Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

My best guess is that they're gambling that we are nearing a tipping point on gay marriage and they want to be the first lawyers to get their case all the way to the Supreme Court. They're gambling that by the time that happens, the political environment will be ripe for a Loving v. Virginia type of decision. I don't know if that's true [......] Boies and Olson have "grabbed a baby out of someone else's hands and are running pretty fast with it. I really hope they don't drop it."

Brandon9000 wrote:

Sorry, I believe in democracy. I think that the citizens have the right to determine their own government,

Citizens do have the right to determine their own government, but that doesn't give the government the rightful power to govern everything. To the contrary, its powers remain limited by the inalienable rights of the governed -- and these rights include the liberty to marry the partner of your choice, not the government's choice.

I am mildly surprised that I should have to explain the principle of limited government to a conservative.

(Not that it has anything to do with the decision in Washington which, again, was brought about by the elective branches.)

That's a self defeating argument 9000.

If Thomas is trying to neutralize laws that prohibit marriage, then what is it that the laws that prohibit marriage neutralize? How about... the equal protection clause? How about full faith and credit?

People have the right to create laws, but not laws that directly contradict the constitution.

DOMA prevents State A from recognizing State B marriage certificate if State B's is between two men or two women. This is a huge contradiction in full faith a credit.

The attempt by so many to prohibit homosexuals from marrying is how did you put it?.. "an oblique way of trying to neutralize legally enacted laws you don't like, which indicates disrespect for the right of the people to determine how they are governed."

I guess you don't respect those who fought to put things like the EPC and FFC into the constitution. Perhaps you think those things are of less importance when faced with the the dread gay thread of two dudes marrying!

dun. dun. DUUUUNN!!!!1one

T
K
O

The people have the right to pass any law not prohibited by the Constitution.

Just one more thing. Could you refer me to the part of the Constitution that specifies gay marriage as a right? Please copy and paste that here. Thanks.

Just one more thing. Could you refer me to the part of the Constitution that specifies gay marriage as a right? Please copy and paste that here. Thanks.

Judging from the players, it may look as though we now have a consensus among liberals and conservatives that the federal Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage, to which only bigots and religious zealots could object. But nothing could be farther from the truth: The position these lawyers are advocating has no support in Supreme Court case law, let alone in the Constitution.

Never mind insulting Brandon, have you tried to follow the legal argument of Boies / Olson? If so, do you bet they will prevail in the 9th circuit (notoriously the most liberal spot of all federal courts), and that the Supreme Court will accept the case? Betting in the legal profession is the SC will only look at this if Boies / Olson win, let it stand if they lose. The SC, btw, is already involved in this - it banned cameras inside the courtroom.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmI0NWU2ZTU4ZGJlNDUwYWZjNzI4MzFmZjYwMDA1MGY=&w=MA==

Quote:

Judging from the players, it may look as though we now have a consensus among liberals and conservatives that the federal Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage, to which only bigots and religious zealots could object. But nothing could be farther from the truth: The position these lawyers are advocating has no support in Supreme Court case law, let alone in the Constitution.

Prior to Olson and Boies's action, there has been no federal lawsuit seeking to overturn state bans on same-sex marriages. Nor have there been suits attacking the federal discrimination against gays perpetrated by the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act", which precludes gay couples from receiving benefits to which others are entitled. The reason these federal suits, thus far, have never been brought is that attorneys familiar with the federal courts find them so overloaded with conservative Republican judges that they doubt that such efforts would be productive " and fear they could actually be damaging, by setting anti-gay-rights precedent. In short, given the current federal appellate bench, such efforts are not merely futile, but potentially counterproductive.

Vast numbers of sources agree with the professor's reading (article I just linked) but here's another one:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20090529.html

Quote:

Prior to Olson and Boies's action, there has been no federal lawsuit seeking to overturn state bans on same-sex marriages. Nor have there been suits attacking the federal discrimination against gays perpetrated by the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act", which precludes gay couples from receiving benefits to which others are entitled. The reason these federal suits, thus far, have never been brought is that attorneys familiar with the federal courts find them so overloaded with conservative Republican judges that they doubt that such efforts would be productive " and fear they could actually be damaging, by setting anti-gay-rights precedent. In short, given the current federal appellate bench, such efforts are not merely futile, but potentially counterproductive.

Remember, Marion Barry offered resistance. He didn't get far on the resitance, but it did get some mileage because of what he used to stand for.

I sometimes wonder how long Ward 8 plans on keeping him around...

Brandon9000 wrote:

The people have the right to pass any law not prohibited by the Constitution.

... and the Constitution, as reasonably applied by the courts, prohibits discrimination (through the equal protection clause of its Fourteenth Amendment) and infringement for fundamental liberties (through its Due Process clause). My liberty to marry whomever I please is my fundamental human right. If you don't like the way I exercise that right, so what? You don't have to. And neither does the democratic majority. Human rights don't have to be popular to be enforcable.

... and one more time, none of this applies to Washington DC, where same sex marriage was introduced by the city council, not the federal courts. Even by your standards, everything went fine in Washington, DC -- didn't it?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Just one more thing. Could you refer me to the part of the Constitution that specifies gay marriage as a right? Please copy and paste that here. Thanks.

It's in two places in the constitution.

The first is the place where it also specifies that you have the right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, even if your governor hates oatmeal. (Do you agree that you have such a right under the Constitution?) That place is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The second is the place where it also specifies that if male, mainstream WASPs can have oatmeal for breakfast, so can Blacks, and Catholics, and women, and people born out of wedlock, and people born in foreign countries ... and countless other categories of people that the democratic majority once saw fit to discriminate against. (Do you agree the Constitution forbids such discrimination?) That place is the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

But to repeat yet again -- altogether now! -- it's irrelevant to the case of Washington DC, because it was the legislature that introduced same sex marriage there. It wasn't the courts. Even the most hardcore originalist should have no problem with what happened in Washington DC.

There is no direct reference to same sex marriage in the Constitution and the attempts to read it in are nonsensical.

Quote:

I sometimes wonder how long Ward 8 plans on keeping him around...

As long as he lives. To some, the man (warts and all) walks on water.