Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When the Prop 8 case hits the Supreme Court, I bet the lower court rulings overturning it will be upheld and that at most 2 Supreme Court justices will dissent.
The federal government certainly does have constitutional authority over civil marriage laws in the states.
No they do not. If not specifically granted by the US Constitution, the federal government has no authority. If it is not specifically prohibited by the US Constitution (and marriage is not specifically prohibited to the states), the States have the authority.
See the 10th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
The 14th Amendment requires that all citizens have equal access to the laws (even state laws) - this most certainly applies to state civil marriage laws (how else would you explain the Loving v. Virginia case?).
Equal "access?" Where does it say anything like that? You need to re-read the 14th Amendment because it says no such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
And Alaska's constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage most certainly is being challenged. An upholding of the striking down Prop 8 will overturn Alaska's Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
No, Alaska's state constitutional amendment is not being challenged, nor will it be effected by any ruling from the loony 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
I do agree with you on one point - the Prop 8 case is headed for the Supreme Court. I imagine the Supreme Court will uphold the lower court decisions in what could very easily be a unanimous decision. And please, do a little research before passing along a totally bunk, misleading, and completely intellectually dishonest talking point. The 9th Circuit has far and away the largest case load of any of the Circuits. In terms of cases overturned as a percentage of caseload, the 9th Circuit is the least reversed circuit.
If it does make it to the Supreme Court, it will be to once again overturn the inept 9th Circuit Court (and subsequent wacko lower-courts) ruling. This is just another reason why Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Washington state should be in a new 12th Circuit Court of Appeals.
No they do not. If not specifically granted by the US Constitution, the federal government has no authority. If it is not specifically prohibited by the US Constitution (and marriage is not specifically prohibited to the states), the States have the authority.
See the 10th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment does grant the authority to the federal government:
"nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
How do you interpret the "any State" language of the 14th Amendment? How do you explain the Loving v. Virgina decision (or any of the many other state laws struck down by the Supreme Court on 14th Amendment grounds -see Romer v. Evans for an example of a State Constitutional amendment being struck down by the US Supreme Court on 14th Amendment grounds)? You must strongly disagree with them.
And there is no conflict with the 10th Amendment. If anything, the 14th strengthens it by protecting the rights of people from tyrannical individual state action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Equal "access?" Where does it say anything like that? You need to re-read the 14th Amendment because it says no such thing.
That's what equal protection under the law means. "Access", "protection" - they're essentially interchangable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
No, Alaska's state constitutional amendment is not being challenged, nor will it be effected by any ruling from the loony 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Okay. Whatever. If you want to deny the fact that 9th Circuit decisions apply to the whole circuit, go right ahead. It doesn't change the fact that it's a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
If it does make it to the Supreme Court, it will be to once again overturn the inept 9th Circuit Court (and subsequent wacko lower-courts) ruling. This is just another reason why Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Washington state should be in a new 12th Circuit Court of Appeals.
You're dead wrong on the law, and Supreme Court most certainly will agree that such bans constitute invidious state discrimination prohibited by the 14th Amendment. And why do you keep insisting on calling the 9th Circuit - the Circuit whose decisions are least likely to be overturned - inept, loony, etc?
Society has determined a set of rules for the legal institutionn of marriage that, in the infinite collected wisdom many generations, help society better itself, or at least not damage itself.
Those rules have to do, principally, with genetics, and the adverse reactions that occur when closely-related people breed (hence the term "inbred"). Those rules, as does the institution itself, exist for the sake of SOCIETY, NOT the INDIVIDUAL.
One of those rules is that you have to be two PEOPLE, (not three or four, or one person and an animal), of OPPOSITE sex. Not siblings, or offstring/parent, and usually not 1st cousins.
This is to protect and promote society - period.
If two people of the same sex want to live together, nobody says they can't, but society won't, and most-assuredly shouldn't codify that "union" by giving it the status of "marriage". To do so would, in the infinite wisdom of generations gone by, not be in the best interest of society as a whole.
I'm glad you clearly separated and labelled the fact and opinion in this post.
Clearly this is an indication of God's impending wrath and destruction of the United States.
A hurricane perhaps. Or maybe tsunami in the third world. Wildfires? All of this because of the want of social equality. Gays truly are magic.
Ironically, God rarely strikes down Miami Beach, West LA, San Francisco, Palm Springs, Provincetown, Fire Island, Boystown, or most other gay neighborhoods.
And I think Church going makes you and yours look bad. You put on ridiculous clothing and go spend hours praying to some pretend sky daddy. You're prude, judgmental, hateful, and unduly self-repressive and restrictive in enjoying life. You waste your time and money by throwing it at religious "authorities" who tell you doing so is the only way to save your eternal soul. You then go out and use what you've "learned" to judge and repress people who don't share your delusional, faith-base nonsense values.
However, as ridiculous as I find you to be, I will defend to my last breath your right to be that way and fight as hard as I possibly can to make sure your civil rights are not taken away from you simply because you are different and live differently from me. Why is it so hard for you to return that courtesy and treat me as a human being worthy of respect instead of some inferior, 2nd-class sub-human who you need to control and suppress?
I take offense to your comments about church. Obviously I go every week, usually multiple times The church I Pastor is 90% gays and lesbians; we provide them a non-judgemental home and remind them of the true meaning of Christ's message - all are loved equally by God; they are just as welcome at the table as other people and any judging that is to take place will take place by God; not us. Who am I to exclude - I am not God. FYI I do not believe homosexuality is a sin as some fundie's like to believe; I have read the texts in their original language and realize they were not talking about homosexuals as we think of today; rather something very different.
Bottom line, no control, no suppression and no treatment of people as if they were 2nd class. All are 1st class - well maybe the whack-jobs who preach nothing but hatred and condemnation are a wee bit lower, but they are still equal and still 1st class. God don't make junk!
Kennedy? You mean Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy? The same Justice who authored the majority decisions in Romer v. Evans (the 1996 decision which struck down a Colorado law prohibiting municipalities from enacting laws protecting gays from discrimination) and Lawrence v. Texas (the 2003 decision that struck down all anti-sodomy laws nationwide)? Judge Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger was constructed around these two precedents -- in other words, around judicial precedents established by Justice Kennedy. Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence, noted that the majority decision in that case, when applied to laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, would overturn those laws, and he predicted that someday courts would in fact use the decision to do just that.
It's wishful thinking to hope the Justice Kennedy is going to do a 180 and completely abandon his own judicial constructs just because you really want him to do so.
When the Prop 8 case hits the Supreme Court, I bet the lower court rulings overturning it will be upheld and that at most 2 Supreme Court justices will dissent.
I would say three -- Scalia, Thomas and Alito are almost a lock. Roberts could go either way. He's not as monolithic as the other three, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he doesn't want his legacy as Chief Justice to include dissenting in the 21st centuries version of Loving v. Virginia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The church I Pastor is 90% gays and lesbians; we provide them a non-judgemental home and remind them of the true meaning of Christ's message - all are loved equally by God; they are just as welcome at the table as other people and any judging that is to take place will take place by God; not us. Who am I to exclude - I am not God. FYI I do not believe homosexuality is a sin as some fundie's like to believe; I have read the texts in their original language and realize they were not talking about homosexuals as we think of today; rather something very different.