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

[Dante]

Now DOMA.

We shall see what the esteemed Justices rule. I always get a kick out of comparing court rulings to teh imbecile posts here that pass for legal analysis.

The political analysis is ok, but the legal stuff here is hilarious

 

[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.

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

Dolt? I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the the week, Dumbte.

And, as always, go fuck yourself.

 

[Dante]

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.

Dolt? I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the the week, Dumbte.

And, as always, go fuck yourself.

good gawd you're a dolt alright!

 

[martybegan]

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

Dolt? I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the the week, Dumbte.

And, as always, go fuck yourself.

good gawd you're a dolt alright!

yet you are a classical elitist idiot, that equates intellegence with agreement with your own position.

Its a combination of narcisisim, hubris, and a sub par intellect.

 

[Dante]

marty-whatever-troll

 

[martybegan]

marty-whatever-troll

I win.

 

[Dante]

Of course you do Mahtay

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The issue isn’t level of judicial review but the fact that, as with same-sex couples, to exclude a given religious denomination from marriage violates equal protection doctrine. Protestants so effected would represent a class of persons singled-out for exclusion absent justification, absent evidence in support, and motivated solely by animus.

Prohibiting 12 year olds from marrying, however, is perfectly Constitutional. Such a prohibition would be applied to all 12 year olds equally, the state would be justified with abundant evidence in support of disallowing very young children from marrying, and the motive would clearly be free of animus toward 12 year olds, as the state has a compelling interest in preventing children so young from making such a significant life decision.

Whether attempting to disallow same-sex couples or Protestants from marrying, the fundamental legal principle remains the same: what can the state prove in court, what evidence can the state provide to support its desire to deny a class of persons their equal protection rights, and is the prohibition predicated on good faith or animus toward the adversely effected class.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

You bring forth 'full faith and credit'.
Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Interesting theory.
However, this does not apply when states have previously enacted laws to the contrary.
For example, An attorney licensed in one state, may not be recognized as an attorney in another state.
The point is when state law is already in place, federal law cannot supersede state law.
If federal law is in place, then the Supremacy Clause kicks in. So a state may not enact a law where federal law is already in place.
Another example. Horse racing owners, trainers and grooms must possess a license for each state in which he or she works. Why? Because there is no federal law in place that states otherwise.

Is there any legal argument put forth in the Courts using the full faith and credit clause?

Why do some people insist on lowering the level of debate at USMB?

HUH?!
Are you trying to start something with me?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

That's an emotional stance. It will not be entertained.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That was a silly question and answer and it does make me nervous. It doesn't matter that not every heterosexual couple can procreate. It's comparing apples and oranges. Some heterosexual couples eventually not being able to reproduce is not the same as no homosexual couples being able to do so, by design.

Bull. Either it is a requirement or it isn't. My brother, who had a vasectomy, was allowed to marry my sister in law who had a hysterectomy. No way they were ever having children. Same goes for my 94 year old grandfather. He was not prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend.

Nobody said it was a requirement for a marriage license. It has been said that the reason for the state's recognition of marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. People's individual situation doesn't change what is generally true for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

The militant homosexuals in favor of homosexual marriage are rolling out every emotional argument in the play book.
Thus far we've seen slavery, Jim Crow, The Voting rights Act. Women's Suffrage, etc...
All used as a comparison.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Do you mean rational basis?

Actually, Justice Kennedy ruled that Amendment 2 was so poorly composed, that even a rational basis level of review was not warranted, much less intermediate scrutiny.

The Colorado amendment was invalidated solely on equal protection grounds, being devoid of any merit or justification whatsoever.

 

[thereisnospoon]

...

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.

...

Fringe kooks...

 

[thereisnospoon]

...

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?

Now that is just amazing. Care to post a link to a credible news source so that the rest of us can read about it? How about a video?..

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Simple. There is no federal or state test for people of different religions or denominations as it relates to marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bull. Either it is a requirement or it isn't. My brother, who had a vasectomy, was allowed to marry my sister in law who had a hysterectomy. No way they were ever having children. Same goes for my 94 year old grandfather. He was not prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend.

Nobody said it was a requirement for a marriage license. It has been said that the reason for the state's recognition of marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. People's individual situation doesn't change what is generally true for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

The militant homosexuals in favor of homosexual marriage are rolling out every emotional argument in the play book.
Thus far we've seen slavery, Jim Crow, The Voting rights Act. Women's Suffrage, etc...
All used as a comparison.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage,’ there is only marriage, and the Constitution’s requirement that all citizens have access to marriage law.

 

[Dante]

...

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.



"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?

Now that is just amazing. Care to post a link to a credible news source so that the rest of us can read about it? How about a video?..

Everyone there saw it. Dante had video. It was in the news in different forms.

You don't know the religious rights has been using immigrant churches to attack gays?

 

[Dante]

Bull. Either it is a requirement or it isn't. My brother, who had a vasectomy, was allowed to marry my sister in law who had a hysterectomy. No way they were ever having children. Same goes for my 94 year old grandfather. He was not prevented from marrying his 80 year old girlfriend.

Nobody said it was a requirement for a marriage license. It has been said that the reason for the state's recognition of marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. People's individual situation doesn't change what is generally true for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

The militant homosexuals in favor of homosexual marriage are rolling out every emotional argument in the play book.
Thus far we've seen slavery, Jim Crow, The Voting rights Act. Women's Suffrage, etc...
All used as a comparison.

So you like your homos passive and not militant? Do you like your religious bigots to be not militant?

 

[legaleagle_45]

Do you mean rational basis?

Either terminology works and either terminology is employed by academics... Business Law quiz:

Business law Chapter 4 flashcards | Quizlet

ABA web site:

ABA Law Day: For Schools: Background on Teaching About Equality

Find Law legal Dictionary:

a test less intensive than strict scrutiny or an intermediate review that involves a determination of whether a statutory or regulatory classification of persons (as by age or offender status) has a rational basis and does not deny equal protection under the Constitution [if the classification neither affects a fundamental right, nor creates a suspect classification, nor is based on gender, then the rational basis test is applied "Charlton v. Kimata, 815 P.2d 946 (1991)"] called also rational relationship test

Rational Basis Test - FindLaw

Actually, Justice Kennedy ruled that Amendment 2 was so poorly composed, that even a rational basis level of review was not warranted, much less intermediate scrutiny.

Actually, I quoted the Kennedy's opinion and that is not what he said. The court employed rational relationship scrutiny or, if you prefer, rational basis scrutiny. The state court used strict scrutiny to achieve a result which SCOTUS affirmed but on different grounds... specifically rational basis scrutiny.

On remand, the State advanced various arguments in an effort to show that Amendment 2 was narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests, but the trial court found none sufficient. It enjoined enforcement of Amendment 2, and the Supreme Court of Colorado, in a second opinion, affirmed the ruling. Evans v. Romer, 882 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1994) (Evans II). We granted certiorari and now affirm the judgment, but on a rationale different from that adopted by the State Supreme Court.

Heightened or intermediate scrutiny is not mentioned in the opinion.

The Colorado amendment was invalidated solely on equal protection grounds, being devoid of any merit or justification whatsoever.

And thus failed the rational relationship test.

This is really something we should not be arguing about... Scalia's dissent outlines the nature of the test emplyed by the court in Romer quite clearly:

The Court evidently agrees that "rational basis" - the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause - is the governing standard. The trial court rejected respondents' argument that homosexuals constitute a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class, and respondents elected not to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court of Colorado. See Evans v. Romer, 882 P.2d 1335, 1341, n. 3 (1994). And the Court implicitly rejects the Supreme Court of Colorado's holding, see Evans v. Romer, 854 P.2d 1270, 1282 (1993), that Amendment 2 infringes upon a "fundamental right" of "independently identifiable class[es]" to "participate equally in the political process." Ante, at 4.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

However... I will admit that Kennedy's opinion has been subjected to criticism because, although he puported to emply rational basis scrutiny, it was a tad bid stricter than that, bordering on heightened scrutiny:

The United States Supreme Court purported to subject Amendment 2 to a rational basis standard of review, which is the most deferential type of equal protection review. However, the form of review the Court actually applied in declaring Amendment 2 unconstitutional was more exacting than rational basis review. Why would the Court claim to apply one standard of review while actually utilizing what appears to be another? This Note attempts to answer this question by stating that while the Court purported to apply rational basis review, it instead applied a form of heightened scrutiny because the Court has tacitly recognized-or is preparing to recognize-gays and lesbians as a quasi-suspect class.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=9aec4b9cd9cce42ce9bb945efa1be93b

Which is exactly why I stated that :

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

It was intended as a bit of sarcasm concerning what the court said it did and what the court actually did.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nobody said it was a requirement for a marriage license. It has been said that the reason for the state's recognition of marriage is due to the fact that men and women have children. People's individual situation doesn't change what is generally true for heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

The militant homosexuals in favor of homosexual marriage are rolling out every emotional argument in the play book.
Thus far we've seen slavery, Jim Crow, The Voting rights Act. Women's Suffrage, etc...
All used as a comparison.

Again, there is no such thing as ‘homosexual marriage,’ there is only marriage, and the Constitution’s requirement that all citizens have access to marriage law.

Which citizens are being denied access to marriage? None.