State (Nevada) re-evaluates defense of gay marriage ban

[AGENT J]

State re-evaluates defense of gay marriage ban

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto says she’s re-evaluating the state’s defense of its ban on gay marriage after a new ruling by a federal appeals court.

Masto said the state’s arguments in the case “are likely no longer tenable” after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a separate case that it’s unconstitutional to exclude jurors based on sexual orientation.

“The Ninth Circuit’s new decision ... appears to impact the equal protection and due process arguments made on behalf of the state,” she said.
The state’s brief argued that the Nevada law defining marriage as between a man and woman “is legitimate, whether measured under equal protection or due process standards.”[

Back-up Links:
AG re-evaluates defense of gay marriage ban - My News 4 - KRNV, Reno, NV
AG re-evaluates Nev. defense of gay marriage ban - San Antonio Express-News
Nevada AG re-evaluating defense of marriage ban - Washington Blade - America's Leading Gay News Source : Washington Blade – America's Leading Gay News Source


First PA's AG
then a judge in NJ
then a VA's AG
and now maybe NVs AG

based on a mix of DOMA, the 14th thier own state constitutions and now the recent ruling about hetero/homosexuality not being able to be used to discriminate on juries and how those rulings impact all the previously mentioned and standards.

The dominoes in the road to equal rights keep falling and many are wobbling, it wont be long!

 

[Wiseone]

I like the quote about how the law is still legitimate, even though they can't defend it

 

[AGENT J]

I like the quote about how the law is still legitimate, even though they can't defend it

well thats how it works even in the other cases (barring the judge)

all the other APs are still enforcing the law, but they will not personally defend its constitutionality in court and some after judicial review are joining against suits questioning its constitutionality and infringement on equality

per law and oaths i dont believe any AG can just totally abandon the laws they still have to fulfill thier oaths, jobs ad law and so far they all are. ANd this is a GOOD thing if they could just abandon the laws that would be anarchy.

ALso the quote is what NV did and now they are questioning it.

 

[reinoe]

It's in the state constitution. I believe that states have the right to determine what marriage is and is not. Unfortunately marriage is intertwined with federal laws regarding taxation and other such things when it shouldn't.

 

[AGENT J]

It's in the state constitution. I believe that states have the right to determine what marriage is and is not. Unfortunately marriage is intertwined with federal laws regarding taxation and other such things when it shouldn't.

States have the right to do a lot of things unless it violates individual rights, see woman and minority rights and see interracial marriage.

 

[roguenuke]

It's in the state constitution. I believe that states have the right to determine what marriage is and is not. Unfortunately marriage is intertwined with federal laws regarding taxation and other such things when it shouldn't.

Bans on interracial marriage and segregation were in the constitutions of some states up into the 1990s and later. States do not have the right to tell people what kind of relationships they should be in when the state cannot show harm to someone else or make restrictions on legal relationships due to arbitrary reasons. Marriage establishes legal kinship. Even without the federal government involved, establishing a spouse is an important kinship to establish and should not be limited by the arbitrary/bigoted views of others.

 

[Deuce]

It's in the state constitution. I believe that states have the right to determine what marriage is and is not. Unfortunately marriage is intertwined with federal laws regarding taxation and other such things when it shouldn't.

The states don't have a right to make gender-based classifications without showing an "important state interest" and demonstrating that the classification is "substantially related" to that interest. (Intermediate constitutional scrutiny)

Given recent SCOTUS rulings, an argument is being raised that heightened scrutiny should be applied, raising the bar to compelling state interest and a measure "narrowly tailored" to meeting that interest, in the least restrictive way.

I dont think same-sex marriage bans can meet even a rational basis test, let alone intermediate or strict constitutional scrutiny.

 

[j-mac]

How many different threads do we need on this topic...? Maybe it should have its own sub forum or something.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's in the state constitution. I believe that states have the right to determine what marriage is and is not. Unfortunately marriage is intertwined with federal laws regarding taxation and other such things when it shouldn't.

In that case Richard Loving and Mildred (Jeter) Loving would not have been allowed to marry because Virginia (along with other States) that a white man and and black woman was not a marriage.

BTW - At the time that the ban was struck down Alabama was one of the States that had such a ban in their State Constitution.



>>>>>

 

[AGENT J]

How many different threads do we need on this topic...? Maybe it should have its own sub forum or something.

not all quite the same but that would be fine by me, maybe you should ask the mods that in the feedback/suggestion part if thats what you want.

 

[Deuce]

How many different threads do we need on this topic...? Maybe it should have its own sub forum or something.

How many threads did we need on Benghazi conspiracies?