If getting married after a divorce is sinful...

[beechy]

I own lots of guns and none are licensed.

But there are municipalities that require you to have a license at least for certain kinds of guns. Just because you don't live in one (or you choose to break the law in the one you do live in) doesn't mean they don't exist. And that requirement does not make the 2nd Amendment any less valid.

Not a right then.

Again, "right" does not mean "totally unqualified right." But any restrictions on "rights" must be constitutional, and where a fundamental right is concerned, the test is particularly rigorous.

 

[beechy]

And where in the constitution or case law do you find support for this? Sounds like you are trying to define marriage.




What about Tom? He has this supposed right to marry as he pleases, no?



And this is what the Gay agenda is really up to. Forcing their idea of marriage into an established system.





As long as you discount the reidefining of marriage that is.

See my post #59.

 

[MethodMan]

See my post #59.

Noted. My comments stand

 

[beechy]

Noted. My comments stand

That's fine. But I still don't understand the basis for your belief that marriage is not considered a fundamental privacy right under the 14th Amendment. Is it just because of the marriage license issue?

 

[MethodMan]

Again, "right" does not mean "totally unqualified right." But any restrictions on "rights" must be constitutional, and where a fundamental right is concerned, the test is particularly rigorous.

And you are making my point.

 

[beechy]

And you are making my point.

And what's that?

 

[MethodMan]

And what's that?

It is about discrimination rather than right. The whole agenda is to re-define marriage to make the claim of discrimination. The same kind of upside down thinking that brought about Roe.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Again, "right" does not mean "totally unqualified right." But any restrictions on "rights" must be constitutional, and where a fundamental right is concerned, the test is particularly rigorous.

Oh, so you mean like in my State's constitution.:

Constitution of Michigan
Sec. 25. Marriage

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

 

[beechy]

It is about discrimination rather than right. The whole agenda is to re-define marriage to make the claim of discrimination. The same kind of upside down thinking that brought about Roe.

It is about both discrimination and a right. There is a right at issue, per Loving, Zablocki, etc., and discrimination with respect to it under the equal protection clause (see, e.g., Goodridge v. Dept. of Publ. Health). That marriage is a constitutional right is fairly well established. That laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional violations of the equal protection clause (i.e., improperly discriminatory) is the subject currently under debate in various courts across the country.

 

[levi501]

Oh, so you mean like in my State's constitution.:

no.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

no.

Yes.

 

[beechy]

Oh, so you mean like in my State's constitution.:

Constitution of Michigan
Sec. 25. Marriage

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

This is another topic we've explored in other threads, CC. So I know you're aware that the United States Constitution trumps all state laws, including state constitutions (http://www.endangeredlaws.org/resourceguideglossary.htm: see the "Supremacy Clause" entry). If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, this will mean that your state constitution is unconstitutional insofar as it does so.

 

[MethodMan]

It is about both discrimination and a right. There is a right at issue, per Loving, Zablocki, etc., and discrimination with respect to it under the equal protection clause (see, e.g., Goodridge v. Dept. of Publ. Health). That marriage is a constitutional right is fairly well established. That laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional violations of the equal protection clause (i.e., improperly discriminatory) is the subject currently under debate in various courts across the country.

But without redefining marriage, there is no discrimination. Otherwise the Mass SC decision would have been before the USSC the day after it was handed down.

 

[levi501]

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, this will mean that your state constitution is unconstitutional insofar as it does so.

Yes.

owned.

 

[beechy]

But without redefining marriage, there is no discrimination.

Whether it is a "re-definition" depends on what you think marriage is really about. Just because marriage has traditionally involved a man and a woman doesn't mean this gender distinction is the sine qua non of the institution, or that if that tradition is challenged that it can witthstand constitutional scrutiny. Again, I agree with the Mass court, which defines marriage according to what it represents for society, rather than what must lie between the legs of the parties involved:

Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family . . . Because it fulfils yearings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition.

Otherwise the Mass SC decision would have been before the USSC the day after it was handed down.

I don't understand the relevance of this statement. First of all, state supreme court decisions don't just magically appear before the USSC. The losing party has to affirmatively apply for a writ to have the matter heard. I don't know if that has happened in this particular case. Also, the USSC gets to pick and choose which case it will actually hear, so even if Goodridge has been submitted, the USSC might wait for another case that frames the issues in a different way, or for more cases so that it has a good sampling of what the various states think.

 

[Brennin]

This is another topic we've explored in other threads, CC. So I know you're aware that the United States Constitution trumps all state laws, including state constitutions (http://www.endangeredlaws.org/resourceguideglossary.htm: see the "Supremacy Clause" entry). If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, this will mean that your state constitution is unconstitutional insofar as it does so.

Not if the President refuses to enforce such a ruling, which is his prerogative as chief executive. Another alternative would be for Congress to remove the SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving state marriage laws.

 

[Brennin]

owned.

No.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

This is another topic we've explored in other threads, CC. So I know you're aware that the United States Constitution trumps all state laws, including state constitutions (http://www.endangeredlaws.org/resourceguideglossary.htm: see the "Supremacy Clause" entry). If the U.S. Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, this will mean that your state constitution is unconstitutional insofar as it does so.

Did we cover this already?
I couldn't tell since the argument was still the same and the same empty hypothetical was being voiced as if they were relevant.
However, I do like "if's", such as:
"IF" a large meteor strikes the Earth, all of it is irrelevant.
"IF" SCOTUS rules in favor of the status quo, it would be yet another nail in that coffin.

As it is, my State learned a lesson from Hawaii when back in 1993, when the gay proponents attempted to FORCE the government and its citizens to officially recognize and promote same-gender marriage.
But since the issue was forced and the people rejected that ideology, the Rule by Consent principal and the Due Process clause found in the 14th Amendment was exercised and the issue was rendered moot by a State Constitution definition.
This was later reinforced by DOMA to prevent other states that may hold a Liberal ideology or had a lack of defense against such.

My State did likewise (Hawaii), just as many other States have done.

Again and what my State is TODAY:

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

Yeah, I think I remember covering all this before... come to think about it.

 

[SimplyMe]

But without redefining marriage, there is no discrimination.

Word meanings are constantly changing. For example, prior to Brown v. Board of Education, equal could mean separate. Yet this case, along with Bolling v. Sharpe, changed the legal definition of equal.

A more fitting example is Loving v. Virginia. In this case, people had traditionally defined marriage as two people of opposite sex, yet of the same race. This case changed that definition.

Otherwise the Mass SC decision would have been before the USSC the day after it was handed down.

This idea is based on poor logic. First, as it has been pointed out, cases do not just magically appear before the Supreme Court. There are times when the are expedited when time is critical. Examples would be death row appeals, the 2000 election appeals, and the appeal to prolong Terry Sciavo's life. Most case, such as this one, take a year or two before being heard before the Supreme Court.

Second, Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health was a challenge of Massachusetts state law and was heard in state courts. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court overturned the law the plaintiffs had no reason to appeal as they were no longer being discriminated against by Massachusetts.

Now, if gay couples that are married in Massachusetts decide they wish to sue the Federal Government because they are not being treated equally by the federal government, they have that right. It first, however, requires someone to claim the discrimination and bring the lawsuit, it then requires a path through federal courts (rather than state courts), and then several years down the road it would be heard by the Supreme Court.

If the Mass. Supreme Court had ruled against Goodridge, then they could have appealed the discrimination to the U.S. Supreme Court and likely would have. Having won their case, however; they had no reason to pursue the matter further.

 

[beechy]

Not if the President refuses to enforce such a ruling, which is his prerogative as chief executive. Another alternative would be for Congress to remove the SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving state marriage laws.

Are you suggesting that the President can and should legally ignore federal common law? Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President " . . . shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . ."

As for your other suggestion about Congress curtailing SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, I'm sure you're aware that this is a highly controversial area. I hate to derail the discussion in that direction, but if you want to discuss whether and to what extent Congress has the power to limit federal court jurisdiction, I'd be happy to discuss in another thread. In any case, it does not change the fact of the Supremacy Clause -- only whether that Clause is capable of being effectively circumvented with respect to a discrete area (i.e., the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans).