St. Louis Challenges Missouri's Gay Marriage Ban.

[Dawn10am]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

The mayor and the city did not have to issue invalid marriage licenses to grant standing to gay couples to challenge the law. In fact, they could have denied them and it would have granted the license seekers standing to sue. After all, they are the ones aggrieved by the amendment - not the city. I believe I read there was already a lawsuit pending challenging the amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution about gay marriage and there was no contrary Supreme Court decision in effect at the time the Amendment was overwhelmingly passed in Missouri. Indeed, there is no Supreme Court ruling even now declaring such bans Unconstitutional - it may happen in the next year or so, BUT IT HASN'T happened yet. Accordingly it was and is valid and the law of the land in Missouri unless and until a court of proper jurisdiction rules otherwise. Note the Missouri Attorney general sued immediately (despite his personal support for SSM) and the city agreed to the entry of a restraining order pending a court resolution - why would they do that if they didn't have to? They recognize the issue isn't settled yet - why do you think it is? No court has ruled (yet) that the Missouri Amendment is unconstitutional - so it remains the law in Missouri.

I repeat where I began - it was a lawless act by the city officials and an UNNECESSARY political stunt - nothing more.

It doesn't matter whether the Constitution grants gay marriage as an enumerated right or not. We have a lot of rights that aren't specifically spelled out but are implied through the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments. Right to privacy? Not an enumerated right. Right to send your kids to private school? Not an enumerated right. Right to contraception? Not an enumerated right.

Marriage is another of the unenumerated rights that the Court has implied in various decisions, most notably Loving v. Virginia, where the Court held that marriage is a fundamental right and state can't deny it to couples based on race. It's not a huge leap of logic to extend that reasoning to sexual orientation.

So, yes, Missouri's gay marriage ban CAN be unconstitutional despite gay marriage not being explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Laws don't become unconstitutional when SCOTUS declares them to be so; they become unconstitutional when they are passed.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Dawn10am

Laws don't become unconstitutional when SCOTUS declares them to be so; they become unconstitutional when they are passed.

Then why bother taking the case to the Supreme Court? Gay rights groups are wasting a lot of time and money litigating this if gay marriage bans are null and void because you say so. You should call mayor Slay and tell him you can save the city money challenging the state ban because it's unnecessary.

Any other laws on the books you've decided are null and void?

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the state of the legal challenges and a note of caution (for gay marriage advocates) of what the Supreme Court could do:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/09/th...age-decisions/

Sorry, the Supreme Court can find a statute or law null and void from its enactment if it violates the US Constitution - but it takes a Supreme Court ruling to do so - it's not self activating. In fact there is a general presumption of constitutionality.

It's also possible, although it seems unlikely, that SCOTUS would find there is not a sweeping Constitutional right to gay marriage and leave it up to individual states to decide.

[ll0OoO0ll]

Should two married gay men be allowed to adopt a baby who naturally yearns for a mother? And who is unable to say Yes or No to be adopted by two gay men.