| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
24 Apr 2006 10:43:19 PM |
| Object: |
Push for national gay-marriage ban |
How much more needs to be done to get the crazed LLL (Looney Liberal
Lemmings) to understand; Americans do not want same-sex marriage. Whatever
arguments can be made in favor of creating this right do not supercede the
fact that Americans overwhelmingly reject the notion. Imposing the will of a
few against the wishes of the masses amounts to no more than totalitarian
government; and afterall, isn't that what you 'liberals' so firmly oppose?
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/9139
WASHINGTON, April 24 (UPI) -- Roman Catholic leaders and evangelical
Protestants, joined by other religious groups, are pushing to amend the U.S.
Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
As a kickoff, the group signed a petition in support of an amendment, The
New York Times reported. Those who added their names included seven Catholic
cardinals, a number of archbishops, some Orthodox Jewish rabbis and at least
one official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
One Catholic group -- the Knights of Columbus -- plans to distribute 10
million postcards at Catholic churches for congregants to send to their
congressional representatives.
"The personal involvement of bishops and cardinals is significantly greater
this time than in 2004," said Patrick Korten, a spokesman for the lay
Catholic group.
In 2004, proposed amendments to state constitutions on homosexual marriage
helped bring out conservative voters and may have contributed to President
George W. Bush's victory over Sen.. John Kerry.
But some political observers say that the public attitude toward the issue
has shifted with a recent poll finding 51 percent of respondents opposed,
compared to 63 percent in 2004.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 04:25:46 PM |
|
|
Bitchin' Bonney wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:20:53 GMT, Dionisio
<moc-rr-thgisniTA@5ellimd.com> wrote:
No One wrote:
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
As though the Full Faith and Credit clause isn't a Federal Question...
"I can be married here, but not married in Mississippi?!?" The
inter-racial marriage issue would be a precedent.
DOMA, THAT D - O - M - A...the federal law that squashes "the Full
Faith and Credit clause" with regards to same sex marriage.
The Federal Law is unconstitutional.
--
*****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*---------------------------------------------------*
* "You can safely assume that you've created God in *
* your own image when it turns out that God hates *
* all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott *
*****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 10:36:03 PM |
|
|
No One wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Legal arguments are usually a lot more precise than that, and it is
the specific legal argument - how various amendments might have been
violated - that the court dismissed.
No, that is wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court broadly ruled that
Minnesota's prohibition against same-sex marriage "does not offend the
First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution". That's binding precedent for now.
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
What was the legal argument presented by Baker to SCOTUS? I'm guessing
it was the 9th and 14th Amendments.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 11:58:30 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Legal arguments are usually a lot more precise than that, and it is
the specific legal argument - how various amendments might have been
violated - that the court dismissed.
No, that is wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court broadly ruled that
Minnesota's prohibition against same-sex marriage "does not offend the
First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution". That's binding precedent for now.
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal
argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
What was the legal argument presented by Baker to SCOTUS? I'm
guessing it was the 9th and 14th Amendments.
Josh Rosenbluth
Here is the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision.
<http://www.umt.edu/phil/Faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm> It mentions
the 9th and 14th ammendment, but not the first and eighth amendemnt
as you previously had claimed. The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision
stated that
Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express
statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a
legislative intent to authorize such marriages.
Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so
interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to
this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies
petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made
applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and
petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due
process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
So to get around the precedent set by dismissing the case, one merely
has to come up with a different argument (unless the U.S. Supreme
Court changes its mind).
I couldn't find the argument that was presented to the U.S. Supreme
Court (but didn't comment on it either, just on the rules regarding
a dismissal).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 07:37:40 AM |
|
|
No One wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
jrosenbluth@att.com writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Legal arguments are usually a lot more precise than that, and it is
the specific legal argument - how various amendments might have been
violated - that the court dismissed.
No, that is wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court broadly ruled that
Minnesota's prohibition against same-sex marriage "does not offend the
First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution". That's binding precedent for now.
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal
argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
What was the legal argument presented by Baker to SCOTUS? I'm
guessing it was the 9th and 14th Amendments.
Here is the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision.
<http://www.umt.edu/phil/Faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm> It mentions
the 9th and 14th ammendment, but not the first and eighth amendemnt
as you previously had claimed.
It's the next-to-last line of the decision: "We hold, therefore, that
Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution."
The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision
stated that
Petitioners contend, first, that the absence of an express
statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages evinces a
legislative intent to authorize such marriages.
Petitioners contend, second, that Minn.St. c. 517, so
interpreted, is unconstitutional. There is a dual aspect to
this contention: The prohibition of a same-sex marriage denies
petitioners a fundamental right guaranteed by the Ninth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguably made
applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, and
petitioners are deprived of liberty and property without due
process and are denied the equal protection of the laws, both
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
So to get around the precedent set by dismissing the case, one merely
has to come up with a different argument (unless the U.S. Supreme
Court changes its mind).
What would that argument be? The two leading candidates - 14th
Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection - are out, in addition to the
9th Amendment.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 10:08:55 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> writes:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
No, that is wrong. The Minnesota Supreme Court broadly ruled that
Minnesota's prohibition against same-sex marriage "does not offend the
First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution". That's binding precedent for now.
It is not what the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled but the legal
argument
presented to the U.S. Supreme Court that resulted in the dismissal
of the case because those arguments did not raise a "federal question"
and it was that dismissal that we were discussing.
What was the legal argument presented by Baker to SCOTUS? I'm
guessing it was the 9th and 14th Amendments.
Here is the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision.
<http://www.umt.edu/phil/Faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm> It mentions
the 9th and 14th ammendment, but not the first and eighth amendemnt
as you previously had claimed.
It's the next-to-last line of the decision: "We hold, therefore, that
Minn.St. c. 517 does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth, or
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution."
Actually, in Note 2, it state that
We dismiss without discussion petitioners' additional
contentions that the statute contravenes the First Amendment
and Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I didn't notice that last line when I skimmed through it.
So to get around the precedent set by dismissing the case, one merely
has to come up with a different argument (unless the U.S. Supreme
Court changes its mind).
What would that argument be? The two leading candidates - 14th
Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection - are out, in addition to
the 9th Amendment.
Well, that is what you pay lawyers for. :-)
Also, the 14th and 9th ammendments are not "out" if you come up with a
substantially different argument as to why they apply than the
argument raised in the Minnesota case.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 03:54:47 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Josh Rosenbluth
An interesting thing that nobody has pointed out yet. The court that
made the ruling was a STATE Supreme Court. That means that no other
states are bound by its rulings since their state Constitutions are
different, and the Federal Courts are not bound by them either since
they rule according to federal law and the US Constitution relative to
the state laws and Constitution.
If a similar case was brought up in another state, the decision in the
above case could easily be inapplicable, and the same could be said for
bring it up in federal court.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
01 May 2006 09:01:05 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
An interesting thing that nobody has pointed out yet. The court that
made the ruling was a STATE Supreme Court. That means that no other
states are bound by its rulings since their state Constitutions are
different, and the Federal Courts are not bound by them either since
they rule according to federal law and the US Constitution relative to
the state laws and Constitution.
If a similar case was brought up in another state, the decision in the
above case could easily be inapplicable, and the same could be said for
bring it up in federal court.
That *is* interesting.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 04:49:22 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
No One wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First, Eighth, Ninth nor Fourteenth
Amendments. SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
An interesting thing that nobody has pointed out yet. The court that
made the ruling was a STATE Supreme Court. That means that no other
states are bound by its rulings since their state Constitutions are
different, and the Federal Courts are not bound by them either since
they rule according to federal law and the US Constitution relative to
the state laws and Constitution.
If a similar case was brought up in another state, the decision in the
above case could easily be inapplicable, and the same could be said for
bring it up in federal court.
For the most part, no.
Baker argued that the federal constitution (Amendments 1, 8, 9 and 14)
required same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on that
basis, and when SCOTUS failed to find a substantial federal question it
set binding precedent on all lower courts, state and federal, throughout
the USA.
For any other case - in any state or federal court (except SCOTUS) - in
which a state law is at question, and the arguments are Amendments 1, 8,
9 or 14, the lower court must rule in favor of the state law.
You are correct that if the plaintiffs restrict their arguments to state
constitutional law, Baker has no impact.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
01 May 2006 09:05:08 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker argued that the federal constitution (Amendments 1, 8, 9 and 14)
required same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on that
basis, and when SCOTUS failed to find a substantial federal question
it set binding precedent on all lower courts, state and federal,
throughout the USA.
However, when states have differing judgments, the SCOTUS does tend to
get itself involved.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 08:03:00 AM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker argued that the federal constitution (Amendments 1, 8, 9 and 14)
required same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on that
basis, and when SCOTUS failed to find a substantial federal question
it set binding precedent on all lower courts, state and federal,
throughout the USA.
However, when states have differing judgments, the SCOTUS does tend to
get itself involved.
If a state court rules that the federal constitution mandates same-sex
marriage because of the 14th Amendment, that will be inconsistent with
Baker - and even if SCOTUS chooses to reverse Baker on appeal - they
should admonish the state court for ignoring binding precedent.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 09:29:39 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker argued that the federal constitution (Amendments 1, 8, 9 and 14)
required same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on that
basis, and when SCOTUS failed to find a substantial federal question
it set binding precedent on all lower courts, state and federal,
throughout the USA.
However, when states have differing judgments, the SCOTUS does tend to
get itself involved.
If a state court rules that the federal constitution mandates same-sex
marriage because of the 14th Amendment, that will be inconsistent with
Baker - and even if SCOTUS chooses to reverse Baker on appeal - they
should admonish the state court for ignoring binding precedent.
Josh Rosenbluth
Why would it be binding? The state ruled according to its own laws and
Constitution. Those are not binding on another state since their laws
and constitutions are different.
According to you, the cases in Vermont and Mass. are binding on all the
other states in the USA, and thus all states are obligated to recognize
same sex marriages as legal.
State level decisions are not binding on any other state besides the
one in which it was made. Federal decisions, however, are binding on
alll states if the case is broadly defined.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 09:36:32 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker argued that the federal constitution (Amendments 1, 8, 9 and 14)
required same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on that
basis, and when SCOTUS failed to find a substantial federal question
it set binding precedent on all lower courts, state and federal,
throughout the USA.
However, when states have differing judgments, the SCOTUS does tend to
get itself involved.
If a state court rules that the federal constitution mandates same-sex
marriage because of the 14th Amendment, that will be inconsistent with
Baker - and even if SCOTUS chooses to reverse Baker on appeal - they
should admonish the state court for ignoring binding precedent.
Why would it be binding? The state ruled according to its own laws and
Constitution. Those are not binding on another state since their laws
and constitutions are different.
The Minnesota court did not rule on the basis of its own laws and
constitution in Baker. It ruled on the basis of the US Constitution.
According to you, the cases in Vermont and Mass. are binding on all the
other states in the USA, and thus all states are obligated to recognize
same sex marriages as legal.
No. Unlike Baker, these cases were decided based on state
constitutions.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 12:41:27 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker argued that the federal constitution (Amendments 1, 8, 9 and 14)
required same-sex marriage. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled on that
basis, and when SCOTUS failed to find a substantial federal question
it set binding precedent on all lower courts, state and federal,
throughout the USA.
However, when states have differing judgments, the SCOTUS does tend to
get itself involved.
If a state court rules that the federal constitution mandates same-sex
marriage because of the 14th Amendment, that will be inconsistent with
Baker - and even if SCOTUS chooses to reverse Baker on appeal - they
should admonish the state court for ignoring binding precedent.
And eventualy, Baker will be reversed, as there is no compelling reason
to deny SSM.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 09:15:59 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the same-sex marriage prohibiton
did not violate any of the First
I suspect the problem with the First is a lack of standing. (Haven't
pulled the case yet, so I can't say for sure.) If the members were not
of a faith that allows same-sex marriage, they would have a significant
problem. Now Buddhists could raise the issue. However, as Buddhism is
about the elimination of suffering, and lawsuits are all about
suffering... Well, that religion might take a while to have members
enter the fray.
There are several other religions that don't have such Catch 22s. And
now that I think about it, there are some Native American tribes that
could have some fun, via the invocation of certain treaties.
So, it seems only a matter of time.
Eighth
Crap-shoot. It was worth a try. I'm interested in the methodology of
their pursuit of this one.
Ninth
Must say that *that* raised an eyebrow.
nor Fourteenth Amendments.
I suspect they weaseled out of this one via a narrow interpretation of
the 11th. Now since that would impinge upon the Full Faith and Credit
clause -- not to mention previous rulings -- it would seem to be open to
additional action. In other words: "Hypocrite." (A word we're hearing a
lot of these days in Ohio.)
SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Four. The defacto dismissal of marriage via the "search" of the partners
for the purposes of determining the status of their genitalia -- or
genome for transgendered folks -- would be open.
Ten would also be viable, provided there was proper standing for One.
The tax code could serve as a basis for the application of Thirteen:
"The State does not have the right to force myself, nor my intended
spouse, to remain in a higher tax bracket. There is no compelling State
right to force citizens into the involuntary servitude of the
maximization of the State's pocketbook."
"The IRS recognizes that there is no crime committed when citizens use
legal means to lower their obligations. <insert relevant Letter Rulings
and Case Law here.> For the State to blatantly and actively seek,
compel, even command that certain of its citizens do not have said right
is de facto discrimination. It is adjudication sans trial. It is a slap
across the face of the basic principle of the American Constitution that
'All men are created equal.' It is an abomination."
Four and Thirteen would be a nice combination.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 06:03:37 PM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
SCOTUS's decision affirms that all of those arguments
cannot be used by same-sex couples. What other federal Constitutional
arguments could there be?
Four. The defacto dismissal of marriage via the "search" of the partners
for the purposes of determining the status of their genitalia -- or
genome for transgendered folks -- would be open.
Ten would also be viable, provided there was proper standing for One.
The tax code could serve as a basis for the application of Thirteen:
"The State does not have the right to force myself, nor my intended
spouse, to remain in a higher tax bracket. There is no compelling State
right to force citizens into the involuntary servitude of the
maximization of the State's pocketbook."
"The IRS recognizes that there is no crime committed when citizens use
legal means to lower their obligations. <insert relevant Letter Rulings
and Case Law here.> For the State to blatantly and actively seek,
compel, even command that certain of its citizens do not have said right
is de facto discrimination. It is adjudication sans trial. It is a slap
across the face of the basic principle of the American Constitution that
'All men are created equal.' It is an abomination."
Four and Thirteen would be a nice combination.
Without commenting in detail, I find all these arguments weak. As
evidenced from the lack of anyone offering such arguments in court, I
suspect the lawyers in the know who are trying to gain equal marriage
rights agree.
I think the proper strategy is to fight the battle state by state -
using state constitutional law and the legislature (e.g., Connecticut's
civil unions with no court involvement) until a "critical mass" is
reached which will further weaken Baker (as Romer and Lawrence already
have).
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 12:10:08 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Four. The defacto dismissal of marriage via the "search" of the partners
for the purposes of determining the status of their genitalia -- or
genome for transgendered folks -- would be open.
Ten would also be viable, provided there was proper standing for One.
The tax code could serve as a basis for the application of Thirteen:
"The State does not have the right to force myself, nor my intended
spouse, to remain in a higher tax bracket. There is no compelling State
right to force citizens into the involuntary servitude of the
maximization of the State's pocketbook."
"The IRS recognizes that there is no crime committed when citizens use
legal means to lower their obligations. <insert relevant Letter Rulings
and Case Law here.> For the State to blatantly and actively seek,
compel, even command that certain of its citizens do not have said right
is de facto discrimination. It is adjudication sans trial. It is a slap
across the face of the basic principle of the American Constitution that
'All men are created equal.' It is an abomination."
Four and Thirteen would be a nice combination.
Without commenting in detail, I find all these arguments weak.
Bah! Comment in detail. This is the Usenet. ;-)
You seem to have some legal background/familiarity, nail those arguments
to the cross! Make 'em bleed.
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 02:47:23 PM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Four. The defacto dismissal of marriage via the "search" of the partners
for the purposes of determining the status of their genitalia -- or
genome for transgendered folks -- would be open.
Ten would also be viable, provided there was proper standing for One.
The tax code could serve as a basis for the application of Thirteen:
"The State does not have the right to force myself, nor my intended
spouse, to remain in a higher tax bracket. There is no compelling State
right to force citizens into the involuntary servitude of the
maximization of the State's pocketbook."
"The IRS recognizes that there is no crime committed when citizens use
legal means to lower their obligations. <insert relevant Letter Rulings
and Case Law here.> For the State to blatantly and actively seek,
compel, even command that certain of its citizens do not have said right
is de facto discrimination. It is adjudication sans trial. It is a slap
across the face of the basic principle of the American Constitution that
'All men are created equal.' It is an abomination."
Four and Thirteen would be a nice combination.
Without commenting in detail, I find all these arguments weak.
Bah! Comment in detail. This is the Usenet. ;-)
You seem to have some legal background/familiarity, nail those arguments
to the cross! Make 'em bleed.
The Fourth is about police power in criminal cases, not about
requirements for a license, a job or anything other government-provided
thing which may have requirements.
The 13th is about slavery, not taxation. So, I assume you meant the
16th. Your argument with regards to taxation, is solely about
discrimination - that's the 14th, not the 16th. Baker precludes the
14th as an argument (in lower courts).
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
01 May 2006 08:49:24 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Bah! Comment in detail. This is the Usenet. ;-)
You seem to have some legal background/familiarity, nail those
arguments to the cross! Make 'em bleed.
The Fourth is about police power in criminal cases, not about
requirements for a license, a job or anything other
government-provided thing which may have requirements.
Well, let's split hairs. "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated..." etc... It says nothing about law
enforcement or criminal cases. The right is to be secure, that certain
things shall not take place without reasonable cause. Yes, there is the
mention of Warrants. Yes, it is a prerequisite for the violation of the
aforementioned securities. It is a special case. The right to the
protections seems to be absolute, unless there are compelling State
interests to the contrary.
I renewed my driver's license recently. They asked if I was addicted to
alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal substances. Compelling interest.
The clerk asked if I was prone to epileptic seizures. Compelling
interest. I was asked to submit to a vision test. Compelling interest.
Marriage is a government-provided thing. Where is the compelling
interest to check genitalia?
The 13th is about slavery, not taxation.
The 13th is also about "involuntary servitude."
One notes the "or."
Interesting thought: Would that not preclude the draft? Slaves are
property. Drafted Military members are considered property. Would anyone
know of any case law regarding that angle?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 07:51:35 AM |
|
|
Dionisio wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Dionisio wrote:
Bah! Comment in detail. This is the Usenet. ;-)
You seem to have some legal background/familiarity, nail those
arguments to the cross! Make 'em bleed.
The Fourth is about police power in criminal cases, not about
requirements for a license, a job or anything other
government-provided thing which may have requirements.
Well, let's split hairs. "The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated..." etc... It says nothing about law
enforcement or criminal cases. The right is to be secure, that certain
things shall not take place without reasonable cause. Yes, there is the
mention of Warrants. Yes, it is a prerequisite for the violation of the
aforementioned securities. It is a special case. The right to the
protections seems to be absolute, unless there are compelling State
interests to the contrary.
I renewed my driver's license recently. They asked if I was addicted to
alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal substances. Compelling interest.
The clerk asked if I was prone to epileptic seizures. Compelling
interest. I was asked to submit to a vision test. Compelling interest.
Marriage is a government-provided thing. Where is the compelling
interest to check genitalia?
The "compelling interest" test does not apply to the 4th Amendment.
That's a 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection standard.
Just like your taxation argument, you are really making a 14th
Amendment argument - which lower courts must reject because of Baker.
The 13th is about slavery, not taxation.
The 13th is also about "involuntary servitude."
One notes the "or."
Interesting thought: Would that not preclude the draft? Slaves are
property. Drafted Military members are considered property. Would anyone
know of any case law regarding that angle?
Arver v. United States. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_draft
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
02 May 2006 09:10:26 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
The "compelling interest" test does not apply to the 4th Amendment.
Hmm... True.
Then again, what is reasonable about the search for gentalia/genes?
Marriage is a thing granted to two people for the purpose of lessening
the State's burden. A tax break for the State, if you will.
The 13th is also about "involuntary servitude."
One notes the "or."
Interesting thought: Would that not preclude the draft? Slaves are
property. Drafted Military members are considered property. Would anyone
know of any case law regarding that angle?
Arver v. United States. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_draft
Which notes:
"In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not
violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S.
366 (1918) ([8]). The Court detailed its conclusion that the limited
powers of the federal government included conscription. Its only
statement on the Thirteenth Amendment issue was based on a "supreme and
noble duty" argument from nationalism and not legal reasoning"
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bitchin Bonney" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 03:58:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 20:14:10 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@att.com> writes:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
More precisely, the dismissal for lack of a "federal question"
regarded the specific arguments raised in that case. It does not imply
that states may deny same-sex couples civil marriages, only that you
shouldn't run one particular argument in favor of same-sex marriages
by the court.
Basically, the court said (this is not a literal quote of course), "If
you want us to rule on this issue, go back home and come up with some
different arguments because the one you used this time won't work."
And in all the years that have passed no homo or homophile has been
able to come up with a better one -- face it, that was your third
strike but you don't seem to have heard the umpire call you OUT!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "newsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 08:31:52 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Hey bigots are like that.
Just like with blacks, often personal bigotry finds its way to
the bench as well. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) has been
over turned just as Plessy v. Ferguson, this however is a
non-ruling. It simply means they, like the cowards they
are, did not want to deal with it, and said pick another
argument, just as they did time and again aginst
Plessy v. Ferguson. Skinner v. State OF OKL (1942),
with Loving v Virginia (1967) ruled that the right of the states
in marriage may not deny marriage. Intersexuals and
homosexuals are denied marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
28 Apr 2006 09:42:53 PM |
|
|
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Hey bigots are like that.
Just like with blacks, often personal bigotry finds its way to
the bench as well. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) has been
over turned just as Plessy v. Ferguson, this however is a
non-ruling. It simply means they, like the cowards they
are, did not want to deal with it, and said pick another
argument, just as they did time and again aginst
Plessy v. Ferguson. Skinner v. State OF OKL (1942),
with Loving v Virginia (1967) ruled that the right of the states
in marriage may not deny marriage. Intersexuals and
homosexuals are denied marriage.
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 04:01:42 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Hey bigots are like that.
Just like with blacks, often personal bigotry finds its way to
the bench as well. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) has been
over turned just as Plessy v. Ferguson, this however is a
non-ruling. It simply means they, like the cowards they
are, did not want to deal with it, and said pick another
argument, just as they did time and again aginst
Plessy v. Ferguson. Skinner v. State OF OKL (1942),
with Loving v Virginia (1967) ruled that the right of the states
in marriage may not deny marriage. Intersexuals and
homosexuals are denied marriage.
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
Josh Rosenbluth
However, Loving supersedes Baker is Loving was US Supreme Court and
Baker was State Supreme Court.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 04:50:56 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
However, Loving supersedes Baker is Loving was US Supreme Court and
Baker was State Supreme Court.
No, as posted in another response. SCOTUS's finding that there was no
substantial federal question set precedent just as if SCOTUS had heard
the case.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "newsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 10:46:53 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Hey bigots are like that.
Just like with blacks, often personal bigotry finds its way to
the bench as well. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) has been
over turned just as Plessy v. Ferguson, this however is a
non-ruling. It simply means they, like the cowards they
are, did not want to deal with it, and said pick another
argument, just as they did time and again aginst
Plessy v. Ferguson. Skinner v. State OF OKL (1942),
with Loving v Virginia (1967) ruled that the right of the states
in marriage may not deny marriage. Intersexuals and
homosexuals are denied marriage.
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
I'm sure that is the case in Conservaland, but in the real world
Loving is US case law Baker (1971) is a hold on judgment. And
only applies to a very narrow set of rules. The fact is it in no way
applies to intersexuals who cannot by birth marry if this were
to be allowed to stand. And and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) has
nulled the moral argument. See
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/01200504.mpb.html
The decision is based in bigorty which never indures in the law it
is not a rational argument as said in:
CAMMERMEYER v. ASPIN
850 F. Supp. 910; 1994 U.S. Dist. WD, Washington
" The Court need not decide whether plaintiff has a fundamental
right to be a homosexual in order to resolve her substantive due
process claim. The Court has already held that the Army regulation
challenged here is based solely on prejudice. As such,it cannot
withstand even rational basis review. Regulations based solely on
prejudice are irrational as a matter of law and serve no legitimate
governmental purpose."
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, at 260-61 (1971)
"Public officials may not avoid a constitutional duty by bowing to
the effects of private prejudice, however widely or deeply held."
Baker said:
"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear
distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race
and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Baker to only has precedential value when a same-sex couple
challenged a state's decision not to issue a marriage license under
its own state law. This does not apply to intersexuals who could
defeat this challenge, if any has the balls to get their hiding asses
before the court.
The homosexual agenda
http://www.angelfire.com/planet/homosexualagenda/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
29 Apr 2006 06:09:05 PM |
|
|
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Hey bigots are like that.
Just like with blacks, often personal bigotry finds its way to
the bench as well. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) has been
over turned just as Plessy v. Ferguson, this however is a
non-ruling. It simply means they, like the cowards they
are, did not want to deal with it, and said pick another
argument, just as they did time and again aginst
Plessy v. Ferguson. Skinner v. State OF OKL (1942),
with Loving v Virginia (1967) ruled that the right of the states
in marriage may not deny marriage. Intersexuals and
homosexuals are denied marriage.
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
I'm sure that is the case in Conservaland, but in the real world
Loving is US case law Baker (1971) is a hold on judgment.
The Wikipedia link clearly says otherwise. Baker is binding precedent.
And
only applies to a very narrow set of rules. The fact is it in no way
applies to intersexuals who cannot by birth marry if this were
to be allowed to stand. And and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) has
nulled the moral argument. See
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/01200504.mpb.html
I agree that Lawrence has weakened Baker. But, only SCOTUS may reverse
Baker. All lower courts must abide by it until such time SCOTUS
changes its mind.
Baker to only has precedential value when a same-sex couple
challenged a state's decision not to issue a marriage license under
its own state law. This does not apply to intersexuals who could
defeat this challenge, if any has the balls to get their hiding asses
before the court.
What states don't allow intersexuals to marry?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "newsguy" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 03:57:23 AM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
It does in fact say marriage for homosexuals and
heterosexuals have exactly the same rights to marriage
under the Due Process clause, that protects Fundmental
rights. The case law again is:
Skinner v. State OF OKL. Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic
civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental
Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632 (1974)
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in
matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
In spite of these precedents, SCOTUS ruled there was no federal
question to consider concerning a Minnesota prohibition against
same-sex couples from getting civil marriage licenses [Baker (1971)],
thus setting binding precedent (which holds to this day) that states
may deny same-sex couples civil marriage.
Hey bigots are like that.
Just like with blacks, often personal bigotry finds its way to
the bench as well. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) has been
over turned just as Plessy v. Ferguson, this however is a
non-ruling. It simply means they, like the cowards they
are, did not want to deal with it, and said pick another
argument, just as they did time and again aginst
Plessy v. Ferguson. Skinner v. State OF OKL (1942),
with Loving v Virginia (1967) ruled that the right of the states
in marriage may not deny marriage. Intersexuals and
homosexuals are denied marriage.
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
I'm sure that is the case in Conservaland, but in the real world
Loving is US case law Baker (1971) is a hold on judgment.
The Wikipedia link clearly says otherwise. Baker is binding precedent.
I is a hold on judgment, that no lower court can go any farther
on this subject because of the biased opinion that there was no
substantial federal question. Like in Bowers v. Hardwick this is a
bigoted dicision that has no basis in law, as said in CAMMERMEYER
v. ASPIN and has been expanded in:
Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental. Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)
It is only binding on cases based on exactly the same line
of reasoning, and is why you never hear about in outside of
conservatives thinking they have found the holy grail of
cases to stop gays from marrying. It is not a rational judgment,
it is to keep the cowards on the bench from having to deal with
the issue.
And
only applies to a very narrow set of rules. The fact is it in no way
applies to intersexuals who cannot by birth marry if this were
to be allowed to stand. And and Lawrence v. Texas (2003) has
nulled the moral argument. See
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/01200504.mpb.html
I agree that Lawrence has weakened Baker. But, only SCOTUS may reverse
Baker. All lower courts must abide by it until such time SCOTUS
changes its mind.
Only in the sense of cases based on exactly the same issues.
A case on intersexuals is not the same issue.
Saying that the framers of a law never envisioned same sexes
marrying is no different than they did not envision blacks marrying
whites. It is irrelevant to the logic of the law. It cannot endure.
Baker to only has precedential value when a same-sex couple
challenged a state's decision not to issue a marriage license under
its own state law. This does not apply to intersexuals who could
defeat this challenge, if any has the balls to get their hiding asses
before the court.
What states don't allow intersexuals to marry?
All, DOMA is the law of the land, and denied all intersexuals
the right to "legal" marriage. They cannot pass the very narrow
definition of being exclusively a man or a woman, they have
both characteristics.
Specifically in Texas, Ohio and Kansas the definition of
marriage is only a marriage between a XY male and a XX
female, no other marriage is legal. Intersexuals cannot at
all legally marry in these states if their chromosomes
do not match this definition.
See Littleton v. Prange 1999
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/bibhom/Litleton.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 07:41:11 AM |
|
|
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
I'm sure that is the case in Conservaland, but in the real world
Loving is US case law Baker (1971) is a hold on judgment.
The Wikipedia link clearly says otherwise. Baker is binding precedent.
I is a hold on judgment, that no lower court can go any farther
on this subject because of the biased opinion that there was no
substantial federal question. Like in Bowers v. Hardwick this is a
bigoted dicision that has no basis in law, as said in CAMMERMEYER
v. ASPIN and has been expanded in:
Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental. Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)
It is only binding on cases based on exactly the same line
of reasoning, and is why you never hear about in outside of
conservatives thinking they have found the holy grail of
cases to stop gays from marrying. It is not a rational judgment,
it is to keep the cowards on the bench from having to deal with
the issue.
Whether or not Baker is based in reason or motivated by bigotry has no
relevance to the fact that is binding precedent until SCOTUS reverses
it. The same applied to Bowers - it took SCOTUS to reverse it.
Baker to only has precedential value when a same-sex couple
challenged a state's decision not to issue a marriage license under
its own state law. This does not apply to intersexuals who could
defeat this challenge, if any has the balls to get their hiding asses
before the court.
What states don't allow intersexuals to marry?
All, DOMA is the law of the land, and denied all intersexuals
the right to "legal" marriage. They cannot pass the very narrow
definition of being exclusively a man or a woman, they have
both characteristics.
Specifically in Texas, Ohio and Kansas the definition of
marriage is only a marriage between a XY male and a XX
female, no other marriage is legal. Intersexuals cannot at
all legally marry in these states if their chromosomes
do not match this definition.
Citation?
See Littleton v. Prange 1999
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/bibhom/Litleton.htm
This case involves a transsexual, not an intersexual. It's still a case
of XY attempting to marry XY.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick J." |
|
| Title: Re: Push for national gay-marriage ban |
30 Apr 2006 02:56:45 PM |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
newsguy wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Baker (1971) post-dates Loving (1967) and hence is the law of the land
concerning same-sex couples marrying. The arguments explictly rejected
were the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments.
I'm sure that is the case in Conservaland, but in the real world
Loving is US case law Baker (1971) is a hold on judgment.
The Wikipedia link clearly says otherwise. Baker is binding precedent.
I is a hold on judgment, that no lower court can go any farther
on this subject because of the biased opinion that there was no
substantial federal question. Like in Bowers v. Hardwick this is a
bigoted dicision that has no basis in law, as said in CAMMERMEYER
v. ASPIN and has been expanded in:
Brause v Bureau of Vital Statistics, 3AN-95-6562 (SC AK 1998)
"There is no dispute that the right to marry is recognized as
fundamental. Today the court has recognized that the personal
choice of a life partner is fundamental and that such a choice
may include persons of the same sex...the United States Supreme
Court first characterized the right to marry as fundamental
in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942.)
It is only binding on cases based on exactly the same line
of reasoning, and is why you never hear about in outside of
conservatives thinking they have found the holy grail of
cases to stop gays from marrying. It is not a rational judgment,
it is to keep the cowards on the bench from having to deal with
the issue.
Whether or not Baker is based in reason or motivated by bigotry has no
relevance to the fact that is binding precedent until SCOTUS reverses
it. The same applied to Bowers - it took SCOTUS to reverse it.
So eventually, SCOTUS will reverse it. There is no compelling reason
to deny SSM, so sooner or later it will be allowed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
