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.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed on Thursday that bans on same-sex marriage in Wisconsin and Indiana are unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner affirmed lower court decisions that determined state laws barring same-sex couples from marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Our pair of cases is rich in detail but ultimately straightforward to decide,” Posner writes. “The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don’t need marriage because same-sex couples can’t produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously."
If a state defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it's not unconstitutional. What these activist judges want to do is make it unconstitutional to define marriage at all, and turn it into a free for all.
If a state defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it's not unconstitutional.
Yes, actually according to all precedent and legal reasoning it is.
Quote:
What these activist judges want to do is make it unconstitutional to define marriage at all, and turn it into a free for all.
Funny how it's only an activist judge when they strike down something you agree with. A federal judge in Louisiana just defied all legal precedent and upheld the ban on SSM today. His ruling will without a doubt be overturned on appeal, but I'm sure you don't think he's activist, despite the fact that he went against the legal precedent he should be following.
United States District Judge Martin Feldman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had become the first Federal Judge to uphold a State's ban on gay marriage and the refusal to recognize other State's gay marriage. Feldman is a Reagan appointee, 79/80 years of age who still remains in active status on the court.
United States District Judge Martin Feldman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana had become the first Federal Judge to uphold a State's ban on gay marriage and the refusal to recognize other State's gay marriage. Feldman is a Reagan appointee, 79/80 years of age who still remains in active status on the court.
If a state defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it's not unconstitutional. What these activist judges want to do is make it unconstitutional to define marriage at all, and turn it into a free for all.
States can not pass laws that deny equal protection of the laws without first showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest. Marriage has legal protections. By denying same sex couples those protections of marriage the states are in fact denying equal protection of the laws without compelling interest in doing so. "It's icky" and tradition are not compelling state interest.
Yes, actually according to all precedent and legal reasoning it is.
Funny how it's only an activist judge when they strike down something you agree with. A federal judge in Louisiana just defied all legal precedent and upheld the ban on SSM today. His ruling will without a doubt be overturned on appeal, but I'm sure you don't think he's activist, despite the fact that he went against the legal precedent he should be following.
That makes you a hypocrite.
No it does not. Why would a judge agreeing that the people have the right to define marriage within their state, and not the judge, make me a hypocrite?
States can not pass laws that deny equal protection of the laws without first showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest. Marriage has legal protections. By denying same sex couples those protections of marriage the states are in fact denying equal protection of the laws without compelling interest in doing so. "It's icky" and tradition are not compelling state interest.
It does not deny equal protections. Marriage is only legal between one man, one woman, I'm sure the two man one woman crowd feel they are being discriminated against, but so what.
It does not deny equal protections. Marriage is only legal between one man, one woman, I'm sure the two man one woman crowd feel they are being discriminated against, but so what.
If the two man one woman crowd have a case, then they can bring it before the court. As it is the vast majority of the court cases on same sex marriage agree that discriminating based on the gender of the people entering into a marriage is a no no.
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.
