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

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda | Southern Poverty Law Center

*MassResistance

MassResistance, “the leading pro-family grassroots activist group in Massachusetts,” began life in 1995 as the Parents’ Rights Coalition, became the Article 8 Alliance in 2003, and took on its current name in 2006. Its leader, Brian Camenker, is a programmer who was an official of the Article 8 Alliance and also headed the Newton, Mass., chapter of the National Taxpayers’ Association.

*Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) was formed as a part-time venture in 1996 by long-time gay-basher Peter LaBarbera, who reorganized it in 2006 as a much more serious and influential, if often vicious, operation.

*Abiding Truth Ministries
Springfield, Mass.

Abiding Truth Ministries serves mainly as a launching pad for an international anti-gay campaign. Its founder, Scott Lively, is also responsible for a book, widely cited by gay-bashers, accusing homosexuals of running the Nazi Party.

...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

This is another point people miss. In CA, as in any other state and the federal government, the constitution bestows rights, not the court. The court can't grant rights; they're supposed to interpret the constitution to protect them. The fact that this line is so prevalent really just proves that they went to the state Supreme Court to have them create a right out of whole cloth, not uphold the constitution as it is.

The people have the final say in CA to amend their constitution. Because the court ruled one way, the people voted another way, and the court didn't want to stay their ruling until the issue was resolved at the ballot box, people think this mess is somehow the fault of Proposition 8.

Complete imbecility. Nothing could be further from the truth. Asking to have a right recognized and protected, a right other people have, is not asking to have a new right created no matter how you cut, slice, or dice it.

It depends on how much credit you're willing to give. If you're going to essentially ask the legislature to create new policy, which this was regardless of how right or valid you think it is, you run the risk of the people amending their constitution to oppose it. That's why it should be dealt with the same way in which the law you disagree with was passed, in this case through the popular vote.

In Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshal ruled the anti-equality bigots could amend the Constitution. They tried and failed. Even if they had won, a conflict would have ensued where a state cannot have a Constitutional amendment that violates rights recognized by the federal Constitution.

Hasn't the US Supreme Court has ruled marriage is a fundamental right?

"They tried and failed", huh? LOL. The Democrats in the MA legislature wouldn't allow the issue to go to a public vote, likely because they knew in 2005-6 it would've passed, which is why it's the law today. It's much easier to amend the constitution in CA, but with MA you need a popular and a majority vote in the legislature in two consecutive sessions.

The Supreme Court has found marriage to be a right, yes, but in every instance they were defending a person's right to have a spouse of the opposite sex. They have never said it's a right irrespective of who your spouse is, and in fact, have dismissed such a claim (the point of this thread).

The process was used. I was at at the State House where religious groups bused in tons of illegals to attack gays as individuals. It was ugly. Bigotry and hatred can win a vote. In a representative democracy we elect leaders with teh expectation that cooler heads will prevail.

You are no better than the left wing idiots who attack the Courts. Georgia eh? Did you ever move to Massachusetts to organize?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Really? We could vote to take marriage away from Protestants?

I hate to call people dumb or stupid, but you seem intellectually lazy and borderline dishonest with your answers. You're not in the least bit curious about arguments that don't reaffirm your beliefs, so you just spitball answers, no matter how ridiculous or inaccurate they are, just to avoid conceding you may be wrong.

See what I mean?

No, you couldn't just vote to take away marriage from a religious group. That wasn't my point and you know it. I'm saying that you can't assume a contested question. Who said same-sex marriage is a civil right? No one. The only agreement between both sides here is that marriage is a civil right...how we define that right is up for debate. Just because you have the right to marry doesn't mean you have an entitlement to whatever kind of marriage you want.

Why couldn't we? What prevents it? If you can vote to deny me rights as you want to, why couldn't we take away the right to marry from Protestants?

 

[Seawytch]

Why couldn't we? What prevents it? If you can vote to deny me rights as you want to, why couldn't we take away the right to marry from Protestants?

Because classifications based upon race, creed or national origin are subject to strict scrutiny. Thus we can not stop Protestants from marrying. However we can stop 12 year olds from marrying.

Protestant is a religion, not a race, creed or national origin. It's a CHOICE, not an immutable trait. Nobody would be preventing them from practicing their religion, they just couldn't get married unless they switched religion.

Would that pass the Constitutional smell test for anyone?

Why on earth then, does anyone think keeping me from marrying my non-familial partner of choice does?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why couldn't we? What prevents it? If you can vote to deny me rights as you want to, why couldn't we take away the right to marry from Protestants?

Because classifications based upon race, creed or national origin are subject to strict scrutiny. Thus we can not stop Protestants from marrying. However we can stop 12 year olds from marrying.

Protestant is a religion, not a race, creed or national origin. It's a CHOICE, not an immutable trait. Nobody would be preventing them from practicing their religion, they just couldn't get married unless they switched religion.

Would that pass the Constitutional smell test for anyone?

Why on earth then, does anyone think keeping me from marrying my non-familial partner of choice does?

He includes "creed" (Definition of CREED: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief) instead of "religion" as a factor of choice which is protected. Yet omits sex (the terms in which the laws are written which is not a factor of choice) which though is evaluated under intermediate scrutiny (an examination between "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis").


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

A federal Judge's opinion holds no water with you? There we have it. None of us have to pay attention to federal Judges.

The rest of your post is a partisan screed worthy of the Posse Cum-in-your-mouthatis crowd

Yeah, a Federal Judge who is himself gay.... Yeah, no conflict there. When judges take it upon themselves to create new rights and strike down laws based on created precedent, they are no longer judges, they are the lord and master oligarchs you progressives are dying for.

So a gay man cannot be fair but a heterosexual one can? Is there a conflict when a heterosexual Judge gets to rule on heterosexual marriage being the only type accepted? Gawd, you're an embarrassment to USMB

When gun advocates , Republican candidates, anti choice abortion people and others use the Courts, and when anti gay marriage people use the courts?

I dont think liberal justices can ever be fair, as they are prone to legislating from the bench.

And again, go fuck yourself.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, a Federal Judge who is himself gay.... Yeah, no conflict there. When judges take it upon themselves to create new rights and strike down laws based on created precedent, they are no longer judges, they are the lord and master oligarchs you progressives are dying for.

So a gay man cannot be fair but a heterosexual one can? Is there a conflict when a heterosexual Judge gets to rule on heterosexual marriage being the only type accepted? Gawd, you're an embarrassment to USMB

When gun advocates , Republican candidates, anti choice abortion people and others use the Courts, and when anti gay marriage people use the courts?

I dont think liberal justices can ever be fair, as they are prone to legislating from the bench.

And again, go fuck yourself.

It hasn't been liberal judges that are making these rulings against DOMA and Prop 8. Inconvenient truth...

 

[martybegan]

So a gay man cannot be fair but a heterosexual one can? Is there a conflict when a heterosexual Judge gets to rule on heterosexual marriage being the only type accepted? Gawd, you're an embarrassment to USMB

When gun advocates , Republican candidates, anti choice abortion people and others use the Courts, and when anti gay marriage people use the courts?

I dont think liberal justices can ever be fair, as they are prone to legislating from the bench.

And again, go fuck yourself.

It hasn't been liberal judges that are making these rulings against DOMA and Prop 8. Inconvenient truth...

DOMA I can see as a problem due to federalism. Proposition 8 however, is a state based consitutional amendment to a state based contract.

 

[Seawytch]

I dont think liberal justices can ever be fair, as they are prone to legislating from the bench.

And again, go fuck yourself.

It hasn't been liberal judges that are making these rulings against DOMA and Prop 8. Inconvenient truth...

DOMA I can see as a problem due to federalism. Proposition 8 however, is a state based consitutional amendment to a state based contract.

It was an initiative that violates the Constitution. Prop 8 took away rights already granted which is why court after court ruled it Unconstitutional. How do you think it ended up at the SCOTUS?

 

[Intense]

Moved To Law And Justice

 

[martybegan]

It hasn't been liberal judges that are making these rulings against DOMA and Prop 8. Inconvenient truth...

DOMA I can see as a problem due to federalism. Proposition 8 however, is a state based consitutional amendment to a state based contract.

It was an initiative that violates the Constitution. Prop 8 took away rights already granted which is why court after court ruled it Unconstitutional. How do you think it ended up at the SCOTUS?

Kind of like NY restricting ownership of semi auto rifles to current owners, thus removing my right to own one if I so choose?

And it ended up at SCOTUS because our courts are filled with progressive legislators, not jurists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

On this we can agree. While we can argue the merits (or lack there of) of the Prop 8 case - I think that concerning Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM) the Prop 8 challenge was a tactical error.

If not for the Prop 8 case, California would probably already have SSCM. The historical shift in attitudes and voter response in general had shown a trend of more acceptance. In California alone Prop 22 (Statutory Law) passed by 23% and then just 8-years later Prop 8 barely squeaked by with only 2.5%.

There would have been much, MUCH more political capital, in a strategic sense, to have been gained from resubmitting to a vote and having Prop 8 repealed at the ballot.



>>>>

Except that Civil Rights aren't supposed to be up for majority opinion.

You can't assume that which is in question, Seawytch. That's just lazy thinking. Obviously the issue has been put to a vote many times by now, so it's a little silly to say that civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. What opponents have been saying for years is that your right to marry is a civil right, but there is no right to marry whomever you choose. That is a policy issue that people can vote on.

Not when the only 'whomever' here involves sexual orientation. It's well established in the civil rights of this country that you cannot discriminate against homosexuals simply because they are homosexuals. Same sex marriage for homosexuals is their version of marriage, just as opposite sex marriage is the heterosexual version.

If the government is going to recognize marriage in a legal manner at all, it cannot then exclude same sex marriage for no other reason than it is same sex marriage,

because for homosexuals, that is what marriage is to them, personally. Just as same sex relations, or co-habitation, other intimacy, etc., outside of marriage cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, neither can marriage.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Protestant is a religion, not a race, creed or national origin. It's a CHOICE, not an immutable trait. Nobody would be preventing them from practicing their religion, they just couldn't get married unless they switched religion.

Errr... Seawytch, not to be mean... and hate to break this to you, but Protestant is a creed.

A creed is a statement of belief, in particular a statement of faith that describes the beliefs shared by a religious community

Creed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[legaleagle_45]

He includes "creed" (Definition of CREED: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief) instead of "religion" as a factor of choice which is protected. Yet omits sex (the terms in which the laws are written which is not a factor of choice) which though is evaluated under intermediate scrutiny (an examination between "strict scrutiny" and "rational basis").

>>>>

Correct. A quick clarification which I am certain you are aware, but others may not be aware. Sex with a reference to gender is indeed subject to intermediate scrutiny, however there has been no determination by SCOTUS that sexual preference is subject to intermediate scrutiny. That is where the issue of gay marriage will either be won or lost, IMHO.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correct. A quick clarification which I am certain you are aware, but others may not be aware. Sex with a reference to gender is indeed subject to intermediate scrutiny, however there has been no determination by SCOTUS that sexual preference is subject to intermediate scrutiny. That is where the issue of gay marriage will either be won or lost, IMHO.

Well in Romer, they did strike the Colorado law because it violated the 14th Amendment's provisions of equal protection under the law specifically because the law was implemented targeting homosexuals as an identified class/group.


That is the application of the same priniciple.


>>>>

 

[legaleagle_45]

Correct. A quick clarification which I am certain you are aware, but others may not be aware. Sex with a reference to gender is indeed subject to intermediate scrutiny, however there has been no determination by SCOTUS that sexual preference is subject to intermediate scrutiny. That is where the issue of gay marriage will either be won or lost, IMHO.

Well in Romer, they did strike the Colorado law because it violated the 14th Amendment's provisions of equal protection under the law specifically because the law was implemented targeting homosexuals as an identified class/group.


That is the application of the same priniciple.


>>>>

In Romer SCOTUS claimed it used rational relationship scrutiny... and who am I to question SCOTUS?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Correct. A quick clarification which I am certain you are aware, but others may not be aware. Sex with a reference to gender is indeed subject to intermediate scrutiny, however there has been no determination by SCOTUS that sexual preference is subject to intermediate scrutiny. That is where the issue of gay marriage will either be won or lost, IMHO.

Well in Romer, they did strike the Colorado law because it violated the 14th Amendment's provisions of equal protection under the law specifically because the law was implemented targeting homosexuals as an identified class/group.


That is the application of the same priniciple.


>>>>

In Romer SCOTUS claimed it used rational relationship scrutiny... and who am I to question SCOTUS?

From Romer...

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "


>>>>

 

[legaleagle_45]

From Romer...

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "


>>>>

From Romer:

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

(Emphasis supplied).

 

[WorldWatcher]

From Romer...

"We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed. "


>>>>

From Romer:

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

(Emphasis supplied).

The broad nature did fail on the rational basis test, it was the narrow application to homosexuals though that caused it to fail on scrutiny.

The court identified two problems narrow and board, narrow was based on scrutiny broad was based on rational basis.


So I guess we're both right.

>>>>

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yeah, a Federal Judge who is himself gay.... Yeah, no conflict there. When judges take it upon themselves to create new rights and strike down laws based on created precedent, they are no longer judges, they are the lord and master oligarchs you progressives are dying for.

So a gay man cannot be fair but a heterosexual one can? Is there a conflict when a heterosexual Judge gets to rule on heterosexual marriage being the only type accepted? Gawd, you're an embarrassment to USMB

When gun advocates , Republican candidates, anti choice abortion people and others use the Courts, and when anti gay marriage people use the courts?

I dont think liberal justices can ever be fair, as they are prone to legislating from the bench.

And again, go fuck yourself.

Actually you are repeating yourself. When dolts like you disparage liberals like you do it is a 'fuck you' disguised as debate.