[Shaddim]

I believe that many people are leaving themselves open for a lot of pain, I have a bad feeling about the "door" the USSC left open.

[The Final Dakar]

Could you clarify what you're thinking?

[Shaddim]

They've left things open for a possible 10th Amendment "meltdown" for activists, depending on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on.

However, Scalia can sometimes shock you...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

They've left things open for a possible 10th Amendment "meltdown" for activists, depending on which side of the bed Kennedy wakes up on.

Meh, they know where the buck stops. They'd be worse off if they didn't challenge, and after the events in Utah, they now know even temporary state marriages will be recognized by the feds, which is big.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

However, Scalia can sometimes shock you...

He made it abundantly clear that there is no provision in equal protection for the gays.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

He made it abundantly clear that there is no provision in equal protection for the gays.

I was thinking more along the lines of some obscure angle.

[subego]

They're ultimately kinda stuck IMO. You won't be able to get around the practical issues of having marriages apply in only some states.

If they try it, lawsuits will keep piling up. They know this.

I look forward to a 20 page Scalia rant about how it's wrong and the rest of the court isn't fit to wash his car.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us...riage-ban.html

The attorney general of Virginia has concluded that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and has joined the suit that challenged the law in federal court, a spokesman for the office said Thursday.

Michael Kelly, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark R. Herring, said that instead of defending the ban, “the Commonwealth will side with the plaintiffs in seeking to have the ban declared unconstitutional.”

Don't know how accurate it is, but I read somewhere that Herring (a Democrat) voted to ban same-sex marriage just a few years ago. Strange.

...and for all the complaints about "activist" judges, this strikes me as way worse. Though I didn't raise an eyebrow when the Obama administration did the same thing with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Odd.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...and for all the complaints about "activist" judges, this strikes me as way worse. Though I didn't raise an eyebrow when the Obama administration did the same thing with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Odd.

What I don't understand is, why go to all the trouble of having elections and ballot initiatives and the like if it can simply be struck down by appointees of a General Assembly? Who ultimately has the power to legislate?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I don't understand is, why go to all the trouble of having elections and ballot initiatives and the like if it can simply be struck down by appointees of a General Assembly? Who ultimately has the power to legislate?

I thought the general idea is legislators can legislate, but they can't legislate any whim they desire if its unconstitutional. Checks and balances.

[P]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I don't understand is, why go to all the trouble of having elections and ballot initiatives and the like if it can simply be struck down by appointees of a General Assembly? Who ultimately has the power to legislate?

This is what always strikes me as strange about US news - that laws are tested for constitutionality long after being passed. I can understand a test soon after legislation, but not years or decades later.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by P 

This is what always strikes me as strange about US news - that laws are tested for constitutionality long after being passed. I can understand a test soon after legislation, but not years or decades later.

Well, for one, it'd slow down the legislative process even further. Second, if no one objects to an unconstitutional law, then it will stand. After that, it's all human fallibility, bias, and the fact that society changes and evolves. Sodomy laws are great example. Were they always unconstitutional? If not when did the change happen? Why?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I thought the general idea is legislators can legislate, but they can't legislate any whim they desire if its unconstitutional. Checks and balances.

The ban was written into the State Constitution through the Amendment process. The ban passed the vote of Virginians by 57-43. In theory, the Virginia State Court would represent Virginia. While many in Virginia and abroad may feel the Court represented Virginia well, the majority of Virginians may not. It's disappointing that the will of the people can be usurped this simply.

I will say this In defense of the move however; Democrats within the State's offices virtually swept their elections and the AG was popular in his stance against the Virginia same-sex ban. That is indeed how elections work. It's quite possible that the Court's decision does represent the will of Virginians now vs 2006 and it was a forgone conclusion. I just prefer to see issues go to the people for a vote.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The ban was written into the State Constitution through the Amendment process. The ban passed the vote of Virginians by 57-43. In theory, the Virginia State Court would represent Virginia. While many in Virginia and abroad may feel the Court represented Virginia well, the majority of Virginians may not. It's disappointing that the will of the people can be usurped this simply.

I see your point. Can an constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Seems contradictory. I'll leave that for legal and constitutional scholars to answer.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I see your point. Can an constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Seems contradictory. I'll leave that for legal and constitutional scholars to answer.

It can't, except on a federal level by the USSC.

[P]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I see your point. Can an constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Seems contradictory. I'll leave that for legal and constitutional scholars to answer.

Unless I misread the article, the lawsuit (in federal court) contends that the amendment to the Virginia constitution violates the US constitution, and the Virginia Attorney General has made it clear that he won't defend the lawsuit. It is possible for someone else defend it, however - I seem to remember the same thing happening with DOMA.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by P 

Unless I misread the article, the lawsuit (in federal court) contends that the amendment to the Virginia constitution violates the US constitution, and the Virginia Attorney General has made it clear that he won't defend the lawsuit. It is possible for someone else defend it, however - I seem to remember the same thing happening with DOMA.

It can officially be overturned, but it will need to reach the USSC (like DOMA). If they don't, or won't, hear it, the governor can ignore the circuit court's ruling and go on as "business as usual". Not to say he will, that would be really foolish and would serve to only piss off the USSC (except for a few justices who seem to take some glee from it). Something will have to be done, however, you can't just leave a state amendment hanging out in the breeze, it needs to either be further amended or repealed.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It can officially be overturned, but it will need to reach the USSC (like DOMA). If they don't, or won't, hear it, the governor can ignore the circuit court's ruling and go on as "business as usual". Not to say he will, that would be really foolish and would serve to only piss off the USSC (except for a few justices who seem to take some glee from it). Something will have to be done, however, you can't just leave a state amendment hanging out in the breeze, it needs to either be further amended or repealed.

The SCOTUS kicked this back to the States. The challenges need to be brought back through ballot initiatives and voted out just as they were voted in. If the political shift in Virginia is any indication, this is not an unrealistic proposition and IMHO, the right way to do things.

Lest someone takes the bench we happen to disagree with which is something I keep reminding my friends on the left regarding this President and Senate. Their usurping of authority is going to bite them just as it did the Republicans in office before them.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Don't know how accurate it is, but I read somewhere that Herring (a Democrat) voted to ban same-sex marriage just a few years ago. Strange.

I read that when asked prior to the election if he (Herring) would defend the amendment he would avoid saying yes or no. Herring won by 165 votes. Had he answered "No I will not defend the marriage amendment" the outcome would most likely been different.

[The Final Dakar]

Federal judge strikes down Kentucky's ban on gay marriages from other states

A federal judge Wednesday struck down Kentucky's ban on recognizing valid same-sex marriages performed in other states, saying it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

...

Ruling in a suit brought by four gay and lesbian couples, Heyburn said that while "religious beliefs ... are vital to the fabric of society ... assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons."

Heyburn said "it is clear that Kentucky's laws treat gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them."

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling throwing out the Defense of Marriage Act, Heyburn struck down the portion of Kentucky's 2004 constitutional amendment that said "only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky."

Heyburn did not rule that Kentucky must allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

Heyburn also rejected the arguments of the Family Foundation of Kentucky — that recognizing same-sex marriages would undermine the fundamental role of marriage in ensuring procreation.

Heyburn said there is no requirement that opposite-sex couples agree to procreate to get married.

He also said "no one has offered any evidence that recognizing same-sex marriages will harm opposite-sex marriages."

[subego]

I'm pretty sure it's not marriage which ensures procreation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm pretty sure it's not marriage which ensures procreation.

*traditional, moral procreation

[subego]

Won't someone think of the bastards?

[subego]

I want to sue some dry counties in Kentucky for undermining the fundamental role alcohol takes in ensuring procreation.

[The Final Dakar]

Blah, blah, blah, Virginia's law got overturned, will get appealed or something.

More interestingly, for some reason people are giving McConnell shit because the judge who overturned Kentucky's ban was appointed by W under his recommendation.

[The Final Dakar]

Popping in to post this:
Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional - San Antonio Express-News

A federal judge in San Antonio has declared Texas' ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, however, also issued a stay, meaning the ban stays in effect for the time being.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge to Ohio: Recognize out-of-state gay marriage

A federal judge on Monday ordered Ohio authorities to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states, the latest court victory for gay rights supporters.

Judge Timothy Black ruled that refusing to recognize gay marriage is a violation of constitutional rights and "unenforceable in all circumstances."

"The record before this court ... is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state's ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," Black wrote.

The order does not force Ohio to allow gay marriages to be performed in the state.

The state plans to appeal Black's ruling, arguing that Ohio has a sovereign right to ban gay marriage, which voters did overwhelmingly in 2004.

Black delayed deciding whether to issue a stay of his ruling pending the state's appeal in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after attorneys on both sides present arguments on the issue by Tuesday.

[subego]

"We have a right as a state to ban gay marriage!"

"Okay, sure... But you have to recognize the marriages from other states."

"LALALALALALALALALA! We have a right as a state to ban gay marriage!"

[The Final Dakar]

Louisiana House votes 27-66 to keep unconstitutional anti-sodomy law on the books | NOLA.com

The Louisiana House of Representatives rejected legislation, on Tuesday, that would remove the state's symbolic ban on certain kinds of sodomy. The bill failed by a wide margin on a vote of 27-67, with 11 members not voting.

Louisiana's anti-sodomy law was overturned and declared unconstitutional in 2003, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling such state statutes could not be enforced. Still, the Legislature has been unwilling to officially strike the measure from state law, even though it can't be used as a cause for arrest.

"Louisiana's anti-sodomy statute is consistent with the values of Louisiana residents who consider this behavior to be dangerous, unhealthy and immoral," stated the letter to lawmakers from the Louisiana Family Forum.

The law remaining on the books came under national scrutiny last summer when East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs' Deputies used the statute to arrest men who agreed to have sex with undercover male law enforcement officers. The District Attorney declined to prosecute the men, and the sheriff, Sid Gautreaux, under intense criticism, later apologized for the arrests. Both the District Attorney and the sheriff's office supporter Smith's legislation to remove the law, according to several legislators.

[The Final Dakar]

Prop 8 lawyer's views on gay marriage evolving

The lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in favor of upholding California's ban on gay marriage learned during his handling of the case that one of his children is gay. Now Charles Cooper says his own view of same-sex marriage is evolving.

What are the ****ing odds

[subego]

My opinions on black people totally changed once I realized one of my children was black.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

My opinions on black people totally changed once I realized one of my children was black.

[Chongo]

I found it more interesting that when Chastity Bono told Cher, she promptly kicked her out of her house.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

My opinions on black people totally changed once I realized one of my children was black.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I found it more interesting that when Chastity Bono told Cher, she promptly kicked her out of her house.

Why? What insight are you drawing from it?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why? What insight are you drawing from it?

Cher had the opposite reaction most people thought she would have. Instead of openly embracing her decision to come out, Cher threw her out.

[subego]

The way I understand it, that was due to Cher being a diva, and unused to not getting what she wants.

She wanted a daughter to follow in her footsteps, and who trusted her enough as a mother to be honest and open.

She was hit with getting neither, at once, and reacted like a diva.

Diva is not the same as scumbag, though, and she got over herself in about a week.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us...iage.html?_r=0

“We didn’t bring this lawsuit to make others conform to our beliefs, but to vindicate the right of all faiths to freely exercise their religious practices,” said Donald C. Clark Jr., general counsel of the United Church of Christ.

The denomination argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment. Mr. Clark said that North Carolina allows clergy members to bless same-sex couples married in other states, but otherwise bars them from performing “religious blessings and marriage rites” for same-sex couples, and that “if they perform a religious blessing ceremony of a same-sex couple in their church, they are subject to prosecution and civil judgments.”

The United Church of Christ is joined in the case by a Lutheran priest, a rabbi, two Unitarian Universalist ministers, a Baptist pastor and several same-sex couples. They said the state’s marriage law “represents an unlawful government intervention into the internal structure and practices of plaintiffs’ religions.”

Whoops. Someone got carried away drafting that law.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban | KTVB.COM Boise

A federal judge has ruled Idaho's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, and an injunction to block enforcement on that ban will go into effect Friday morning.

n her conclusion, Judge Dale says:
Idaho’s Marriage Laws withhold from them a profound and personal choice, one that most can take for granted. By doing so, Idaho’s Marriage Laws deny same-sex couples the economic, practical, emotional, and spiritual benefits of marriage, relegating each couple to a stigmatized, second-class status. Plaintiffs suffer these injuries not because they are unqualified to marry, start a family, or grow old together, but because of who they are and whom they love.

The Defendants (state of Idaho) offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children. Without proof, the Defendants’ justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days long past. Then as now, it is the duty of the courts to apply the law to the facts in evidence. Here, the facts are clear and the law teaches that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority can deny.

Judge Dale goes on to cite the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process and equal protection.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge Strikes Down Oregon Gay Marriage Ban - ABC News

A federal judge on Monday struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, saying it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane said the ban unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and ordered the state not to enforce it. State officials earlier refused to defend the constitutional ban in court.

The judge denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage to defend the law on behalf of its Oregon members. A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday refused the group's request for an emergency stay of that decision, allowing same-sex marriages to proceed.

[Shaddim]

I wasn't aware that Oregon still had a ban. Weird.

[The Final Dakar]

Finally, PA is in the mix.

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

A federal judge declared Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional Tuesday, saying it's time to toss such laws "into the ash heap of history."

The ruling by Judge John Jones III, who was named to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, makes Pennsylvania the last Northeast state to allow same-sex marriages.

"Plaintiffs suffer a multitude of daily harms, for instance in the area of child-rearing, health care, taxation and end-of--life planning," Jones said in his 39-page written opinion.

He called the couples who brought the case "courageous" and said his ruling brings the court in line with "12 federal district courts across the country which, when confronted with these inequities in their own states, have concluded that all couples deserve equal dignity in the realm of civil marriage."

Jones concluded his opinion by noting that in the 60 years since Brown v. Board of Education challenged the premise of separate but equal, "'separate' has thankfully faded into history and only 'equal' remains."

He said the term "same-sex marriage" will be abandoned in favor of "marriage" someday.

"We are a better people than what these laws represent," Jones wrote. "It is time to discard them into the ash heap of history."

Best subplot for yesterdays ruling: Bush nominated judge, vouched for by his Lord Frothiness, Rick Santorum.

---

With Pennsylvania, gay marriage gets its 18th straight win. Who needs the Supreme Court?

Three states have legalized gay marriage by popular vote (Washington, Maryland, Maine).
Seven states got it through the legislature (Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Delaware, Illinois, Rhode Island, Minnesota), plus the District of Columbia.

...

In seven more states, beginning with Massachusetts a decade ago, gay marriage arrived through the courts (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Iowa, New Mexico, California, Oregon).
In seven more states, judges have struck down state bans, but the granting of marriage licenses is on hold, because an appeal is pending. And in four more, judges have issued limited pro-marriage decisions (requiring states to recognize a marriage for purposes of a death certificate, for instance).

[subego]

Does anyone know off hand what the thought process is in overturning these state laws? 14th Amendment?

As much as I support gay marriage, I really dislike state's rights getting bounced on.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does anyone know off hand what the thought process is in overturning these state laws? 14th Amendment?

A lot of these seem to reference it.

Originally Posted by subego 

As much as I support gay marriage, I really dislike state's rights getting bounced on.

If its unconstitutional, why shouldn't it be bounced on?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Does anyone know off hand what the thought process is in overturning these state laws? 14th Amendment?

As much as I support gay marriage, I really dislike state's rights getting bounced on.

The 34th amendment

[subego]

@Dakar

Oh... it absolutely should be. The problem is "due process" is open ended.

Due process is meant to keep people who where freed after having been cast into servitude out of prison, not provide equality. I think 80 years of Jim Crow after the 14th was passed demonstrates this precident.

As much as I support gay marriage, I'm seeing the significance of things to which the 14th applies get smaller and smaller.

Likewise, I don't see the Federal Government as some vast conspiracy to be afraid of, but centralized power has issues, which we're supposed to have checks on by giving the States power. Even if that centralization ends up providing things I want (gay marriage, access to abortions), I still don't like the method.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Dakar

Oh... it absolutely should be. The problem is "due process" is open ended.

Due process is meant to keep people who where freed after having been cast into servitude out of prison, not provide equality. I think 80 years of Jim Crow after the 14th was passed demonstrates this precident.

As much as I support gay marriage, I'm seeing the significance of things to which the 14th applies get smaller and smaller.

Likewise, I don't see the Federal Government as some vast conspiracy to be afraid of, but centralized power has issues, which we're supposed to have checks on by giving the States power. Even if that centralization ends up providing things I want (gay marriage, access to abortions), I still don't like the method.

Due process? I think it falls under equal protection.

[subego]

You are correct. My bad.

Same point though. What does Jim Crow tell you about the extent of equality granted?

To be clear, I think there's an argument to be made Jim Crow should fall under equal protection. On the other hand, I think there's an argument marriage shouldnt.

[Shaddim]

I like that it's being done, but don't like how. Savvy?

[The Final Dakar]

Judge strikes down Wisconsin same-sex marriage ban

Voters amended the Wisconsin Constitution in 2006, to outlaw gay marriage or anything substantially similar. The state has offered a domestic partner registry that affords gay couples a host of legal rights since 2009, but its future is in doubt; the conservative-leaning Wisconsin Supreme Court is currently weighing whether it violates the constitution.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 Republican candidate for president, has a long history of opposing gay marriage and Wisconsin's 2009 domestic registry law. But in recent months he's avoided talking directly about the state's ban, which he supported, saying it's an issue that needs to be decided by the courts and state voters who can amend the constitution.

Walker's likely Democratic challenger in the governor's race, Mary Burke, supports legalizing gay marriage.

[The Final Dakar]

Utah police officer on leave for refusing Gay Pride Parade assignment | The Salt Lake Tribune