Minnesota Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

[martybegan]

All of them do

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

There is a mention of equal protection of our laws though

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

You’re at least consistent in being wrong.

Equal protection rights do indeed pertain to gender and sexual orientation.

See, e. g., Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

If one takes courts as being right all the time. i do not. and I know people who do not support citizens united do not as well (but only in that case, because they disagree with the ruling).

There is no link in the constitution between marriage and a right. it only exists in the mind of certain judges.

 

[Seawytch]

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

There is a mention of equal protection of our laws though

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

You don't honestly believe that the only rights we have are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution do you?

The SCOTUS themselves, highest court in the land, has declared marriage a fundamental right. In order to deny that right to a group of people, it must pass the "reasonable" test. Denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians does not pass that test because there is no societal harm in allowing them.

 

[rightwinger]

There is a mention of equal protection of our laws though

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

You don't honestly believe that the only rights we have are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution do you?

The SCOTUS themselves, highest court in the land, has declared marriage a fundamental right. In order to deny that right to a group of people, it must pass the "reasonable" test. Denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians does not pass that test because there is no societal harm in allowing them.

Sad to say he is in that group of Americans who actually believe that

 

[Jroc]

The radical leftist simply want to change the definition of what a marriage is and has always been a union of a man and women, which is not the same thing as two people of the same gender. If they could have civil unions with the exact same rights as marriage and it just wouldn’t be called marriage they don't want it. They want to shove same sex marriage it down everyone’s throat. This is where most of the animosity comes from

 

[rightwinger]

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

There is a mention of equal protection of our laws though

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

In those cases the state must prove a pressing need to provide other than equal protection

They have yet to prove where a gay marriage hurts the state

 

[martybegan]

There is a mention of equal protection of our laws though

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

In those cases the state must prove a pressing need to provide other than equal protection

They have yet to prove where a gay marriage hurts the state

Again, according to some judge. If it isnt in the constitution, it is up to the legislature. If a legislature wants to allow it, Im all for it. if some judge tries to impose it on flimsy grounds, I am against it.

 

[Seawytch]

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

In those cases the state must prove a pressing need to provide other than equal protection

They have yet to prove where a gay marriage hurts the state

Again, according to some judge. If it isnt in the constitution, it is up to the legislature. If a legislature wants to allow it, Im all for it. if some judge tries to impose it on flimsy grounds, I am against it.

So just for the record, we have no rights unless they are expressly mentioned in the Constitution? That's your position?

 

[martybegan]

In those cases the state must prove a pressing need to provide other than equal protection

They have yet to prove where a gay marriage hurts the state

Again, according to some judge. If it isnt in the constitution, it is up to the legislature. If a legislature wants to allow it, Im all for it. if some judge tries to impose it on flimsy grounds, I am against it.

So just for the record, we have no rights unless they are expressly mentioned in the Constitution? That's your position?

You have inaliable rights that no government can create, but those rights are not protected from legislative action unless noted in the consitution. I accept some interpretation and extension via judical action, but not out and out making crap up as we go along by judges.

What scares me is judges that make up rights can just as easily remove them. (allowing overreaching restrictions on the 2nd amendment comes to mind).

To enshrine a right, one has to add an amendment, just as the founders did. To remove said right, one has to remove said amendment, just as the founders planned.

 

[Seawytch]

Again, according to some judge. If it isnt in the constitution, it is up to the legislature. If a legislature wants to allow it, Im all for it. if some judge tries to impose it on flimsy grounds, I am against it.

So just for the record, we have no rights unless they are expressly mentioned in the Constitution? That's your position?

You have inaliable rights that no government can create, but those rights are not protected from legislative action unless noted in the consitution. I accept some interpretation and extension via judical action, but not out and out making crap up as we go along by judges.

What scares me is judges that make up rights can just as easily remove them. (allowing overreaching restrictions on the 2nd amendment comes to mind).

To enshrine a right, one has to add an amendment, just as the founders did. To remove said right, one has to remove said amendment, just as the founders planned.

LOL, they don't "make up" the rights. They do their jobs and interpret the Constitution. That's what they're there for.

So far, the Supremes have interpreted marriage as a fundamental right ("essential to our very existence they said) that you can't deny divorced people, convicted murderers on death row and interracial couples. Why? Because it violated equal protection and did not stand the "reasonable" test.

Prohibitions on same sex couples don't pass that test of reasonableness either.

 

[Katzndogz]

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it this way:

Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981863680

 

[WorldWatcher]

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it this way:

Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If Gay Marriage Is... | Gather

Depends.


1. Just because I have a consenting adult relationship does not mean that the other adult I'm in that consenting relationship with decide to go to the step of marriage. There are many relationships that are not marriage. For example I have a friend and I give her a power of attorney to sell my car while I'm overseas for a year. That is a consenting adult relationship, but I didn't need to Civilly Marry her to do it. On the other hand Civil Marriage is a contractual relationship between two consenting adults to establish a family relationship where one did not exist before - which is a whole different level.

2. Secondly, because Civil Marriage between same-sex couples becomes acceptable extending Civil Marriage Equality, that does not mean that other types of consenting adult relationships must automatically be acceptable under the law. Ultimately there will be an examination of that relationships structure and a determination made as to whether there is a compelling government interest in recognizing such a relationship under the law. If there is a compelling government interest in withholding legal recognition - then it will not succeed. The problem that those that wish to discriminate against same-sex couples have is that there is no compelling government interest in treating law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, adults differently based on gender in terms o Civil Marriage couples.



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it this way:

Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If Gay Marriage Is... | Gather

Depends.


1. Just because I have a consenting adult relationship does not mean that the other adult I'm in that consenting relationship with decide to go to the step of marriage. There are many relationships that are not marriage. For example I have a friend and I give her a power of attorney to sell my car while I'm overseas for a year. That is a consenting adult relationship, but I didn't need to Civilly Marry her to do it. On the other hand Civil Marriage is a contractual relationship between two consenting adults to establish a family relationship where one did not exist before - which is a whole different level.

2. Secondly, because Civil Marriage between same-sex couples becomes acceptable extending Civil Marriage Equality, that does not mean that other types of consenting adult relationships must automatically be acceptable under the law. Ultimately there will be an examination of that relationships structure and a determination made as to whether there is a compelling government interest in recognizing such a relationship under the law. If there is a compelling government interest in withholding legal recognition - then it will not succeed. The problem that those that wish to discriminate against same-sex couples have is that there is no compelling government interest in treating law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, adults differently based on gender in terms o Civil Marriage couples.



>>>>

Of course they won't automatically be acceptable. It will just be easier to make them acceptable because this is a precedent in accepting a non-traditional marriage. After all, gays are using the Loving decision to legitimize their depravity. A favorable decision in this case would facilitate acceptance of depravities down the line. It isn't marriage equality they are after. It's marriage elasticity.

 

[martybegan]

So just for the record, we have no rights unless they are expressly mentioned in the Constitution? That's your position?

You have inaliable rights that no government can create, but those rights are not protected from legislative action unless noted in the consitution. I accept some interpretation and extension via judical action, but not out and out making crap up as we go along by judges.

What scares me is judges that make up rights can just as easily remove them. (allowing overreaching restrictions on the 2nd amendment comes to mind).

To enshrine a right, one has to add an amendment, just as the founders did. To remove said right, one has to remove said amendment, just as the founders planned.

LOL, they don't "make up" the rights. They do their jobs and interpret the Constitution. That's what they're there for.

So far, the Supremes have interpreted marriage as a fundamental right ("essential to our very existence they said) that you can't deny divorced people, convicted murderers on death row and interracial couples. Why? Because it violated equal protection and did not stand the "reasonable" test.

Prohibitions on same sex couples don't pass that test of reasonableness either.

Only in your opinion, and the opinion of those who agree with you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You have inaliable rights that no government can create, but those rights are not protected from legislative action unless noted in the consitution. I accept some interpretation and extension via judical action, but not out and out making crap up as we go along by judges.

What scares me is judges that make up rights can just as easily remove them. (allowing overreaching restrictions on the 2nd amendment comes to mind).

To enshrine a right, one has to add an amendment, just as the founders did. To remove said right, one has to remove said amendment, just as the founders planned.

LOL, they don't "make up" the rights. They do their jobs and interpret the Constitution. That's what they're there for.

So far, the Supremes have interpreted marriage as a fundamental right ("essential to our very existence they said) that you can't deny divorced people, convicted murderers on death row and interracial couples. Why? Because it violated equal protection and did not stand the "reasonable" test.

Prohibitions on same sex couples don't pass that test of reasonableness either.

Only in your opinion, and the opinion of those who agree with you.

Which is a growning number of people every year to the point where laws are being repealed through the action of legislatures and at the ballot box during general elections.



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

LOL, they don't "make up" the rights. They do their jobs and interpret the Constitution. That's what they're there for.

So far, the Supremes have interpreted marriage as a fundamental right ("essential to our very existence they said) that you can't deny divorced people, convicted murderers on death row and interracial couples. Why? Because it violated equal protection and did not stand the "reasonable" test.

Prohibitions on same sex couples don't pass that test of reasonableness either.

Only in your opinion, and the opinion of those who agree with you.

Which is a growning number of people every year to the point where laws are being repealed through the action of legislatures and at the ballot box during general elections.



>>>>

And Im all groovy with that. Hell, once they get enough support they should enshrine the right in state and/or the federal consitution.

As I have said before, if given a vote on same sex marriage in a referendum, I'd vote for it. I just dont like judges creating "rights" as those that can create can also destroy.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You said "Heightened or intermediate scrutiny seems to be a natural fit, but the problem is, SCOTUS has never had the guts to say that sexual preference is a suspaect class,...".

Correct. It has not done so as of yet.

The SCOTUS did identify sexual orientation as class being targeted by the Colorado Amendment. Tht it didn't hold up to even the rational basis test didn't change that identification. They felt they didn't even need to go even that far (Heightened Scrutiny) to find the law invalid.

Also correct. Laws will often times make classifications by class. Just because they have laws which carve out a class of persons for special treatment does not mean such a law is unconstitutional. The point I am trying to make is that unless it is a suspect class or a protected class which is targeted by the law, the law will probably be valid. Romer is an exception where the law did not survive even rational basis scrutiny. Examples of classes of people which the law often identifies for special treatment (which treatment can provide either a restriction or a benefit):

1.) Minors
2.) Those previously convicted of a felony
3.) Veterans
4.) Non citizens

I am not sure what your point is... perhaps you are assuming that because Colorado could not dream up a good reason to justify Prop 2 that some state could not dream up a reason for a law restricting marriage to one solely between a man and a woman?

That would be similar to saying because a law which requires veterans to wear pink tu tus on Tuesdays would be unconstitutional, a law which provides a preference to hiring veterans for public jobs is also unconstitutional... not necessarily the case.

 

[rightwinger]

And one has to define equal protection. If one takes it as an absolute, then I can marry 50 other people at once, or my sister, or a minor (consenting). (silly I know, but its to make a point).

If something in the constituion is not explicit, then only the most obvious cases can use the interpretive "rights." The rest should be left to the legislatures.

In those cases the state must prove a pressing need to provide other than equal protection

They have yet to prove where a gay marriage hurts the state

Again, according to some judge. If it isnt in the constitution, it is up to the legislature. If a legislature wants to allow it, Im all for it. if some judge tries to impose it on flimsy grounds, I am against it.

Once again....equal protection is in the Constitution.

and yes "some judge" will make the determination...that is what judges do

 

[rightwinger]

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it this way:

Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If Gay Marriage Is... | Gather

Depends.


1. Just because I have a consenting adult relationship does not mean that the other adult I'm in that consenting relationship with decide to go to the step of marriage. There are many relationships that are not marriage. For example I have a friend and I give her a power of attorney to sell my car while I'm overseas for a year. That is a consenting adult relationship, but I didn't need to Civilly Marry her to do it. On the other hand Civil Marriage is a contractual relationship between two consenting adults to establish a family relationship where one did not exist before - which is a whole different level.

2. Secondly, because Civil Marriage between same-sex couples becomes acceptable extending Civil Marriage Equality, that does not mean that other types of consenting adult relationships must automatically be acceptable under the law. Ultimately there will be an examination of that relationships structure and a determination made as to whether there is a compelling government interest in recognizing such a relationship under the law. If there is a compelling government interest in withholding legal recognition - then it will not succeed. The problem that those that wish to discriminate against same-sex couples have is that there is no compelling government interest in treating law abiding, tax paying, US citizen, infertile, consenting, adults differently based on gender in terms o Civil Marriage couples.



>>>>

Of course they won't automatically be acceptable. It will just be easier to make them acceptable because this is a precedent in accepting a non-traditional marriage. After all, gays are using the Loving decision to legitimize their depravity. A favorable decision in this case would facilitate acceptance of depravities down the line. It isn't marriage equality they are after. It's marriage elasticity.

In the 1960s, interracial marriage was considered depravity

 

[martybegan]

In those cases the state must prove a pressing need to provide other than equal protection

They have yet to prove where a gay marriage hurts the state

Again, according to some judge. If it isnt in the constitution, it is up to the legislature. If a legislature wants to allow it, Im all for it. if some judge tries to impose it on flimsy grounds, I am against it.

Once again....equal protection is in the Constitution.

and yes "some judge" will make the determination...that is what judges do

Judges should not have that much power. they are the most undemocratic branch of our entire system. I find it interesting that progressives love our courts to do the work they know they can't get done via popular vote. I guess it appeals to thier autocratic nature.

Judges should interpret the consitution and laws. not make crap up because it suits some agenda of thiers.