The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

woiyo wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

You're wrong. The California supreme court's ruling does not have any federal constitutional implications.

Sure it does.

When the gay couple gets married in Ca and goes home to a State that will not recognize the marriage, they can sue at the Federal Level which could ultimately lead to the USSC.

If that were the case it would have happened several hundred times already. There are several thousand G/L couples that have married here in MA and now reside in other states that don't recognize their marriages. The Federal courts have no jurisdiction...

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

Really? Then I have a question for you. If the opponents of the California ruling want the Supreme Court sack it, they will have to claim that the state of California violated the US constitution with this ruling. What provision of the US constitution will they claim California to have violated?

Can't say. But if I was arguing the case, it would have be on the basis of a state (or the federal government) having the right to attach a legal definition to just about anything and having it stick. I believe research would show marriage to be legally defined just about everywhere. At the time of the California ruling, the California law still defined marriage as a contractual relationship, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman and all provisions of and restrictions related to such contract are equally applicable to any and all citizens. Therefore there was no equal protection issue involved and the California Court acted improperly.

Now I don't know if the SCOTUS can discipline a lower court, but it sure can overturn one. And it can require a lower court to justify a legal basis for a ruling such as SCOTUS did in the case of the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election.

I don't think the California Supreme Court provided a sufficient legal basis for their recent ruling and that could be the basis on which the High Court could agree to hear the case.

Based on no Constitutional basis for involvement, the High Court has already declined to hear a case in which a lower court upheld the traditional definition of marriage. That says to me that the High Court had no Constitutional problem with the law as it existed then.

0 Replies

I'm pretty sure that in matters of State jurisdiction, the CA Supreme court isn't considered a 'lower court' to the US Supreme court.

The State justice system can only be superseded by federal law, and there is no federal law banning gay marriage - because your bunch will cannot get one passed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
The issue will almost certainly be decided by SCOTUS as opponents to the ruling vow to fight on.

Really? Then I have a question for you. If the opponents of the California ruling want the Supreme Court sack it, they will have to claim that the state of California violated the US constitution with this ruling. What provision of the US constitution will they claim California to have violated?

Can't say. But if I was arguing the case, it would have be on the basis of a state (or the federal government) having the right to attach a legal definition to just about anything and having it stick. I believe research would show marriage to be legally defined just about everywhere. At the time of the California ruling, the California law still defined marriage as a contractual relationship, recognized by the state, between one man and one woman and all provisions of and restrictions related to such contract are equally applicable to any and all citizens. Therefore there was no equal protection issue involved and the California Court acted improperly.

You'd get laughed out of the courthouse the minute you filed the case. Pretty much every suit filed against a state is based on the interpretation of definitions. Most court rulings that go against a State are cases where the existing defintions didn't "stick".

Quote:

Now I don't know if the SCOTUS can discipline a lower court, but it sure can overturn one. And it can require a lower court to justify a legal basis for a ruling such as SCOTUS did in the case of the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 election.

It can overturn one IF there are Federal grounds - as there was in Bush v. Gore. You haven't come up with a Federal issue to argue under here yet...

Quote:

Based on no Constitutional basis for involvement, the High Court has already declined to hear a case in which a lower court upheld the traditional deifnition of marriage. That says to me that the High Court had no Constitutional problem with the law as it existed then.

Errr... no. It says that the Court recognized that they have no jurisdiction - not that they approved of the law as it existed. That's what "no Constitutional basis for involvement" means. And if they saw that they didn't have jurisdiction in that case what makes you think they'll change their minds and decide that they have jurisdiction in this one?

0 Replies

It won't be decided on the issue of gay marriage. It will be decided on the right of a governing body to designate the terms of a legal contract.

0 Replies

Fishin writes

Quote:

Errr... no. It says that the Court recognized that they have no jurisdiction - not that they approved of the law as it existed. That's what "no Constitutional basis for involvement" means. And if they saw that they didn't have jurisdiction in that case what makes you think they'll change their minds and decide that they have jurisdiction in this one?

Right. The state law as it existed did not violate a federal Constitutional principle and therefore the High Court did not have jurisdiction. There was no problem with the law as it was written. Had there been an issue of equal rights or civil rights, etc., the high court would have had jurisdiction.

0 Replies

I have a feeling that no amount of actual knowledge of the court system would effect this conversation in any way...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, I've at least read up on it. And looked at some cases in which SCOTUS overruled the state courts and those in which SCOTUS decided they had no jurisdiction. Joe may be right that it won't be this particular case that makes it to SCOTUS but sooner or later SCOTUS will have to rule on this issue unless Congress passes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

And looking at some of those other cases, I can see how a smart advocacy group might be able to get this one there too.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, I've at least read up on it. And looked at some cases in which SCOTUS overruled the state courts and those in which SCOTUS decided they had no jurisdiction. Joe may be right that it won't be this particular case that makes it to SCOTUS but sooner or later SCOTUS will have to rule on this issue unless Congress passes a Constitutional amendment defining marriage.

And looking at some of those other cases, I can see how a smart advocacy group might be able to get this one there too.

You'd better hope they don't, or Gay Marriage will be legalized throughout the land.

There is no existing legal precedent for favoring your 'traditions,' Fox. Equality carries far more weight under the law then your personal morality. There's a reason that courts have been finding bans against Gay Marriage to be unconstitutional, and it isn't because the courts don't know how the law works.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It won't be decided on the issue of gay marriage. It will be decided on the right of a governing body to designate the terms of a legal contract.

No, it won't. And arguments like this are what would get you laughed out of the courthouse.

0 Replies

I have not brought my personal opinions on what a marriage should be nor any form of morality into this in any sense. You just don't grasp the concept of red herring do you, Cyclop.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have not brought my personal opinions on what a marriage should be nor any form of morality into this in any sense. You just don't grasp the concept of red herring do you, Cyclop.

mmm hmm, who exactly do you think you're kidding?

This is a long thread and your views are on record for all to see.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
It won't be decided on the issue of gay marriage. It will be decided on the right of a governing body to designate the terms of a legal contract.

No, it won't. And arguments like this are what would get you laughed out of the courthouse.

Maybe so. But this isn't any more far fetched than some other cases I've read. I do not claim to have any special training in the law nor any form of expertise. But Roe v Wade was not decided on the issue of abortion, either, but rather on the definition of those afforded Constitutional protection and an unborn fetus did not apply.

So I don't think I'm too far out in left field when I think it possible that the issue of same sex marriage may be decided on some basis other than same sex marriage.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe so. But this isn't any more far fetched than some other cases I've read.

It would appear that you don't understand what the basis was for any of the cases you've read so I don't see how you can judge what is or isn't far fetched.

Foxfyre wrote:

So I don't think I'm too far out in left field when I think it possible that the issue of same sex marriage may be decided on some basis other than same sex marriage.

You don't? Then why is it that you can't seem to come up with a Constitutional prinicple that such a case might arise under?

0 Replies

Look Fishin, you seem to be spoiling for a fight and I'm not. I expressed an opinion that may or may not be justified. If you don't like the basis I've already provided, it is unlikely that I'll come up with one you'll like better. Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Or any kind of lawyer? If so, I'll bow to your superior knowledge on this subject and trust that you will provide your own opinion.

Otherwise, I'll assume you're as much in the dark about what will and will not appear before SCOTUS and in what form as I am. I have been involved with the legal system sufficiently to know strange stuff happens.

But if you want to make this personal or just want to argue with somebody, pick somebody else please. I personally am quite interested in how all this shakes out and do appreciate hearing informed opinions on it. I also have my own thoughts and have expressed them. They were not intended to upset anybody.

0 Replies

When the most liberal Senator in congress, and the standard bearer for the left-wing of his party, feels compelled to stake out a posiion that marriage must be limited to a a union between one man and one woman, gays and lesbians should dispair, or, at least, cultivate patience.

Clearly, the strategy is to relentlessly chip away at cultural barriers until they fall apart, but there really is no sign that such a breakthrough is imminent.

This is not a Left vs Right issue. It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue. Activist judges can attempt to force society in a direction it does not want to follow, but over and over again we have seen that when democratic processes are allowed to prevail the issue is decided against same sex marriages.

These judges are not doing "the cause" much good.If a democratically supported statute cannot withstand an activist majority on the bench, the populace will be forced to amend constitutions - state and perhaps eventually federal. Judges don't get to overturn constitutional amendments.

With each minor victory in his battle, the pro-same sex marriage bloc pushes the general populace towards a US constitutional amendment which would be a major setback.

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When the most liberal Senator in congress, and the standard bearer for the left-wing of his party, feels compelled to stake out a posiion that marriage must be limited to a a union between one man and one woman, gays and lesbians should dispair, or, at least, cultivate patience.

Clearly, the strategy is to relentlessly chip away at cultural barriers until they fall apart, but there really is no sign that such a breakthrough is imminent.

This is not a Left vs Right issue. It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue. Activist judges can attempt to force society in a direction it does not want to follow, but over and over again we have seen that when democratic processes are allowed to prevail the issue is decided against same sex marriages.

These judges are not doing "the cause" much good.If a democratically supported statute cannot withstand an activist majority on the bench, the populace will be forced to amend constitutions - state and perhaps eventually federal. Judges don't get to overturn constitutional amendments.

With each minor victory in his battle, the pro-same sex marriage bloc pushes the general populace towards a US constitutional amendment which would be a major setback.

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

The most Liberal senator in Congress?

That's Bernie Sanders you're talking about, right?

The rest of your post is pretty much worthless

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When the most liberal Senator in congress, and the standard bearer for the left-wing of his party, feels compelled to stake out a posiion that marriage must be limited to a a union between one man and one woman, gays and lesbians should dispair, or, at least, cultivate patience.

Clearly, the strategy is to relentlessly chip away at cultural barriers until they fall apart, but there really is no sign that such a breakthrough is imminent.

This is not a Left vs Right issue. It is a Left vs the rest of the population issue. Activist judges can attempt to force society in a direction it does not want to follow, but over and over again we have seen that when democratic processes are allowed to prevail the issue is decided against same sex marriages.

These judges are not doing "the cause" much good.If a democratically supported statute cannot withstand an activist majority on the bench, the populace will be forced to amend constitutions - state and perhaps eventually federal. Judges don't get to overturn constitutional amendments.

With each minor victory in his battle, the pro-same sex marriage bloc pushes the general populace towards a US constitutional amendment which would be a major setback.

The irony of this mess is that the conventional liberal attitude towards marriage is that it is an outdated, and largely misogynist institutionn and yet it's the Holy Grail for Gays and Lesbians.

You have come very close to my core personal argument on this issue--an argument I have not used in the discussion of how and when the issue--or perhaps if--the issue will be decided by SCOTUS. My personal argument all along is that I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the gay and lesbian alliance or anybody else to come up with a civil union contract that will provide necessary protections needed by people in family groups who, for whatever reason, do not wish to or cannot marry according to the traditional definition of marriage. Such protections would allow for unrestricted shared insurance, rights of visitation, rights of inheritance, etc. etc.

But the issue of whether the people and/or the state should be able to define the legal defintion of a marriage contract or any other contract is the issue here. And that is unrelated to any other issue so far as I am concerned.

0 Replies

So we can give them all the same rights as marriage, but we can't let them call it marriage, because...?

My guess is because you feel it would dirty the concept up for all the straights out there, if gays were allowed to call it the same thing. Yup. There's no other logical explanation for why someone would be willing to grant all the rights associated with something but insist that it be called something else.

Your homophobia is showing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclop I'm not going to fight with you over this either. You too often are incapable of arguing any issue on its merits. So pick on somebody else. I'm just not in the mood for sophomoric name calling today. Thank you.

0 Replies

The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know