Proposed state constitutional amendment

[xÞx]

The State shall in no way show discrimination in recognizing the right of every competent citizen or legal resident to enter into legally binding contract, stating that the aforementioned affirmation shall apply to power of attorney, the transfer of funds or property, co-ownership of funds or property, marriage, other partnerships, divorce, wills and trusts and all other legally binding agreements, entitlements, or contracts; stating that for the purpose of this act 'discrimination' shall constitute any partiality or refusal to recognize, legalize, and enforce said contract based on the race, color, national origin, gender, sexual identity or preference, religion, creed, or age of either or both part(y/ies) involved; finding and stating on behalf of the People of the State that these rights are inherent to all citizens and legal resident who are not found to be legally incapable to enter into contract due to incompetence or other recognized reasons; finding on stating on behalf of the People of the State that any violation thereof would be a violation of civil rights and of the principles on which this Nation was founded and that any law which seeks to deny recognition of legal contract between two parties based upon any of the aforementioned criteria is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment as was explored by the Supreme Court of these united States in Loving v. Virginia; finding and stating on behalf of the People of this State that all such laws are therefore to be null and void and shall not be recognized or enforced within this State.

Thoughts?

 

[Oddball]

Already covered in Article 1, Section 10.

 

[xÞx]

Already covered in Article 1, Section 10.

where?

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troop

 

[Oddball]

No State shall....pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts...

 

[xÞx]

Interesting...

So Loving v Virginia wasn't even needed- such laws are unconstitutional from the get-go.

And yet DOMA stands...

 

[Oddball]

A state-issued license isn't a right....It's a privilege, by definition.

If gays want to create and consecrate their own common law documents and contracts, there is no law standing in their way.

 

[xÞx]

A state-issued license isn't a right....It's a privilege, by definition.

If gays want to create and consecrate their own common law documents and contracts, there is no law standing in their way.

It is a legally binding contract filed with the state. Many benefits of legal marriage (esp. federal benefits) cannot be gained any other way. To refuse equal recognition, protection, and enforcement of the contracts is a violation of A.1S.10 and the 14th Amendment. Therefore, DOMA and all laws like it are unconstitutional and null and void. Loving v. Virginia provides legal precendent

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't change the fact that licenses are still permission and a privilege.....The recipient of the privilege is beholden and subservient to the grantor.

The real answer to the gay marriage question resides in common law, not statutory law.

 

[xÞx]

Common law marriages have no real weight. DOMA is a federal law denying equal enforcement, protection, and recognition of a legally binding contract and is thus unconstitutional. See Lovingh v. Virginia. Any state laws violate A.1S10 as you yourself pointed out.

 

[Oddball]

Absolute nonsense...Common law contracts are the basis for virtually everything that is American.

Article 1, Section 10 is still the law of the land.

 

[JD_2B]

Common law marriages have no real weight. DOMA is a federal law denying equal enforcement, protection, and recognition of a legally binding contract and is thus unconstitutional. See Lovingh v. Virginia. Any state laws violate A.1S10 as you yourself pointed out.

Wow I never noticed that before. EXCELLENT point, both of you.. I am now paying homage with thumbs up to you constitutional wizards.. (no sarcasm either- I am serious- great job!! One more point of fact to show off. I am so happy to hear this..)

I hate that stupid DOMA law.. And I am straight!! LOL!!

 

[JD_2B]

I dont know why you two are bickering.. Dude- you had it right the first time. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, meaning that no federal law can override it.

 

[Oddball]

Common law marriages have no real weight. DOMA is a federal law denying equal enforcement, protection, and recognition of a legally binding contract and is thus unconstitutional. See Lovingh v. Virginia. Any state laws violate A.1S10 as you yourself pointed out.

Then it would seem obvious that marriage licenses aren't legally binding contracts and/or are not all created equally to begin with.

In fact, statutory marriages are what's known commonly as contracts of adhesion, which make the state a interested third party in what amounts to a defacto polygamist union.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dude's point leads to the absolute need for civil union statutes in every state, leaving marriage as a private sacrament controlled by the various religious entities.

 

[Oddball]

I dont know why you two are bickering.. Dude- you had it right the first time. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, meaning that no federal law can override it.

The bickering happens when people are dead-set in their seeking to gain validation for their life's contractual agreements from a third party.

If they had any sense at all, they'd be for the outright abolition of the statutory marriage and its licenses.

 

[lawbuff]

Common law marriages have no real weight. DOMA is a federal law denying equal enforcement, protection, and recognition of a legally binding contract and is thus unconstitutional. See Lovingh v. Virginia. Any state laws violate A.1S10 as you yourself pointed out.

Same sex marriage prohibitions by the states do not violate the 14TH AM. Also Loving v. Virginia is not constitutionally applicable, as Baker v. Nelson, US SC, 1972, is controlling constitutional law.

DOMA is a byproduct of the Full Faith and Credit clause, as Congress can decide what acts/records have to be honored.


>>>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.<<<

 

[xÞx]

Common law marriages have no real weight. DOMA is a federal law denying equal enforcement, protection, and recognition of a legally binding contract and is thus unconstitutional. See Lovingh v. Virginia. Any state laws violate A.1S10 as you yourself pointed out.

Same sex marriage prohibitions by the states do not violate the 14TH AM. Also Loving v. Virginia is not constitutionally applicable, as Baker v. Nelson, US SC, 1972, is controlling constitutional law.

DOMA is a byproduct of the Full Faith and Credit clause, as Congress can decide what acts/records have to be honored.


>>>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.<<<

1) Congress can decide what sorts of contracts can be honored, not which citizens' contracts may be honored. See A.1S.10

2) A State court cannot overrule a SCOUTS decision or decide how it applies. T SCOTUS' judgement makes it clear that such laws violate the equal protection clause

3)That SCOTUS refuses to even address the issue stands as evidence that they have no interest in justice or ruling on the matter for fear of losing political support

4)LvV takes care of your last claim. SCOTUS can rule any law unconstitutional. Congress' power is limited to what SCOTUS deems legal

 

[lawbuff]

Congress can decide what sorts of contracts can be honored, not which citizens' contracts may be honored. See A.1S.10

2) A State court cannot overrule a SCOUTS decision or decide how it applies. T SCOTUS' judgement makes it clear that such laws violate the equal protection clause

3)That SCOTUS refuses to even address the issue stands as evidence that they have no interest in justice or ruling on the matter for fear of losing political support

4)LvV takes care of your last claim. SCOTUS can rule any law unconstitutional. Congress' power is limited to what SCOTUS deems legal

Have you even read the Baker decision and subsequent court precedential values attributed to it yet to give an informed opinion on it?

 

[Contumacious]

The bickering happens when people are dead-set in their seeking to gain validation for their life's contractual agreements from a third party. If they had any sense at all, they'd be for the outright abolition of the statutory marriage and its licenses.

Moot point .

Issue already decided.

"After various Colorado municipalities passed ordinances banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, education, public accommodations, health and welfare services, and other transactions and activities, Colorado voters adopted by statewide referendum "Amendment 2" to the State Constitution, which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their ``homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.'"

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court,

Held: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 4-14.

Romer v. Evans, No. 94-1039 517 U. S. 620 (U.S. 05/20/1996)

.

 

[xÞx]

'already decided'?

Shoulda told that to the blacks, the Confederates, the Patriots, women...