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.
That doesn't answer my question. You said this is an article 1 section 8 issue issue. I asked you how. Again, how does article 1 section 8 apply to the constitutionality of laws passed by individual states?
This suit has nothing to do with Congressional powers (article 1 section 8) or the power of the federal government. The Constitution is clear that States cannot pass any law that denies its people due process or the equal protection of that law. The question here isn't one of Congressional overreach or the extent of federal control over the States - the question is does a State law denying gay people the protections of marriage law violate the Constitution.
Someone moved the goal post along the line???
I agree with you, It is a constitutional law. That wasn't the debate.
The debate is whether it was the federal governments business. I explained why it was not the feds business and you have now confirmed that by agreeing with each other.
It does not violate the US constitution, nor State Constitutions, as the federal government has no power to rule one way or the other, concerning marriage. That is left to the states, receptively
You were saying? The 7th circuit is also right leaning and usually comes in top 3 most years in terms of reversals. From 1998 to 2008 it was slightly behind the 9th as the most reversed court. You also have to remember that the 9th has by far the largest sized jurisdiction. If you take that into account then their reversal rates really aren't as dramatic.
Last edited by ~HecateWhisperCat~; 11-07-2014 at 10:16 AM..
I agree with you, It is a constitutional law. That wasn't the debate.
The debate is whether it was the federal governments business. I explained why it was not the feds business and you have now confirmed that by agreeing with each other.
If the federal government acknowledges rights for some, they must acknowledge rights for all. That circumvents state law, as is from the 14th amendment (which I disagree with and find highly offensive mind you).
I think gay marriage should be a state issue. I think marriage should be a state issue period, that the federal government shouldn't acknowledge anyones marriage with special rights and privilege. However, that isn't the world we live in. The federal government acknowledges marriage, its not defined in the constitution. What the Supreme court will have to decide is, does that acknowledgement mean that it is unconstitutional for states to pass their own definition of marriage. It appears, from the strike down of the DOMA, that they will rule against the states.
If the anti-gay marriage crowd wants their state to be able to make the decision, they need to push the federal government out of the marriage business all together. If not, its all rights are equal.
I think the 4 definite legalizing ssm votes weren't sure of getting Roberts or Kennedy, so had to settle for letting ssm become legal by lower court decisions.
The same could be said of the conservative block as well . They aren't sure they have enough votes to overturn an appeals court decision. Believe me if they were sure of the votes they would have heard the case.
I love this quote: "If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage."
It's what I've been saying all along: if you're going to allow the gays to get married, then the polygamists must surely follow. If you claim that same-sex marriage is fine, then you have no rational ground on which to stand to deny anyone else from entering into the marriage of their choice. This is ridiculous and will only lead to societal confusion.
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.
. They aren't sure they have enough votes to overturn an appeals court decision. Believe me if they were sure of the votes they would have heard the case.
.