Missouri voters ban gay marriage

Loving v. Virginia

Setanta wrote:

Miss Law, do you happen to know the argument in the abolition of miscegeny which was advanced by Virginia as to the Commonwealth's interest in the case you cited? Obviously, i could go look it up myself, and wade through it, but if you have a ready answer, that would be appreciated.

Setanta:

Virginia stated the following interests in preventing interracial marriages: "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride."

The Supreme Court said:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html

0 Replies

It's a civil rights case, it shouldn't have been put to a vote anyway.

0 Replies

Thank you Miss Law . . . those "compelling reasons" rather chill one's blood . . .

0 Replies

Legal Scholarship

McGentrix wrote:

There is obviously a legal precedent for doing what they are in Mo. I am sure that at least one or two lawyers did some research to decide if this will stand up in court or not. In their opinion, it will. Otherwise, I doubt it would have been presented to the people to vote on.

McG:

If you were following the Hawaii case, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriages were in violation of the STATE constitution.

In response to that Court ruling, the people of Hawaii amended their STATE constitution thus rendering the Court's decision moot.

However, we have yet to have the United States Supreme Court determine whether state laws or constitutions prohibiting same-sex marriages violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Additionally, I would assume that a lawyer or two reviewed the amendment to the Colorado Constitution before the issue was presented to the voters, but so what? That state constitutional amendment was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court as repugnant to the U.S. Constitution.

You might want to note as an example of legal opinion on this issue that the governing body of the Massachusetts State Bar Association voted unanimously to oppose all efforts to amend the commonwealth’s constitution or laws that would undermine the Supreme Judicial Court’s recent opinions regarding the constitutionality of same-gender marriages.

http://www.massbar.org/article.php?c_id=6279

I have read tons of U.S. Supreme Court cases--and I believe there are many cases that are foreshadowing the ultimate outcome. I believe, if the issue is presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, that the Court (if it correctly applies the supreme law of the land and its own case law precedent consistently) will rule that state prohibitions against same-sex marriages are repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment.

There are probably some legal scholars who might disagree with me. Therefore, I ask them to come forward and present their legal basis for believing that state prohibitions against same-sex marriages will be upheld by the highest court in the nation.

0 Replies

What is different in the wording between the Colorado case and the Hawaii\Missouri case?

0 Replies

What?

McGentrix wrote:

What is different in the wording between the Colorado case and the Hawaii\Missouri case?

I presented the link to the U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the Colorado State constitutional amendment held to be repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment. You should be able to find all relevant "wording" there.

I believe you should be able to find the Hawaii case online. You should also be able to find the Hawaii State constitutional amendment online.

I just read about the Missouri State constitutional amendment in your opening post.

Without comparing all the "wording," I cannot tell you what is "different in the wording." But, you can go ahead and do that--and if you think you find any differences in wording that you believe are relevant--let us know!

0 Replies

Re: Missouri voters ban gay marriage

Debra_Law wrote:

If the Court rules in accordance with the Supreme Law of the Land, then all state constitutional amendments and laws that prohibit same-sex marriages will be declared repugnant to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Don't you really mean that if the Court rules in accordance with Debra_Law's interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, then all state constitutional ammendments and laws that prohibit same-sex marriages will be declared repugnant to the Supreme Law of the Land?

Clearly the application of law is an interpretive process, which while relying heavily on past interpretations, does not exclude a fresh look.

0 Replies

Geez, Finn, she said she believes it to be, that would imply that it is indeed her interpretation, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

Re: Missouri voters ban gay marriage

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Don't you really mean that if the Court rules in accordance with Debra_Law's interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, then all state constitutional ammendments and laws that prohibit same-sex marriages will be declared repugnant to the Supreme Law of the Land?

Clearly the application of law is an interpretive process, which while relying heavily on past interpretations, does not exclude a fresh look.

I stand by my analysis. The U.S. Supreme Court recently took a "fresh look" at the issues and set aside its erroneous views set forth in Hardwick v. Bowers. By the way, the Court's recent ruling concerning the unconstitutional criminalization of private homosexual conduct is but one of many cases that foreshadow the outcome that I have predicted.

It might be years before the issue ever reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, so only time will tell. When the Court rules as I believe it will, then I will come back and say: "I told you so."

LOL

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Geez, Finn, she said she believes it to be, that would imply that it is indeed her interpretation, wouldn't it?

I read her statement as it was presented and in conjunction with her declaration that the Supreme Court is cowardly. This strongly suggests to me that she is of the opinion that her opinion is dictum and that should the Supreme Court refuse to address it, it is born of cowardice and not jurisprudence.

In any case my posting took the form of a question and invites Debra to respond. It is amusing to consider that she, as a lawyer might, need you to serve as her defense counsel, notwithstanding your fine qualifications for the role.

0 Replies

Re: Missouri voters ban gay marriage

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Don't you really mean that if the Court rules in accordance with Debra_Law's interpretation of the Supreme Law of the Land, then all state constitutional ammendments and laws that prohibit same-sex marriages will be declared repugnant to the Supreme Law of the Land?

Clearly the application of law is an interpretive process, which while relying heavily on past interpretations, does not exclude a fresh look.

I stand by my analysis.

Fair enough. I wouldn't suggest that you do otherwise. A proper advocate should never reveal uncertainty in his or her position.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently took a "fresh look" at the issues and set aside its erroneous views set forth in Hardwick v. Bowers. By the way, the Court's recent ruling concerning the unconstitutional criminalization of private homosexual conduct is but one of many cases that foreshadow the outcome that I have predicted.

It might be years before the issue ever reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, so only time will tell. When the Court rules as I believe it will, then I will come back and say: "I told you so."

And it might be years more before it returns to the US Supreme Court for a second bite at the apple and a "fresh look." In any case "I told you so" is always available within a living law.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

littlek wrote:
Geez, Finn, she said she believes it to be, that would imply that it is indeed her interpretation, wouldn't it?

In any case my posting took the form of a question and invites Debra to respond. It is amusing to consider that she, as a lawyer might, need you to serve as her defense counsel, notwithstanding your fine qualifications for the role.

I'd be glad if you were actually amused, somehow I doubt that you were.

0 Replies

read better . . .

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

littlek wrote:
Geez, Finn, she said she believes it to be, that would imply that it is indeed her interpretation, wouldn't it?

I read her statement as it was presented and in conjunction with her declaration that the Supreme Court is cowardly. This strongly suggests to me that she is of the opinion that her opinion is dictum and that should the Supreme Court refuse to address it, it is born of cowardice and not jurisprudence.

In any case my posting took the form of a question and invites Debra to respond. It is amusing to consider that she, as a lawyer might, need you to serve as her defense counsel, notwithstanding your fine qualifications for the role.

Finn:

You are attributing words to my mouth that I never said and you are placing your own skewed spin on the words I did say to the point of misrepresentation. On the other hand, I appreciate littlek's understanding of what I said--and littlek can come to my defense any time! Thank you, littlek.

0 Replies

Sure thing, Debra. It was the least I could do considering how much I rely on you to say all the things I wish I could say on subjects like this.

0 Replies

You're so nice!
Smile

0 Replies

Re: Missouri voters ban gay marriage

Debra_Law wrote:

The U.S. Supreme Court recently took a "fresh look" at the issues and set aside its erroneous views set forth in Hardwick v. Bowers. By the way, the Court's recent ruling concerning the unconstitutional criminalization of private homosexual conduct is but one of many cases that foreshadow the outcome that I have predicted.

In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged its prior mistake: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

Here's the link to the case:

LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS

It's an interesting read for people interested in constitutional law.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
littlek wrote:
Geez, Finn, she said she believes it to be, that would imply that it is indeed her interpretation, wouldn't it?

In any case my posting took the form of a question and invites Debra to respond. It is amusing to consider that she, as a lawyer might, need you to serve as her defense counsel, notwithstanding your fine qualifications for the role.

I'd be glad if you were actually amused, somehow I doubt that you were.

Oh, believe me, I was.

So, be glad.

0 Replies

Re: read better . . .

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
littlek wrote:
Geez, Finn, she said she believes it to be, that would imply that it is indeed her interpretation, wouldn't it?

I read her statement as it was presented and in conjunction with her declaration that the Supreme Court is cowardly. This strongly suggests to me that she is of the opinion that her opinion is dictum and that should the Supreme Court refuse to address it, it is born of cowardice and not jurisprudence.

In any case my posting took the form of a question and invites Debra to respond. It is amusing to consider that she, as a lawyer might, need you to serve as her defense counsel, notwithstanding your fine qualifications for the role.

Finn:

You are attributing words to my mouth that I never said and you are placing your own skewed spin on the words I did say to the point of misrepresentation. On the other hand, I appreciate littlek's understanding of what I said--and littlek can come to my defense any time! Thank you, littlek.

What words did I misattribute? You didn't accuse the Supreme Court of cowardice? The rest is my interpretation of your words.

Interesting that in your hands, interpretation is analysis and in mine it is spin and misrepresentation.

0 Replies

If only you could read.
Finn:

I didn't magically conjure up Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence out of thin air. My analysis concerning the issue of state prohibitions of same-sex marriages is based upon an application of the law to the facts. I didn't make up either the law or the facts.

On the other hand, you took one of my statements completely out of context, put your own spin on it, made it a "declaration" when it was not, and then conjured up opinions out of thin air and attributed those opinions to me.

I don't see how you can compare my analysis of the law to your complete misrepresentation of my statements.

0 Replies

It still seems funny how so many people believe in applying laws differently to different people is somehow ok as long as their view is considered the correct one. I bring up what I consider a valid eventuality based on what Debra believes should happen and suddenly everyone seems to think it is ok to prohibit people from marrying without any legit government interest, yet for gays the government has a legit interest. Just wondering how.

It has been mentioned about the reason would have to do with birth defects in children between closely related people as being the reason the government can prohibit a brother and sister from marrying. Why is that a strong enough reason for the government to prohibit a marriage? Just because someone here says it is? Well, with that reasoning, just because some authorities say that gay marriages MAY lead to children being brought up in less than ideal circumstances should lead us to drawing the conclusion that the government has a legit interest in banning gay marriage. But of course most of you here will argue that point.

But again, the issue of children is not an issue if we are talking about 2 brothers who wish to marry. But allowing that is clearly a case of discrimination against a brother and sister marrying, which is exactly the argument being used to allow gays to marry. Better yet, in order to get around inheritance taxes, what issue would the government have if I married my 80 year old mother? Certainly not an issue of offspring, so I guess that is ok, right?

Debra, you also have not addressed why marrying 2 women would be illegal. Under what legit government interest would deny me that right? Other than the fact that I would be nuts to want to put up with 2 women in the house?

Again, I don't really know where all this will lead. And of course all I have written is conjecture. But society being what it is today, it would be a good bet that these questions would have to be answered, and I cannot see a court being able to deny one group of constituents the rights of marriage after legalizing marriage for another group based on charges of discrimination.

0 Replies

Missouri voters ban gay marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know