to the novelty of the law and the targeting of a single group for disfavored treatment under it....
In another case, a statewide initiative denied gays, and gays alone, access to the protection of the State’s existing antidiscrimination laws. The novelty of the law, coupled with the distance between the reach of the law and any legitimate interest it might serve, showed that the law was “born of animosity toward” gays and suggested a design to make gays “unequal to everyone else.” ...
...None of the statewide initiatives at issue here fits this pattern. The four initiatives, enacted between 2004 and 2006, codified a long-existing, widely held social norm already reflected in state law. “[M]arriage between a man and a woman,” as the Court reminded us just last year, “had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.” Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2689. Neither was the decision to place the definition of marriage in a State’s constitution unusual, nor did it otherwise convey the kind of malice or unthinking prejudice the Constitution prohibits...And if there was one concern animating the initiatives, it was the fear that the courts would seize control over an issue that people of good faith care deeply about. If that is animus, the term has no useful meaning. ...
...Just as state judges have the authority to construe a state constitution as they see fit, so do the people have the right to overrule such decisions or preempt them as they see fit. Nor is there anything static about this process. In some States, the people have since re-amended their constitutions to broaden the category of those eligible to marry. In other States, the people seemed primed to do the same but for now have opted to take a wait-and-see approach of their own as federal litigation proceeds. See, e.g., Wesley Lowery, Same-Sex Marriage Is Gaining Momentum, but Some Advocates Don’t Want It on the Ballot in Ohio, Wash. Post (June 14, 2014), Same-sex marriage is gaining momentum but some advocates don t want it on the ballot in Ohio - The Washington Post (explaining that Ohio same-sex marriage advocates opted not to place the question on the 2014 state ballot despite collecting nearly twice the number of required signatures). What the Court recently said about another statewide initiative that people care passionately about applies with equal vigor here: “Deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor. But that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”
*************************************
The issue of debate will be, do sensitivities and concerns towards adults [and children swept up in it] a new and untested social culture seeking to replace an old one, thousands of years older and diametrically opposed to it, have rights to use fascism to control "legal outcomes" by citing that any resistance to its spread is by definition "rancorous" or *yawn* "bigoted", "hateful", "homophobic"...etc. etc. etc...??
Do officials in Ohio have a right to deny a legitimate petition for the ballot with twice the required signatures? Do officials like Governor Brown and AG Harris in California have the right to order county clerks to defy initiative law that has been neither legally altered or revoked, nor rendered federally dead ( by illegal attempts to overturn Baker, 1971 from underneath) by new intiative law [as required by the California Constitution}?
These questions will take up most of the Supremes' time in the hearng that will becoming soon to a legal theater in DC.
Last edited:
It is an interesting read- as is the dissent
Nos. 14-1341/
3057/ 3464/ 5291/ 5297/ 5818
DeBoer v. Snyder
Page 43 _________________
DISSENT
_________________MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
“The great tides and currents which engulf the rest of mendo not turn aside in their course to pass the judges by.”
Benjamin Cardozo,
The Nature of the Judicial Process
(1921)The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteent Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority’s resolution of these questions based on its invocation of
vox populi
and its reverence for “proceeding with caution” (otherwise known as the “wait and see” approach), I dissent
Well I think this case will likely move the Supreme Court to take on the issue.
The rest of your analysis....well its your 'analysis'
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #130
And did not have the stones to source it either. That is called plagiriasm.
However, Sil, has not been honest from day one on the boards about this issue.
SCOTUS does not get the case until the full 6th makes a decision to support the new ruling.
Has that happened?
However, Sil, has not been honest from day one on the boards about this issue.
SCOTUS does not get the case until the full 6th makes a decision to support the new ruling.
Has that happened?
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
Yup...and the SCOTUS won't be able to ***** out of ruling this time
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #132
They can still punt, but they probably won't. They can do this in two stages if they like. Ruling that you have to recognize gay marriages from another state, which would be a new case, and ruling that gay marriage is legal in all states. These guys play by their own rules so let's wait and see.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #133
In the long run:
SCOTUS is going to understand the importance of the precedents set by so many circuit courts now as an overwhelming mandate for marriage equality.
SCOTUS is going to understand the importance of the precedents set by so many circuit courts now as an overwhelming mandate for marriage equality.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #134
I didn't write the Opinion. Judge Sutton did.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #135
They already spelled out why they won't do that Paint. In Windsor, the Justices were wisely looking forward to that angle. And so, they compared gay marriage to 13 year olds marrying in New Hampshire. They may order other states to recognize 13-year old marrieds from New Hampshire, but they will not extend that to say that "all other 49 states must now allow 13 year olds to marry." Won't be done. Can't be done. It would violate state's rights to define marriage for themselves..
Stage one does not automatically mean stage two. They'll shut it down after stage one and leave it up to the individual states. No one state may dictate a repugnant type of marriage to another state.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #136
Alert Alert Altert: Sil is once again mangling Windsor.
13 year olds do not have a constitutional right to marry at 13.
Americans do have a right to marry whom the person wish.
13 year olds do not have a constitutional right to marry at 13.
Americans do have a right to marry whom the person wish.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #137
Since when are 13 year olds not Americans? And since when do you get to dictate to New Hampshire whether or not their 13 year olds can marry?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,542
- 2,165
- Banned
- #138
Alert Alert Alert: Sil is failing to confuse the issue thought she tries a fallacy of false comparison.
13 year old Americans do not have a right a constitutional right to marry at 13.
Americans do have a constitutional right to marry the individual they wish.
13 year old Americans do not have a right a constitutional right to marry at 13.
Americans do have a constitutional right to marry the individual they wish.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #139
They do in New Hampshire.
What federal standards would you impose to keep 13 year olds or others from marrying in the various states? DOMA?
Not true in many states. Merely living together, sometimes for a specific period, makes a couple married.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Quadruple amputee shoots annoying asshole in Maryland.- Started by the watcher
- Replies: 2
-
US judge blocks Trump administration from detaining thousands of refugees- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 1
-
How RCMP spies infiltrated the 1970s Indigenous rights movement- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
