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.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
These convictions must be reversed.
It is so ordered.
That, sanrene, is what people formally trained in the law call a "holding." It is usually (as it is in this case) found at the end of the opinion, but not always. Warren's opinion is pretty standard in structure. Finding that marriage is a fundamental right is part of the reasoning of the court, right along with finding that they have jurisdiction, etc.
You cannot separate it out. It is the law.
Don't believe me?
Go to law school and find out for yourself how educated people read cases. Or what do you think they meant by "to deny this fundamental freedom."
Eh?
And when are you going to answer my question?
No, I don't, sorry. People (man and woman) are free to enter into a marriage contract and the court HELD that a state can't discriminate based on race. That is a far cry from saying marriage is a right. The marriage contract is administered by the state, not the federal government. The state can set restrictions, such as age that people have to follow.
The sanctimonious hypocrisy of some Republicans and far right wing politicians NEVER ceases to amaze me.......mainly, let's get the government out of the "bedroom"......and stop wasting money and time.
In an era when Republicans are supposedly only interested in cutting the budget deficit; they seem more than willing to spend tens of Millions of taxpayer dollars and government time defending the obviously unconstitutional "Defense" Of Marriage Act.
IMHO.......it just more agenda rhetoric....the "law" has been deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, but since some Republicans feel they must force their viewpoint on others; they will challenge that court ruling. Once again...it's all about them; forget the budget or what's constitutionally correct.
Like kids in the schoolyard......I'll hold my breath until I turn blue......or my aptly........Do it my way or hit the highway. How can we ever work together to make our country better with this type of mentality and inane stubborness.
Let D.O.M.A. pass on into history as the bigoted law it was and save taxpayer monies and government time; we need to move forward and stop dwelling on "old" issues which the courts have already settled, same thing is true of abortion laws.
Well, whether or not you agree with defending this law shouldn't government be defending all of the laws of the land. I mean, if successive administrations simply enforce or defend those laws it wants, why have a legislature?
Sanrene, there are quite a few of us that would like to hear your answer.
About what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutchman01
Well, whether or not you agree with defending this law shouldn't government be defending all of the laws of the land. I mean, if successive administrations simply enforce or defend those laws it wants, why have a legislature?
Apparently, obama has decided the role of the Executive doesn't apply in this case.
You know exactly about what.
One supposes you cant answer that question on your own, apparently you cant read, comprehend, and answer the entire post that you replied to, either.
Why does none of this surprise me?
Selective reasoning much?
No, I don't, sorry. People (man and woman) are free to enter into a marriage contract and the court HELD that a state can't discriminate based on race. That is a far cry from saying marriage is a right.
Um, even though in that very case, they court said it was a "fundamental right of man." I guess they really didn't mean it?
Not to mention that you seem to not understand the meaning of "holding."
Quote:
The marriage contract is administered by the state, not the federal government. The state can set restrictions, such as age that people have to follow.
Again, marriage IS NOT right.
Point me to the case that answers that question.
So the sun really does rise in the west?
The court held, as you say. It also reaffirmed cases from the 1880's and 1940's that held, as did Loving, that marriage is a fundamental right.
Whether it is administered by the state or the feds, it has to comport with the salient bits of Federal Constitution, since 1868 at least.
The cases are Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), and their progeny.
Shepardize them, if you like, if you are interested in the later cases.
How many times are you going to dodge this question?
Its fairly obvious that Sanrene is not going to answer the question.
Typical.
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.
