Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

Indiana must recognize gay marriage: judge - Chicago Tribune

Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage


Indiana must recognize immediately a terminally ill gay woman's marriage to her partner in Massachusetts, a federal judge ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Richard Young entered a temporary restraining order that requires the state to recognize the August 2013 marriage of Amy Sandler and her ailing spouse, Nikole Quasney, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2009. Quasney and Sandler, both 37, joined a pending challenge by several same-sex couples to Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage and ban on recognizing legal marriages of gay couples performed in other jurisdictions. They asked Young in late March to enter an emergency order to force Indiana to recognize their marriage and, should Quasney die, require officials to issue a death certificate that lists Sandler as surviving spouse.



Quasney has undergone multiple surgeries and aggressive chemotherapy since her diagnosis. The ban on recognizing same-sex marriages hinders her ability to seek medical treatment in Indiana because she does not want to go to hospitals that don't consider Sandler her family, attorneys for the women said in court papers. Federal judges in other states also have entered orders requiring states to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples wed in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal. Momentum has grown toward making same-sex marriage legal since the U.S. Supreme Court in June struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that legally married same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits.

Click to expand...

Back Up links
Federal judge orders Indiana to recognize marriage of gay couple before 1 partner dies | Star Tribune
Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage | Reuters
Judge tells Indiana to recognize one same-sex marriage

Another partial victory. THere are other couples suing in this case and more though.

This is exactly what i said would happen once DOMA fell. SO many case would come up that would inevitably force lawsuits for the mistreatment of people. Examples of hospital visitation, property rights, etc etc. Dont know if there was any hospitals they had to avoid because they didnt treat this couple as married but its grossly despicable that ANY hospital would do something so ignorant, evil and disrespectful.

Its also a disgrace that a couple of 13years married with kids in another state wouldnt be granted thier rights and protection in another state. I literally have no idea how anybody thinks they have a legit defense to deny thier fellow americans like this equal rights.

the good news is theres only 4 states left that arent having this challenged by either lawsuit or legislation. Just 4.

Since the fall of DOMA there 10 states granted equal rights and another 5 in stay pending an equal rights granting.
30 federal judges have ruled that marriage is a constitutional right and for equality
There are over 60 more cases in progress and 44 of them are in federal courts.
This equal and civil rights battle wont be going one much longer, equality is racking up win after win and it will be national soon!

I hope they win and that their case will be used as a precedent to legalize all other such unions in states where gay marriage is not yet allowed. There is not one single justifiable reason why government should not recognize the union of two consenting gay adults in the same manner it recognizes the unions of two consenting straight adults. Not one. Churches can justify their dogma and morality all they want and that is their constitutionally given right, I could care less who they deny marriage rights to. The state, however, has no legal or moral leg to stand on when it comes to this issue. It amazes me to no end that it's taking this long in the so-called "land of the free" to settle this matter once and for all.

Arcana XV said:

I hope they win and that their case will be used as a precedent to legalize all other such unions in states where gay marriage is not yet allowed. There is not one single justifiable reason why government should not recognize the union of two consenting gay adults in the same manner it recognizes the unions of two consenting straight adults. Not one. Churches can justify their dogma and morality all they want and that is their constitutionally given right, I could care less who they deny marriage rights to. The state, however, has no legal or moral leg to stand on when it comes to this issue. It amazes me to no end that it's taking this long in the so-called "land of the free" to settle this matter once and for all.

Click to expand...

In the end, that's why SSM is a losing battle for the GOP. Individual freedom is a better argument than moral disapproval. If I had one piece of advice for the GOP, it would be to pivot the issue over to exactly that. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman but I also believe it is not the place of the government to dictate that to others for me." Bam, the left's big rallying cry du jour loses a lot of its punch. Push through nationwide marriage rights as fast as possible and take a winning issue away from Democrats.

Deuce said:

In the end, that's why SSM is a losing battle for the GOP. Individual freedom is a better argument than moral disapproval. If I had one piece of advice for the GOP, it would be to pivot the issue over to exactly that. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman but I also believe it is not the place of the government to dictate that to others for me." Bam, the left's big rallying cry du jour loses a lot of its punch. Push through nationwide marriage rights as fast as possible and take a winning issue away from Democrats.

Click to expand...

This would be the best move. On a side not many of the GOP already feel this way. Unfortunately this is only a stereotypical stance and squeaky wheel issue that just like you said, it needs to be suppressed and not let to be a platform issue like people are trying making it be.

individual freedoms, equal, human and civil rights will always trump peoples "feelings"

Arcana XV said:

There is not one single justifiable reason why government should not recognize the union of two consenting gay adults in the same manner it recognizes the unions of two consenting straight adults. Not one.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree, but that does not make an ends justify the means approach the right one. Let us be clear, there is nothing even remotely authentic about this flood of challenges to non-recognition of same-sex marriage. This is all a tactic by activist organizations who have opted for staging incidents to get favorable judicial action, recognizing it could be a very long time before more natural or democratic means could achieve the same outcome. Manipulating the system and making up completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution to push a political agenda outside of democratic processes is not something anyone should be cheering. Making the constitution say whatever you want it to say in a given case is taking a centuries-old legal document and reducing it to an Etch-a-Sketch.

Demon of Light said:

I wholeheartedly agree, but that does not make an ends justify the means approach the right one. Let us be clear, there is nothing even remotely authentic about this flood of challenges to non-recognition of same-sex marriage. This is all a tactic by activist organizations who have opted for staging incidents to get favorable judicial action, recognizing it could be a very long time before more natural or democratic means could achieve the same outcome. Manipulating the system and making up completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution to push a political agenda outside of democratic processes is not something anyone should be cheering. Making the constitution say whatever you want it to say in a given case is taking a centuries-old legal document and reducing it to an Etch-a-Sketch.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the court system and the government protecting rights is unauthentic?
What path should be taken then?
Are you also suggesting that 30 judges have been fooled by a tactic and thier (some very articulate) rulings focusing on rights and freedom are all a farce?
Also could you tell us what "completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution" you are referring too?
and then what "political agenda outside of democratic process" you are referring too?

thanks

AGENT J said:

Indiana must recognize gay marriage: judge - Chicago Tribune


Back Up links
Federal judge orders Indiana to recognize marriage of gay couple before 1 partner dies | Star Tribune
Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage | Reuters
Judge tells Indiana to recognize one same-sex marriage

Another partial victory. THere are other couples suing in this case and more though.

This is exactly what i said would happen once DOMA fell. SO many case would come up that would inevitably force lawsuits for the mistreatment of people. Examples of hospital visitation, property rights, etc etc. Dont know if there was any hospitals they had to avoid because they didnt treat this couple as married but its grossly despicable that ANY hospital would do something so ignorant, evil and disrespectful.

Its also a disgrace that a couple of 13years married with kids in another state wouldnt be granted thier rights and protection in another state. I literally have no idea how anybody thinks they have a legit defense to deny thier fellow americans like this equal rights.

the good news is theres only 4 states left that arent having this challenged by either lawsuit or legislation. Just 4.

Since the fall of DOMA there 10 states granted equal rights and another 5 in stay pending an equal rights granting.
30 federal judges have ruled that marriage is a constitutional right and for equality
There are over 60 more cases in progress and 44 of them are in federal courts.
This equal and civil rights battle wont be going one much longer, equality is racking up win after win and it will be national soon!

Click to expand...

Using this case to promote anything is pretty low class. This case is about a couple who are dealing with cancer and possible death. Dancing in the isles is extremely tasteless.

Redress said:

1.)Using this case to promote anything is pretty low class. This case is about a couple who are dealing with cancer and possible death.
2.)Dancing in the isles is extremely tasteless.

Click to expand...

1.)you are welcome to have that opinion but IMO its a PERFECT example to show why those trying to deny equal rights are so classless. It helps educated people who are so bigoted and ignorant denying rights by showing how thier hate and or want to discriminate effects REAL people and REALITY.

Many people that are clueless that think its "no big deal" or that gays "already have the same rights" or that "they arent really discriminated against in anyways that matter" can see in this case how they are factually wrong. If they cant then theres no hope for them.

Its cases just like this that actually help educate the people who just dont know.

The real low class IMO is those that arent moved by this or the hospitials that would actually deny this couple proper visitation or the people that think this is no big deal to deny them any visitation, rights or protection.


2.) good thing nobody danced in the isle that IM aware of then.

AGENT J said:

Are you suggesting the court system and the government protecting rights is unauthentic?
What path should be taken then?
Are you also suggesting that 30 judges have been fooled by a tactic and thier (some very articulate) rulings focusing on rights and freedom are all a farce?
Also could you tell us what "completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution" you are referring too?
and then what "political agenda outside of democratic process" you are referring too?

thanks

Click to expand...

No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage. It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly. Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage. Some judges may have been fooled by that phony reasoning, but I suspect a large number of them simply saw a plausible legal argument that would allow them to implement an agenda they supported before the case even came to them. Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process. Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result. Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution, it also will generate a lot more hostility.

Demon of Light said:

No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage. It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly. Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage.

Click to expand...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
-SCOTUS, 1967.

Some judges may have been fooled by that phony reasoning, but I suspect a large number of them simply saw a plausible legal argument that would allow them to implement an agenda they supported before the case even came to them. Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process. Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result. Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution, it also will generate a lot more hostility.

Click to expand...

Do you think it was also a betrayal of democracy to overturn interracial marriage bans? Overturn segregation?

The integrity of the constitution is intact. The people do not have the right to implement a law if that law is unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Demon of Light said:

I wholeheartedly agree, but that does not make an ends justify the means approach the right one. Let us be clear, there is nothing even remotely authentic about this flood of challenges to non-recognition of same-sex marriage. This is all a tactic by activist organizations who have opted for staging incidents to get favorable judicial action, recognizing it could be a very long time before more natural or democratic means could achieve the same outcome. Manipulating the system and making up completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution to push a political agenda outside of democratic processes is not something anyone should be cheering. Making the constitution say whatever you want it to say in a given case is taking a centuries-old legal document and reducing it to an Etch-a-Sketch.

Click to expand...

You are attempting to handwave the entirety of the jurisprudence on the subject without actually responding to any of it. Equal protection is not a new invention, it has specific mechanics as to how it applies and it is being applied to this question. And your side is losing. If you really think the constitutional arguments that these judges are making are wrong, why don't you post some excerpts and actually present a rebuttal?

Redress said:

Using this case to promote anything is pretty low class. This case is about a couple who are dealing with cancer and possible death. Dancing in the isles is extremely tasteless.

Click to expand...

Being happy that a family in dire times is getting the respect they deserve under the law is "tasteless?" Interesting.

Deuce said:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man."
-SCOTUS, 1967.

Click to expand...

I believe I said the constitution and not a bunch of life-time political appointees in robes.

Do you think it was also a betrayal of democracy to overturn interracial marriage bans? Overturn segregation?

The integrity of the constitution is intact. The people do not have the right to implement a law if that law is unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.

You are attempting to handwave the entirety of the jurisprudence on the subject without actually responding to any of it. Equal protection is not a new invention, it has specific mechanics as to how it applies and it is being applied to this question. And your side is losing. If you really think the constitutional arguments that these judges are making are wrong, why don't you post some excerpts and actually present a rebuttal?

Click to expand...

They aren't really making any constitutional arguments. Rarely do courts citing the constitution nowadays actually cite anything in the constitution. What they do is build and expand upon the power of the Supreme Court to basically treat the constitution like their own personal dry erase board. How about you cite me an excerpt from the constitution that says gay marriage is a right?

Demon of Light said:

I believe I said the constitution and not a bunch of life-time political appointees in robes.

Click to expand...

And I believe you said this.

Demon of Light said:

Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage.

Click to expand...

Care to retract?

Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.

Click to expand...

Oh spare me the phony indignation. The question was about the constitution, and you're using this false anger to try and hide the fact that you can't answer. Was Loving v. Virginia throwing out the constitution?

They aren't really making any constitutional arguments. Rarely do courts citing the constitution nowadays actually cite anything in the constitution. What they do is build and expand upon the power of the Supreme Court to basically treat the constitution like their own personal dry erase board. How about you cite me an excerpt from the constitution that says gay marriage is a right?

Click to expand...

Equal protection under the law. Going with your logic, the equal protection clause means absolutely nothing because it doesn't specify every single area in which equal protection must apply.

Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.

Click to expand...

Nothing is the 'same as' the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But before you get on your high horse about there being no parallels, you should remember before 2003, when the SC struck them down, it was a felony in many states for gay adults to have consensual sex in their own homes. In 2012, the AG of Virginia and candidate for Governor took efforts to maintain Virginia's never repealed sodomy laws to the SC.

What are the marriage battles about if not civil rights for homosexuals. Marriage is a big deal as far as the state goes. Laws that deny those substantial government and legal benefits to gays must be to further some significant state interest. The problem for opponents of the bans on SSM, when they testify in court, is they can't identify the state interest beyond the ability of society to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. So the judges aren't having to dig very deep or erase really anything on that dry erase board to strike down those laws. What they've decided is simple moral disapproval of SSM is NOT a sufficient basis for denying homosexuals the same right to marriage that they have consistently and repeatedly declared exists for straight couples.

They aren't really making any constitutional arguments. Rarely do courts citing the constitution nowadays actually cite anything in the constitution. What they do is build and expand upon the power of the Supreme Court to basically treat the constitution like their own personal dry erase board. How about you cite me an excerpt from the constitution that says gay marriage is a right?

Click to expand...

Where does it say interracial marriage is a right? When you find it, you'll know the answer to your question.

BTW Deuce - wasn't cribbing off your post, we were just thinking along similar lines.

Looks like Ohio just followed suit.
Judge to Ohio: Recognize out-of-state gay marriage - The Washington Post

“The record before this court ... is staggeringly devoid of any legitimate justification for the state’s ongoing arbitrary discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” Black wrote.

Demon of Light said:

1.)No one has a right to legal recognition of a marriage.
2.) It is not and was not part of the Constitution explicitly or implicitly.
3.) Even the Supreme Court has never explicitly stated that people have a right to legal recognition of a marriage.
4.) Some judges may have been fooled by that phony reasoning, but I suspect a large number of them simply saw a plausible legal argument that would allow them to implement an agenda they supported before the case even came to them.
5.)Since the court system has no meaningful democratic accountability, this is essentially manipulating the courts to circumvent the democratic process.
6.) Legislatures and even referendums are proving successful at getting same-sex marriage legalized and cultural acceptance will be easier over time as a result.
7.) Not only does this judicial approach betray democracy and attack the integrity of the constitution
8.) it also will generate a lot more hostility.

Click to expand...

1.) false, SCOTUS disagrees with you and has so many times in many rulings
2.) good thing i never claimed it was nor does it have to be
3.) also false
4.) Well before recent events 14 times SCOTUS managed marriage as a right and over 30 judges have currently ruled in favor of gay marriage so its more than a few
5.) again what democratic process are you referring too?
6.) this is true but it should not take this path since we are dealing with individual rights (legal,civil and equal) which is the whole issue
7.) again with this referral to democracy but never explaining what you are talking about.
8.) hostility is meanignless when it comes to equal rights, nobody cares about people crying over others getting the same rights.

so i will ask my questions again since they werent answered:

A.) Are you suggesting the court system and the government protecting rights is unauthentic?
B.)What path should be taken then?
C.) Are you also suggesting that 30 judges have been fooled by a tactic and their (some very articulate) rulings focusing on rights and freedom are all a farce?
D.) Also could you tell us what "completely new interpretations of the U.S. Constitution" you are referring too?
E.) What "political agenda outside of democratic process" you are referring too?

thanks, please try to answer these question this time instead of repeating your OP in a different way without actually saying anything.

Deuce said:

And I believe you said this.

Care to retract?

Click to expand...

It said nothing about legal recognition of a marriage being a right. The problem is the suggestion that marriage is strictly a legal institution. Again, the context of the interracial marriage case was that a couple legally married in one state was arrested and were banned from the state for two decades as a penalty in lieu of a prison sentence.

Oh spare me the phony indignation. The question was about the constitution, and you're using this false anger to try and hide the fact that you can't answer. Was Loving v. Virginia throwing out the constitution?

Click to expand...

You don't know how real my anger and indignation are buster. Loving v. Virginia went after laws that were used to deprive citizens of other liberties on the basis of them getting a legal marriage in another state. I do think they were gravely mistaken to effectively argue that legal recognition of marriage was a constitutional right, but in the context they were at least partly acting in response to the rather odious nature of the law itself. No such forgivable circumstances exist here. This is pure politics plain and simple.

Equal protection under the law. Going with your logic, the equal protection clause means absolutely nothing because it doesn't specify every single area in which equal protection must apply.

Click to expand...

Certainly, I recognize that something does not need to be mentioned, but it should generally be understood to have been part of the unstated rights, privileges, and immunities being protected. Legal recognition of marriage has always been considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the state legislatures, not the constitution.

JasperL said:

Nothing is the 'same as' the civil rights movement of the 1960s. But before you get on your high horse about there being no parallels, you should remember before 2003, when the SC struck them down, it was a felony in many states for gay adults to have consensual sex in their own homes.

Click to expand...

Laws that hadn't been seriously enforced for many years and most did not single out any specific group of people. The case that got it brought before the court was a rare exception and mostly the product of various actions that should have gotten them arrested anyway.

Laws that deny those substantial government and legal benefits

Click to expand...

No one has a right to those benefits.

The problem for opponents of the bans on SSM, when they testify in court, is they can't identify the state interest beyond the ability of society to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.

Click to expand...

That is their problem. It would be rather easy to make a substantive arguments about a compelling state interest, but they are too blinded by their personal bigotry to make the constitutional argument against cramming this **** down the threat of citizens who have plainly expressed their desire not to have it on numerous occasions.

So the judges aren't having to dig very deep or erase really anything on that dry erase board to strike down those laws. What they've decided is simple moral disapproval of SSM is NOT a sufficient basis for denying homosexuals the same right to marriage that they have consistently and repeatedly declared exists for straight couples.

Click to expand...

Except that same legal argument opens the door for polygamy and that isn't some bull**** argument. There is a very easy way to make the argument that banning polygamy is unconstitutional using the arguments currently being upheld by the Supreme Court.

Where does it say interracial marriage is a right? When you find it, you'll know the answer to your question.

Click to expand...

Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.

Deuce said:

Being happy that a family in dire times is getting the respect they deserve under the law is "tasteless?" Interesting.

Click to expand...

What's "tasteless" is that it's a sick woman who is fighting for the hospital to recognize her marriage.

What we really need is for a perfectly healthy hospital patient to fight for hospitals to recognize their marriage

Deuce said:

In the end, that's why SSM is a losing battle for the GOP. Individual freedom is a better argument than moral disapproval. If I had one piece of advice for the GOP, it would be to pivot the issue over to exactly that. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman but I also believe it is not the place of the government to dictate that to others for me." Bam, the left's big rallying cry du jour loses a lot of its punch. Push through nationwide marriage rights as fast as possible and take a winning issue away from Democrats.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

I do believe that captures my exact sentiments in better fashion than I could have expressed it.

Who among us wants the state in our bedrooms?

Demon of Light said:

1.)It said nothing about legal recognition of a marriage being a right.
2.) The problem is the suggestion that marriage is strictly a legal institution.
3.) Again, the context of the interracial marriage case was that a couple legally married in one state was arrested and were banned from the state for two decades as a penalty in lieu of a prison sentence.
4.)You don't know how real my anger and indignation are buster. Loving v. Virginia went after laws that were used to deprive citizens of other liberties on the basis of them getting a legal marriage in another state. I do think they were gravely mistaken to effectively argue that legal recognition of marriage was a constitutional right, but in the context they were at least partly acting in response to the rather odious nature of the law itself. No such forgivable circumstances exist here. This is pure politics plain and simple.
5.)Certainly, I recognize that something does not need to be mentioned, but it should generally be understood to have been part of the unstated rights, privileges, and immunities being protected. Legal recognition of marriage has always been considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the state legislatures, not the constitution.
6.)That is their problem. It would be rather easy to make a substantive arguments about a compelling state interest, but they are too blinded by their personal bigotry to make the constitutional argument against cramming this **** down the threat of citizens who have plainly expressed their desire not to have it on numerous occasions.
7.)Except that same legal argument opens the door for polygamy and that isn't some bull**** argument. There is a very easy way to make the argument that banning polygamy is unconstitutional using the arguments currently being upheld by the Supreme Court.
8.)Right next to where it says any legal recognition of a marriage is a right presumably. In other words, nowhere.

Click to expand...

1.) marriage is a right so we can just move on from that fact
2.) thats no problem at all because for this discussion thats ALL marriage is. THis is about legal marriage and rights and nothing else has any merit.
3.) the content was that it violated individual rights and was denying equal and civil rights hence it was thrown out. Same issue with the banning against gay marriage. And many rulings have now referred to this also.
4.) again what fallacy do you base this on?Id say denying people equal and civil rights and allowing this type of illegal discrimination is definitely worthy. How you ever convince yourself they are different is beyond me. THis is probably why you never been try to explain it. Because your position is an indefensible one.The reality and fact is its about rights, plain and simple.
5.) UNLESS they violated individual rights, THis is a very basic concept. State rights are fully intact until they violate individual rights now the fed is stepping in and fixing it just like with minority rights and women rights and interracial marriage etc. etc. THis is no new concept.
wow thats dishonest, so nobody has the right to have government protect their contract or property rights etc etc. Because there are many things marriage is about, Its a contract and government is needed to protect it and it helps protect other right
6.) actually its not they all fail because none of them are worthy of violating peoples rights. ANd now que the conspiracy theories and catch phrase "ram it down the throats" lol what a joke. Nobody honest and educated buys that comedy. It was used for minority rights and womens rights and interracial marriage in the past. It failed and got laughed at just like now because it has ZERO logical or honest merit. Bigots and those who favor discrimination can cry all they want thier voice dont matter to rights of others.
7.) False, while im find if polygamist want to fight for a new right, I support them but there no sole legal precedence set by homosexual marriage that allows itself to polygamy. But again, legally i have zero problem with polygamy as long as it follows the same rules as marriage. Legal consenting adults :shrug:
8.) hence why your strawman fails.

let me know when you are ready to answer those questions you keep dodging.

Demon of Light said:

Of course, you lot think it is the same as the civil rights movement, which really pisses me the **** off. I doubt you even know the ****ing details of the **** you so sanctimoniously invoke. Segregation was being explicitly mandated by law and Loving v. Virginia was an appeal of a criminal verdict where a couple who married in a state where it was legal were arrested and sentenced to two decades of exile from a state where it was illegal for living together as a married couple in that state. Any comparison to the mere lack of recognition for same-sex marriage is not only absurd, but insulting. These cases bear no resemblance to that case as that was an actual injustice for several reasons and it was not some blatant organized campaign like these cases.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you, personally, get offended over the Loving decision being compared. I'll continue to hold onto what Mildred Loving herself said concerning the issue:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to
have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no
matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over
others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so
many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about. "

So you can take your sanctimonious claiming of HER court case and what it really means and go whine all you like.

Marriage is not anywhere in the Constitution, but equal protection is. As long as the government recognizes any marriage, equal protection means it should recognize all. And frankly, it should be dealt with as a religious freedom issue as well. Why should the pastor of one church have the ceremony he performs be recognized and a different pastor performing the same ceremony not have the same standing?

wow talk about tramping all over state soverenty. who the hell does this judge think he is.

i guess this judge needs a lesson on the 10th amendment. technically he just violated the 10th amendment.
he should be dismissed from the bench and removed for failure to uphold the constitution which is a failure of office.

I think these judges need to go back to law school so they understand the constitution and their job to uphold the constitution.
they seem to have forgotten that.

these cases should be dismissed as these people do not have standing to sue.

ludin said:

wow talk about tramping all over state soverenty. who the hell does this judge think he is.

i guess this judge needs a lesson on the 10th amendment. technically he just violated the 10th amendment.
he should be dismissed from the bench and removed for failure to uphold the constitution which is a failure of office.

I think these judges need to go back to law school so they understand the constitution and their job to uphold the constitution.
they seem to have forgotten that.

these cases should be dismissed as these people do not have standing to sue.

Click to expand...

can you provide any facts on your claim that the 10th was violated?

AGENT J said:

can you provide any facts on your claim that the 10th was violated?

Click to expand...

The 10th amendment is also known as the state sovereignty act. It basically says one state cannot pass a law that tells another state what to do and that other states do not have
to acknowledge laws in other states.

it means that if i am your neighbor state i can't pass a law that says we are going to dump all our trash in your state.

It means that MA law on gay marriage has no standing in IN as IN doesn't recognized gay marriage. the only law that can supersede state law is federal law. since there is no federal law on the right for gay marriage then by default the judge has to resort back to state law.

By saying the IN who has a constitutional act no less that a law passed in MA can supercede it he basically says that MA can pass any law they want and any state has to recognize that law.

ludin said:

The 10th amendment is also known as the state sovereignty act. It basically says one state cannot pass a law that tells another state what to do and that other states do not have
to acknowledge laws in other states.

it means that if i am your neighbor state i can't pass a law that says we are going to dump all our trash in your state.

It means that MA law on gay marriage has no standing in IN as IN doesn't recognized gay marriage. the only law that can supersede state law is federal law. since there is no federal law on the right for gay marriage then by default the judge has to resort back to state law.

By saying the IN who has a constitutional act no less that a law passed in MA can supercede it he basically says that MA can pass any law they want and any state has to recognize that law.

Click to expand...

hmm interesting
can you show me the part of this ruling that says IN must listen to MA?
or any other state must listen to MA?


so just making an example up so you can further help me understand, so now because of this ruling if MA allows rape, IN has to allow it?