Federal judge strikes down AL marriage ban :) (activist, federal government, laws)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06

There is no constitutional right to marry. We can argue the emotion of gays marrying, polygamy, etc but there is ZERO constitutional basis for these rulings. There is also no constitutional right to abortion.

This coming from a pro-choice and I-Don't-Care-About-Your-Homosexuality guy. The Constitution of the United States sets limits on the government, to make rights out of that is distressing.

There is a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. And the 14th amendment states that NO STATE can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage comes with legal protections and privileges. States can not deny same sex couples those protections and privileges that they grant opposite sex couples unless they can show how doing so furthers a compelling state interest.

So no, there is no right to marriage, but if states have legal protections and privileges called marriage they have to apply those equally.

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06;3829242a clue3

There is no constitutional right to marry. We can argue the emotion of gays marrying, polygamy, etc but there is ZERO constitutional basis for these rulings. There is also no constitutional right to abortion.

This coming from a pro-choice and I-Don't-Care-About-Your-Homosexuality guy. The Constitution of the United States sets limits on the government, to make rights out of that is distressing.

At least, if I'm understanding you accurately, you do seem to have a clue regarding this issue.

I repeat, 'Wait and SEE' Bama will Respond w/ swift aggression.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

That argument still raises other constitutional questions. So if the supremes decide to uphold the SSM ban on the grounds of state's rights, what would happen to a legally married gay couple who moved to one of the states where SSM is banned? On what basis would the marriage be invalidated? After all, people right now elope to other states to get married, because of differences in waiting periods and minimum ages. But when they go back to their home state after two nights in a motel - they are still legally married.

So there would have to be some sort of legal mechanism for states banning SSM to not recognize a marriage performed legally in another state. I am not aware of how that would be legally defensible.

That would be a matter for the Courts since states would say all those marriages aren't valid now. If the SC actually did uphold it and also uphold the right of states to ban gays from marriage than it would choke up the courts for decade or more in litigation.

[Smash255]

Originally Posted by MMM05

At least, if I'm understanding you accurately, you do seem to have a clue regarding this issue.

I repeat, 'Wait and SEE' Bama will Respond w/ swift aggression.

What exactly is the swift aggression you speak of? What steps will Alabama take? Instead of saying "Wait and See". Explain your position. The current stay is set to expire on Feb 9th. Alabama is in the 11th Circuit Court, and the 11th Circuit just refused to hear Florida's appeal in the case where the ban in Florida was overturned. Next stop would be the Supreme Court, which is already set to hear the case in June. So how exactly will Alabama respond?

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by MMM05

Really?

Wait & SEE !!!

Right, YOUR GOD has nothing to do with Civil Federal marriage or its rights. Your god is your god only, it is not the god of everyone, nor does it enact or enforce the laws. Wait and see, the supreme court will decide this for a final time as they did the the interracial marriage bans that were also discriminatory.

[TheDragonslayer]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with gay marriage. In fact, had the men who voted for it realized that it might legitimize such a repulsive practice, it would have failed - probably by unanimous vote. Today's judges are clearly interpreting the amendment well beyond its original scope and intent. Anyone who is intellectually honest, regardless of their stance on the issue, ought to admit that.

Are gays not US citizens too? If the 14th protects the righs of straights to have marriage, then that right applies to all US citizens, not just straight people. No state ever should have had the right to put into laws any laws that discriminate against a select group of people, gay, straight, religious, non religious, sex, etc. Every single ban on same sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships that were added to state laws were all discriminatory laws entended to discriminate against homosexuals. Anyone that is intellectually honest would recognize that laws must apply equally to all of us, that no laws should be passed that single out a minority. So, tell me why it is okay to enact laws against homosexuals, yet not against blacks or any other group?

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by jjrose

There is a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. And the 14th amendment states that NO STATE can make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage comes with legal protections and privileges. States can not deny same sex couples those protections and privileges that they grant opposite sex couples unless they can show how doing so furthers a compelling state interest.

So no, there is no right to marriage, but if states have legal protections and privileges called marriage they have to apply those equally.

There is no law stating that a gay man cannot marry a woman or a gay woman cannot marry a man. The legal protections covered are a) able to be done through other legal means and b) not guaranteed by the constitution.

As a constitutionalist who has some liberal-ish leanings (for non-liberal reasons) on social issues I find these posts and topics rather hilarious. We have actual written constitutional laws that are being trampled over but people would rather vote based on made up constitutional rights.

How about this:
Gays can marry.
18 month wait to get your marriage permit.
Permits require interviews, you will need to take minimally 2-3 days off work.
They will only be considered married within the licensing jurisdiction.
Marriages from outside will not be eligible. Visitors will not be considered married within the confines either.
$320 for the initial license and again every 3 years.

or

Gays can marry.
They will be married and have all privileges therein.
Marriages can be dissolved if the state can get more money from them having to file as single.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06

There is no law stating that a gay man cannot marry a woman or a gay woman cannot marry a man. The legal protections covered are a) able to be done through other legal means and b) not guaranteed by the constitution.

As a constitutionalist who has some liberal-ish leanings (for non-liberal reasons) on social issues I find these posts and topics rather hilarious. We have actual written constitutional laws that are being trampled over but people would rather vote based on made up constitutional rights.

How about this:
Gays can marry.
18 month wait to get your marriage permit.
Permits require interviews, you will need to take minimally 2-3 days off work.
They will only be considered married within the licensing jurisdiction.
Marriages from outside will not be eligible. Visitors will not be considered married within the confines either.
$320 for the initial license and again every 3 years.

or

Gays can marry.
They will be married and have all privileges therein.
Marriages can be dissolved if the state can get more money from them having to file as single.

There are laws that say a man can not marry a man, like a woman can. And a woman can not marry a woman, like a man can. The legal protections and privileges can not all be covered with legal documents that are not marriage. And equal protections ARE guaranteed by the constitution.

How about this:
Any consenting adult can marry another consenting adult regardless of the sex of the parties.

[MMM05]

Originally Posted by Smash255

What exactly is the swift aggression you speak of? What steps will Alabama take? Instead of saying "Wait and See". Explain your position. The current stay is set to expire on Feb 9th. Alabama is in the 11th Circuit Court, and the 11th Circuit just refused to hear Florida's appeal in the case where the ban in Florida was overturned. Next stop would be the Supreme Court, which is already set to hear the case in June. So how exactly will Alabama respond?

hahaha - So worried = Wait and SEE

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06

There is no law stating that a gay man cannot marry a woman or a gay woman cannot marry a man. The legal protections covered are a) able to be done through other legal means and b) not guaranteed by the constitution.

As a constitutionalist who has some liberal-ish leanings (for non-liberal reasons) on social issues I find these posts and topics rather hilarious. We have actual written constitutional laws that are being trampled over but people would rather vote based on made up constitutional rights.

How about this:
Gays can marry.
18 month wait to get your marriage permit.
Permits require interviews, you will need to take minimally 2-3 days off work.
They will only be considered married within the licensing jurisdiction.
Marriages from outside will not be eligible. Visitors will not be considered married within the confines either.
$320 for the initial license and again every 3 years.

or

Gays can marry.
They will be married and have all privileges therein.
Marriages can be dissolved if the state can get more money from them having to file as single.

Yes, they are, but keep playing .