47 Republicans Vote With Democrats to Protect Same-Sex Marriage

[WolfGate]

In the cases that involve 9th & 10th Amendment issues, a State’s Highest Court ruling will stand, SCOTUS won’t even entertain the idea of granting certiorari.

This doctrine extends to “state election laws” that do not otherwise impinge on other Rights.

Thank you. I do understand that the Supreme Court won't get engaged in issues that the Constitution put under authority of the states such as running elections. I was looking for something perhaps more directly applicable to the two issues in this thread - gay marriage recognition and Roe vs. Wade but one where as Tuur alluded the Court expressly said in the presence of a federal law that was an issue solely for the states to decide. (I'm probably not being really clear...)

 

[Tuur]

I don't remember the Supremacy Clause being repealed. When did that happen?

I don't remember the Tenth Amendment being repealed. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Should the US Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell vs Hobbs, that would return the issue to the states, that would mean the authority to regulate marriage is not delegated to the Federal government. In that instance, merely passing a Federal law that essentially says "Is, too," doesn't change the constitution one whit. For that you need a constitutional amendment.

If your argument about Article VI, Clause 2, was valid, there would be no need for constitutional amendments, If that's not obvious, consider that if Congress had limitless authority, it's laws could not be reviewed by the US Supreme Court.

You did know that the US Constitution limits federal authority. Right?

 

[JSRG]

Thank you. I do understand that the Supreme Court won't get engaged in issues that the Constitution put under authority of the states such as running elections. I was looking for something perhaps more directly applicable to the two issues in this thread - gay marriage recognition and Roe vs. Wade but one where as Tuur alluded the Court expressly said in the presence of a federal law that was an issue solely for the states to decide. (I'm probably not being really clear...)

The Supreme Court has gotten involved in a number of cases involving the running of elections.

I don't remember the Tenth Amendment being repealed. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Should the US Supreme Court ever overturn Obergefell vs Hobbs, that would return the issue to the states, that would mean the authority to regulate marriage is not delegated to the Federal government. In that instance, merely passing a Federal law that essentially says "Is, too," doesn't change the constitution one whit. For that you need a constitutional amendment.

If they were to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, it would "return the issue to the states" insofar as they could make laws not recognizing same-sex marriage, but it wouldn't mean that the federal government couldn't overrule those state laws with its own laws. The SCOTUS would have to take a separate case about such a law and then say the federal government couldn't do it. Though it would seem to me that the new law passed would fall squarely in the power of the federal government; either the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Commerce Clause would seem reasonable things as the basis for them doing it.

 

[Tuur]

The Supreme Court has gotten involved in a number of cases involving the running of elections.



If they were to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, it would "return the issue to the states" insofar as they could make laws not recognizing same-sex marriage, but it wouldn't mean that the federal government couldn't overrule those state laws with its own laws. The SCOTUS would have to take a separate case about such a law and then say the federal government couldn't do it. Though it would seem to me that the new law passed would fall squarely in the power of the federal government; either the Full Faith and Credit Clause or the Commerce Clause would seem reasonable things as the basis for them doing it.

Congress could pass a law on how states were to follow marriages conducted elsewhere, but not within the state itself. The Commerce Clause...well, that brings to mind unfortunate connotations.

 

[JSRG]

Congress could pass a law on how states were to follow marriages conducted elsewhere, but not within the state itself.

Isn't that exactly what they did with this law?

The Commerce Clause...well, that brings to mind unfortunate connotations.

Can you clarify what you mean?

 

[Tuur]

Isn't that exactly what they did with this law?

Yes, they did, and yet Article IV, Section 1, already had that in place.

Can you clarify what you mean?

Not on a Christian website. Suffice it centers on the topic at hand and the word commerce. That's not the intent of the law, of course, but linking the worked commerce in connection to it brought that to mind.

 

[JSRG]

Yes, they did, and yet Article IV, Section 1, already had that in place.

If your opinion is that the law is redundant insofar as Article IV Section 1 already has it in force, I'm now a bit confused on what you were asserting. It seemed to me you were saying that the Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell and in doing so strike down this law, but if you believe that the law is simply doing what the Constitution already prescribed, on what basis would it be struck down?

 

[Tuur]

If your opinion is that the law is redundant insofar as Article IV Section 1 already has it in force, I'm now a bit confused on what you were asserting. It seemed to me you were saying that the Supreme Court could overturn Obergefell and in doing so strike down this law, but if you believe that the law is simply doing what the Constitution already prescribed, on what basis would it be struck down?

My argument is that if the US Supreme Court rules that marriage laws is something left to the states, then a Federal law allowing such marriage has no effect. My argument with the bill in question in question is that it already exists courtesy of Article IV, Section 1. States already have to recognize marriages performed in other states. This was exactly what was happened prior to the US Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage: same-sex couples were going to states where this was allowed to get married, knowing it would have to recognized in a state where such marriages were illegal

Did a Missouri statute not recognizing same-sex marriages come up in this topic or another one? That strikes me as being unconstitutional based on Article IV, Section 1. This is where marriage during the time of miscegenation laws in the US is important. Under Article IV, Section 1, a mixed race marriage in one state would have to be recognized in another. Was it? I haven't been able to find anything in that regard. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that I haven't found it. The closest I could find dealt with unmarried mixed race couples in states that forbade the practice, and that led to US Supreme Court decisions against miscegenation laws.

 

[SimplyMe]

My argument is that if the US Supreme Court rules that marriage laws is something left to the states, then a Federal law allowing such marriage has no effect. My argument with the bill in question in question is that it already exists courtesy of Article IV, Section 1. States already have to recognize marriages performed in other states. This was exactly what was happened prior to the US Supreme Court decision in favor of same-sex marriage: same-sex couples were going to states where this was allowed to get married, knowing it would have to recognized in a state where such marriages were illegal

Did a Missouri statute not recognizing same-sex marriages come up in this topic or another one? That strikes me as being unconstitutional based on Article IV, Section 1. This is where marriage during the time of miscegenation laws in the US is important. Under Article IV, Section 1, a mixed race marriage in one state would have to be recognized in another. Was it? I haven't been able to find anything in that regard. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that I haven't found it. The closest I could find dealt with unmarried mixed race couples in states that forbade the practice, and that led to US Supreme Court decisions against miscegenation laws.

Same-sex marriages performed in states like Massachusetts were not recognized in most states, particularly the ones that had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as only valid if between a man and a woman. To the best of my knowledge, no one was ever successful in using Article IV, Section 1 to require a state to recognize their same-sex marriage performed in a different state. In fact, in the Colorado Masterpiece Bakery case, it was talked about how the marriage (performed in California, as I recall) was "legal" in Colorado -- the state did not recognize it -- as a reason why he was justified to not bake a cake for the gay couple.

Additionally, Federal Law only recognized male-female marriages, so those married in states like Massachusetts could not file joint tax returns, or be considered married for other federal programs (such as Social Security). This law also gets repealed DOMA, so that if the right to marriage for same-sex couples are overturned, that the Federal Government will continue to recognize legal marriages of same sex couples.

 

[Tuur]

Same-sex marriages performed in states like Massachusetts were not recognized in most states, particularly the ones that had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as only valid if between a man and a woman. To the best of my knowledge, no one was ever successful in using Article IV, Section 1 to require a state to recognize their same-sex marriage performed in a different state. In fact, in the Colorado Masterpiece Bakery case, it was talked about how the marriage (performed in California, as I recall) was "legal" in Colorado -- the state did not recognize it -- as a reason why he was justified to not bake a cake for the gay couple.

On the other hand, have any tried to use Article IV, Section 1?

Additionally, Federal Law only recognized male-female marriages, so those married in states like Massachusetts could not file joint tax returns, or be considered married for other federal programs (such as Social Security). This law also gets repealed DOMA, so that if the right to marriage for same-sex couples are overturned, that the Federal Government will continue to recognize legal marriages of same sex couples.

This gets into a different issue, one of recognizing same-sex marriages for legal reasons where the Federal government has a say. This would have a bearing whether or not the US Supreme Court returned marriage regulations to the states.

 

[Pommer]

On the other hand, have any tried to use Article IV, Section 1?

This gets into a different issue, one of recognizing same-sex marriages for legal reasons where the Federal government has a say. This would have a bearing whether or not the US Supreme Court returned marriage regulations to the states.

Marriage regulations still fall under the purview of the states.
All Obergefell did was ax the requirement that one of the potential marriage partners be the opposite sex of the other.

 

[jayem]

Why is SSM such a big deal? AFAIK, nowhere in the Constitution is it written that ALL American civil law—either federal or state—must conform to some religious doctrine. The RForM Act protects those who morally object to SSM, and don’t want to participate. So who is harmed ?