Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,360
- 1,830
I didn't realize that civilized is defined by two men getting married. Hmm. I thought civilized meant we were able to determine our own laws by which we live.
Last edited:
Prop 8 Showdown
- Thread starter rightwinger
- Start date
I didn't realize that civilized is defined by two men getting married. Hmm. I thought civilized meant we were able to determine our own laws by which we live.
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
Not to worry. The Legislature banning grocery stores from providing free plastic and paper bags (that one used to carry one's groceries home) will certainly Save Us From Disaster.
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
On the topic of Gay Marriage: given that state laws regarding marriage are basically contract law (covering rights, asset ownership, liabilities), I think it is a waste of time to argue about it. We should allow for it and be done with it. Expecting gay and lesbian couples to have to go through an expensive process in order to define survivability, hospital visitation etc. is not in society's best interest.
There is too much mixing of the religious aspect of marriage into the state contract definition. Let churches decide which marriages to honor - the state should not play that arbiter.
There is too much mixing of the religious aspect of marriage into the state contract definition. Let churches decide which marriages to honor - the state should not play that arbiter.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #144
A very sensible response, and I concur.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #145
A very sensible response, and I concur. If one does not like gay marriage, I would suggest one not marry a homosexual.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 307,947
- 261,352
- 3,615
- Thread starter
- #146
Gay rights are as far left as it gets, so are environmental regulations (damn tree huggers)
At the time, womens rights was also a far left concept. Can you imagine a woman getting the same rights as a man?
CurveLight
Rookie
- Oct 16, 2009
- 9,768
- 317
- 0
- Banned
- #147
Civilized means raggedy dumbass bigots like you don't get to use the law to hold others down or make them live in second class citizenship based on your ancient ignorant logic.
Yurt
Gold Member
OH good Lord I can't believe someone actually took a case to the SCOTUS to fight for their right to get their fudge packed
Uh, no. They took a case to the Supremies over their right to have the law and its penalties applied equally to all proscribed behavior regardless of who's doing it. That's called Equal Protection.
i think conhog had his fudge packed too hard
boedicca
Uppity Water Nymph from the Land of Funk
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,734
- 24,709
- 2,290
I agree. Let's extend that concept to sticking greedy hands into other people's wallets as well.
It's not really contractual, although historically it began that way. It's actually a question of legal status, and that status determines how a huge number of other laws apply. In the law's determination it's really more akin to the status of citizenship or residency than a contract situation. No contractual relationship between two parties can amount to legal status, and while many of the legal issues with same sex partners can be addressed through private contract (as you point out often at great time and expense) not all status related issues can be handled by contract. Like taxation, for example. But otherwise, surprise! We agree.
The US SC struck down a CO state constitutional AM, see; Romer v. Evans.
Prop 8 was filed in state court, but do to governmental plaintiff's, it was Petitioned to federal court and removal was granted.
In the 1st such case from CA in SF, 2004, the CA SC cited Baker v. Nelson, SCOTUS, as binding precedent, meaning they could NOT rule same sex marriage prohibitions violate the 14th AM.
This is why every state that permits them, does so under thier own Constitution.
I know GC does not agree with me on this point, but the CA SC itself ruled on the binding merits of Baker, not me.
You can bet your bottom $$ the ruling will cite Baker v. Nelson.
1. The court will rule the AM does NOT violate the 14th, per Baker.
2. The court will overrule Baker due to "doctrinal developments", such as Romer and Lawrence v. Texas. Baker was a summary decision, and the court explains that until the court releases inferior courts, only DD can do it, as I understood the CA SC 2004 ruling.
The FFC clause itself states Congress has the power to decide what records/acts must be given such FFC, hence DOMA.
Last edited:
You're right about me not agreeing with you. You know how I feel about Baker.
But you're also right to point out that even if it's become fashionable to cite it (erroneously) as having precedential value (which it does not), the CA SC "chose" to adopt Baker pre-Lawrence. In 2004 Bowers was controlling precedent, now Bowers is gone. That's a huge change in the landscape.
An interesting point that's always brought up in debates over marriage and constitutional issues is full faith and credit. Remember marriage itself is a status issue governed not by FF&C but comity, so the FF&C clause isn't at issue. Where FF&C applies is the separate issue of documentation of status, not granting the status itself.
Last edited:
You're right about me not agreeing with you. You know how I feel about Baker.
But you're also right to point out that even if it's become fashionable to cite it (erroneously) as having precedential value (which it does not), the CA SC "chose" to adopt Baker pre-Lawrence.
Question: Why did the CA SC rule Baker was binding on them?? Was it an abuse of discretion? If so, and there was a federal element, such as the 14th, why was it not appealed at that time?? It seems odd it was not??
Bowers was overturned, true, but L. v. T. dealt with CRIMINAL law, not civil.
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
only by the ones who were considerd FAR Right.....most moderates to liberal Republicans i dont believe would of had any problems with any one of those....
Harry Dresden
Only Adamantium Member
well then its how you look at it Rw....where i grew up the only thing the people i knew would of had a little bit of conflict with would have been the gay rights thing....every thing else....i dont think so....and remember this....everything from the left is labeled FAR-LEFT from the FAR RIGHT....and i would imagine it works the same vice-versa...and since these jerks yell the loudest....they seem to get the coverage....and their labels seem to stick around the most....
You're right about me not agreeing with you. You know how I feel about Baker.
But you're also right to point out that even if it's become fashionable to cite it (erroneously) as having precedential value (which it does not), the CA SC "chose" to adopt Baker pre-Lawrence.
Question: Why did the CA SC rule Baker was binding on them?? Was it an abuse of discretion? If so, and there was a federal element, such as the 14th, why was it not appealed at that time?? It seems odd it was not??
The problem with Baker is that it states it is to be treated as a decision on the merits not to be used as precedent, but for the sake of procedure. Summary decisions are not precedential, but in the case of Baker it was to be treated as the USSC's final word on the subject as though it were a decision on the merits. Over the last 10 years or so as the same sex marriage debate caught fire it became popular for SSM opponents to use the summary decision to cite it as SCOTUS rather than MN State precedent, and you know what they say the lawyers' job is: Educate the judges. A few of them won, for whatever reason. And this idea that a summary decision is the same as an opinion on the merits for precedential purposes caught on in some circles where they lost sight of the difference between the State level full opinion and the USSC summary decision. Sloppy.
That said, in 2004 Baker was not in opposition to the US Constitution because of Bowers (see below). What the CA SC relied on if memory serves me correctly was the full opnion of the MN SC, the appeal of which was dismissed summarily by the Supremies in Baker. It's not an abuse of discretion for one State to adopt another State's precedent as their own and in cases of first impression it's not unusual. But they chose to adopt MN State law in this case, they were not controlled by a SCOTUS opinion. There's a huge difference when we're looking down the road.
There are two reasons Bowers being out of the picture matters.
The first is that by definition, homosexual acts can no longer be considered criminal in themselves. That was a huge barrier pre-2005, since the States cannot be forced to sanction criminal activity. The second is the much larger issue of Equal Protection. Again, discrimination against criminal behavior is allowed because it's based on activities the individual chooses to engage in and not their status as a group member. Lawrence opens the door for homosexuality specifically where sexual activity is concerned to be subject to EP. That's huge, and didn't exist in 2004 when the CA SC adopted Baker. At this point, there's a very strong argument to be made that Baker is unconstitutional and will in fact be overturned - inasmuch as it is erroneously used as Federal precedent in the first place.
My Q still remains. Why was not the 2004 SF case appealed?
The appeal could have been based on exactly what prop 8 is, an EP/DP violation!
Why didn't the loosing side appeal such a case of national interest if the CA SC
was wrong concerning Baker? It does not make sense no appeal was filed??
Why, if Baker is NOT binding has NO federal court overtured DOMA since it's inception, also, Baker was handed down in 1971.
You would think in almost 40 years, if Baker was not binding, some court would have ruled otherwise??
The appeal could have been based on exactly what prop 8 is, an EP/DP violation!
Why didn't the loosing side appeal such a case of national interest if the CA SC
was wrong concerning Baker? It does not make sense no appeal was filed??
Why, if Baker is NOT binding has NO federal court overtured DOMA since it's inception, also, Baker was handed down in 1971.
You would think in almost 40 years, if Baker was not binding, some court would have ruled otherwise??
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
US Marine Kicked Out of US Senate Hearing Yelling "No One Wants to Fight for Israel!"- Started by munkle
- Replies: 8
-
Are you good with Trump the fascist Nazi dictator totalitarian as long as all of his actions benefit America as a whole?- Started by BrokeLoser
- Replies: 32
