Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban

DVSentinel said:

As I've already said, if you'd bother to read it.

"You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is."

"Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc."

Click to expand...

Well, according to you, the constitution doesn't say taxes and benefits have to be the same based on marital status, therefore you have no constitutional complaint on the matter.

According to me, tax breaks to promote stable family units are a sufficiently important state interest to have slightly unequal taxation on the basis of marital status.

Deuce said:

Well, according to you, the constitution doesn't say taxes and benefits have to be the same based on marital status, therefore you have no constitutional complaint on the matter.

According to me, tax breaks to promote stable family units are a sufficiently important state interest to have slightly unequal taxation on the basis of marital status.

Click to expand...

OK, but how does that square with subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? Clearly the "safety net" system does not favor stable family units since much of it goes to those that are not.

DVSentinel said:

Almost as hard as understanding the arguments of someone who believes everyone who is productive and creative has a "civic duty" to provide luxuries and a living to the non-productive, lazy and stupid.

Click to expand...

Almost everyone, even poor people, are the former. Almost no one is, though even some rich people are, the latter. We are not a nation of half hardworking people and half lazy people. We are a nation of almost entirely hardworking people. But some hardworking people are still getting a disproportionately tiny share of the pie. That's not right.

Demon of Light said:

Only when they are actually covered by the Constitution. I know. I know. "But, but, equal protection! Prior Supreme Court rulings! Authoriteh!" I, however, am talking about what the Constitution actually says and actually covers as opposed to what a bunch of unelected life-term appointees have decreed it says and covers. Just because you are getting your way with this ruling does not magically mean those same unelected life-term appointees won't decree it says and covers something you do not wish it did. How many people cheering these rulings were outraged by Citizens United? You can't have it both ways. Either the decrees of the judges are all that matters or the Constitution itself is what matters and the judges should adhere to it rather than serving as de-facto legislative body.

Click to expand...

It also says that they have the final say in determining how it applies. Any argument that relies on denying the authority of the court means denying the authority that empowers it.

DVSentinel said:

As I've already said, if you'd bother to read it.

"You also don't seem to understand the difference between a "right" and what politicians, especially those of a socialist bend, call rights. There are very few things that are truly rights. As far as laws go, they are totally dependent upon who holds political offices at a given time and can only represent those politicians views of what is a "right" and are not necessarily factual about what really is."

"Taxation and benefits should be the same whether married or single, normal or homosexual, regardless of race, creed, religion, etc,etc."

Click to expand...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, but how does that square with subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? Clearly the "safety net" system does not favor stable family units since much of it goes to those that are not.

Click to expand...

Helping provide for children is a clear state interest, wouldn't you agree?

Deuce said:

Helping provide for children is a clear state interest, wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

No. Now which is the clear state interest, promoting stable families or subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? If having stable families is the goal then subsidies should be reduced for other than stable family structures.

DVSentinel said:

1.)How about instead I provide just as much FACTUAL proof as you have.
2.)Oh, wait, that would mean I would have to present none at all.

Click to expand...

Thats what i thought, you cant, you got nothing so you continue to dodge and have your posts further destroyed lol
1.) PLEASE PLEASE do this, that would be AWESOME!
2.) another lie that nobody educated, honest and objective buys lol

let us know when you can defend your failed and false claims, thanks, we are waiting/

Deuce said:

You've got this strange idea that there's a singular set of rules the wording of the Constitution provides. So Equal Protection doesn't mention marriage... well, it doesn't mention anything specific. Does that mean it doesn't cover anything, or that it covers everything? How about the second amendment? The right to bear arms. You have two, I presume, attached to your shoulders. Are you telling me you interpret that to protect gun ownership? I suppose you want activist judges to protect that "right," eh?

If you say homosexuals already have equal protection under the law, and I say they don't, why does your opinion count and not mine?

And you know what? Yeah, I do want an unelected set of people to rule on these things. That way, we can pick good people who will rule on real legal reasoning instead of pandering to the tyrannical whims of the majority or our partisan, two-party system. I don't think 51% of the population should get to vote on **** regarding my personal freedom. Do you?

Click to expand...

There are honest ways to interpret a legal document and dishonest ways. It is widely understood what "arms" meant in the second amendment. Equal protection, at the time it was put in the Constitution, was conceived as protection from people being given different treatment under the law on the basis of something like racial heritage. As it was applied, that meant laws that explicitly targeted one group for penalties in a way meant to deprive that group of life, liberty, or property, was unconstitutional. No one is being penalized by non-recognition of gay marriage. Equal protection means the laws should protect and penalize everyone equally without discriminating. Non-recognition of gay marriage denies people certain benefits or privileges, but it does not penalize them nor does it deny them the equal protection of the laws. What has happened is that judges have increasingly moved away from the constitution and instead begun to focus primarily on finding wording in past court rulings that can be interpreted to justify whatever policy objective is currently desired by the establishment. Courts are increasingly avoiding interpreting the Constitution and instead are interpreting past rulings that are themselves interpretations of past rulings.

Paschendale said:

It also says that they have the final say in determining how it applies. Any argument that relies on denying the authority of the court means denying the authority that empowers it.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. It allows them to review how the law applies to cases brought before it as it should, but it in no way makes the courts the sole and exclusive lords of the Constitution. That power grab was itself an act of judges "interpreting" the Constitution to make it say something it did not say.

ttwtt78640 said:

No. Now which is the clear state interest, promoting stable families or subsidizing out of wedlock childbirth? If having stable families is the goal then subsidies should be reduced for other than stable family structures.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy, and a blatant misrepresentation of social safety nets. Come on man, we both know you're better than this.

Demon of Light said:

No, it does not. It allows them to review how the law applies to cases brought before it as it should, but it in no way makes the courts the sole and exclusive lords of the Constitution. That power grab was itself an act of judges "interpreting" the Constitution to make it say something it did not say.

Click to expand...

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

All cases, including ones which ask a fundamental constitutional question. Including ones which assert the unconstitutionality of a law. Including ones about interpreting our fundamental rights. "All cases" means all cases. Judicial review is in the constitution.

Paschendale said:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

All cases, including ones which ask a fundamental constitutional question. Including ones which assert the unconstitutionality of a law. Including ones about interpreting our fundamental rights. "All cases" means all cases. Judicial review is in the constitution.

Click to expand...

Then why are so many cases denied that review based on lack of "standing" or just plain old lack of interest? Allowing the opinion of a particular judge to trump law using stays is not in the constitution.

Paschendale said:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,"

All cases, including ones which ask a fundamental constitutional question. Including ones which assert the unconstitutionality of a law. Including ones about interpreting our fundamental rights. "All cases" means all cases. Judicial review is in the constitution.

Click to expand...

That basically means the courts can rule on all cases brought to it under federal law on the basis of the law. In no way does that translate to "has absolute and unquestioned power over the Constitution's meaning and purposes" as it is regarded today.

ttwtt78640 said:

Then why are so many cases denied that review based on lack of "standing" or just plain old lack of interest? Allowing the opinion of a particular judge to trump law using stays is not in the constitution.

Click to expand...

I don't have the time or interest to explain standing to you, but it has nothing to do with the court and everything to do with the petitioner's relationship to the case.

Demon of Light said:

That basically means the courts can rule on all cases brought to it under federal law on the basis of the law. In no way does that translate to "has absolute and unquestioned power over the Constitution's meaning and purposes" as it is regarded today.

Click to expand...

If it were regarded or used that way, then you might have a point.

Demon of Light said:

There are honest ways to interpret a legal document and dishonest ways. It is widely understood what "arms" meant in the second amendment. Equal protection, at the time it was put in the Constitution, was conceived as protection from people being given different treatment under the law on the basis of something like racial heritage. As it was applied, that meant laws that explicitly targeted one group for penalties in a way meant to deprive that group of life, liberty, or property, was unconstitutional. No one is being penalized by non-recognition of gay marriage.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly Edith Windsor, of United States v. Windsor, would have had to pay over $350,000 in taxes that would not have been required for a different-sex couple in the same legal status.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married and would have been subject to significant loss of property as a result of their non-recognition of their same-sex marriage.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

If I remember correctly Edith Windsor, of United States v. Windsor, would have had to pay over $350,000 in taxes that would not have been required for a different-sex couple in the same legal status.

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married and would have been subject to significant loss of property as a result of their non-recognition of their same-sex marriage.



>>>>

Click to expand...

The DOMA case is different as that was the federal government interfering with the affairs of the states. It was intended to undermine the laws of the states on a matter where the federal government had no constitutional authority.

To the unjust Judge, the dishonorable Chris Piazza, who fears neither God nor any man:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires"

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Please sir, just leave, go to some Godless state like New York, you will never be elected in Arkansas again, the House may even impeach you.

Oh, and may you never bear fruit again.

Paleocon said:

To the unjust Judge, the dishonorable Chris Piazza, who fears neither God nor any man:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires"

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Please sir, just leave, go to some Godless state like New York, you will never be elected in Arkansas again, the House may even impeach you.

Oh, and may you never bear fruit again.

Click to expand...

how dare he grant same sex couples justice nothing god hates more then doing unto others what you would have them do unto you

every one curse him its what Jesus would do

Demon of Light said:

The DOMA case is different as that was the federal government interfering with the affairs of the states. It was intended to undermine the laws of the states on a matter where the federal government had no constitutional authority.

Click to expand...

#1 Excuse me, you said "No one is being penalized by non-recognition of gay marriage.", the Windsor case expressly disproves that claim in that Windsor would have been subject to over $350,000 in taxes specifically because their marriage wasn't recognized. States also have income taxes, pension benefits, empployer health insurance, the concept of "assumed parentage" on the birth of a child***, seemless (untaxed) transfer of property between spouses, "family" rates for spouses [in terms of home, auto, life, health, etc. insurance], recognition of the family relationship of a spouse in various legal matters including wrongful death, State tuition calculations for instate post-high school schools, equitable distribution of property in case of a divorce, default medical decision power as the default next-of-kin in the case of an accident and lacking a Medical Power of Attorney, etc., etc.

#2 DOMA did nothing to interfere with State tax law, it was based on Federal tax law.

#3 How could DOMA be passed to undermine the laws of the States, in 1996 when it was passed there were no States with Same-sex Civil Marriage.

#4 Article 1 Section 4 (Full Faith and Credit Clause) expressly grants Congress the power to determine the effect of public acts between the States (of which Civil Marriage is a public act) and the 16th Amendment allows the Federal government to lay and collect taxes on income. Section 2 of DOMA (which still stands BTW) falls under Article I Section 4 and Federal Tax law falls under the 16th Amendment (which impacted Section 3, the part found unconstitutional).



*******************************

*** This means that the spouses in a Civil Marriage are the legal parents upon of the birth of a child something recognized in all 50 States for different sex couples. A marriage different sex couple in California has a child, they are both legally the parents at the time of birth. They travel to Virginia, they are still both the legal parents. However for a legally marriage same-sex couple, the law doesn't function the same. Virginia passed a State Constitutional amendment barring not only Civil Marriage but any legal actions that attempt to recreate the benefits of Civil Marriage. A different-sex couple are married, they have a child, they are both the legal parents. If that couple were to visit Virginia, the non-biological parent would no longer have legal parent status as the basis of that parentage is a legal marriage that Virginia considers invalid.



>>>>

Demon of Light said:

The DOMA case is different as that was the federal government interfering with the affairs of the states. It was intended to undermine the laws of the states on a matter where the federal government had no constitutional authority.

Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment applies in the case of state laws instead of others that are used when it comes to the federal government. The states are held to the same standard of the Constitution as the federal government is. Marriage has been ruled a right, as is equal protection under the law, which means the states must still show that they have a reasonable state interest being furthered by any restriction in a law. This same exact concept has been used at least three times to strike down state marriage laws, Loving v VA, Turner v Safley, and Zablocki v Redhail.

Paleocon said:

To the unjust Judge, the dishonorable Chris Piazza, who fears neither God nor any man:

"You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father's desires"

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Please sir, just leave, go to some Godless state like New York, you will never be elected in Arkansas again, the House may even impeach you.

Oh, and may you never bear fruit again.

Click to expand...

It would be completely wrong (and most likely against some laws or rules) for them to impeach this judge for making a judgement that some or even many disagree with. It would undermine the entire point of having judges review our laws and our justice system. There is a reason we have appeals courts and even higher courts.

blarg said:

how dare he grant same sex couples justice nothing god hates more then doing unto others what you would have them do unto you

every one curse him its what Jesus would do

Click to expand...

One of those quotes was from Jesus.

And did you really not get the joke in the last comment?

roguenuke said:

It would be completely wrong (and most likely against some laws or rules) for them to impeach this judge for making a judgement that some or even many disagree with. It would undermine the entire point of having judges review our laws and our justice system. There is a reason we have appeals courts and even higher courts.

Click to expand...

The impeachment process is not subject to judicial review.

In any case, he's up for reelection later this year. He will lose.

Paleocon said:

The impeachment process is not subject to judicial review.

In any case, he's up for reelection later this year. He will lose.

Click to expand...

It is subject to review of the people in whether it was conducted as a witch hunt or a true violation of the law.

We'll see. The same has been said of other judges as well. It could happen, but such a reaction would only go to show the extreme hatred and stupidity of those who are anti-ssm if they are going to vote out a judge due to an unpopular ruling that won't likely matter in the grand scheme of things since same sex marriage will almost certainly be made legal in every state in the next 5 years by the SCOTUS.

roguenuke said:

It is subject to review of the people in whether it was conducted as a witch hunt or a true violation of the law.

We'll see. The same has been said of other judges as well. It could happen, but such a reaction would only go to show the extreme hatred and stupidity of those who are anti-ssm if they are going to vote out a judge due to an unpopular ruling that won't likely matter in the grand scheme of things since same sex marriage will almost certainly be made legal in every state in the next 5 years by the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

Actually while the legislators in question can be voted out over it, an impeachment itself cannot be overturned, and the Senate has the power when impeaching to forbid the individual from holding office again.

It will happen. I live in Arkansas, and we're not going to leave the judge who introduced legal same-sex marriage to the state in office.

AGENT J said:

never claimed that, thank you for posting a meanignless failed strawman though. LMAO
But they made this rulling 14 times along with 1000+ other lower court rullinns

let us know when you have somethign factual that supports you . . .

Click to expand...

Fails even more hilariously because the rulings supporting slavery were rulings to support stripping people of ALL their rights for arbitrary reasons. Here the court is enforcing rights - they're sort of opposite positions. And the courts when operating as intended exist really to enforce rights, not deny them to some classes of people because the majority wills it.

Paleocon said:

Actually while the legislators in question can be voted out over it, an impeachment itself cannot be overturned, and the Senate has the power when impeaching to forbid the individual from holding office again.

It will happen. I live in Arkansas, and we're not going to leave the judge who introduced legal same-sex marriage to the state in office.

Click to expand...

It is not likely to happen. Especially since you seem to be at least one vote short of 2/3rds Republicans in the Senate (assuming however unlikely it is that all the Republicans in this legislature would go along with this call to impeachment), and in all likelihood, not all of those are going to agree with impeaching a judge for ruling on something in a way the people do not agree with, especially given the current public opinion on same sex marriage and the younger view on it, even in Arkansas. That would be political suicide.

Even getting the impeachment started would be difficult since there is just barely a majority of Republicans in the House, and the same thing holds true above, that those who brought an impeachment up would be risking a lot for such an issue.

And I can find polls that say that a good percent of even Arkansas voters support same sex marriage.

Gay Marriage Poll Results for Arkansas

Arkansas attitudes improving on gay equality; state leader speaks up | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

"The bipartisan poll found that 61 percent of Arkansans under age 30 support marriage equality,..."

"The link to fuller poll results shows overall opposition to marriage equality continues in Arkansas. But the number was 55-38, compared with the 75 percent that approved the marriage ban in 2004. "

Just over half of the population of Arkansas supports the marriage ban. That is not a lot. Certainly not a logical amount to risk political suicide for just to impeach a judge who ruled a way the government does not approve of. It would be petty and cowardly for any lawmakers to do this, and would not go over well at all with young voters.

Update: From the Arkansas Speaker of the House, David Carter,

"Trying to impeach a Judge because you don't like his or her decision notwithstanding the subject matter is absurd and goes against hundreds of years of the way our great country has conducted business under our three branches of government. Circuit judges are elected by the people, as are our appellate and state Supreme Court judges. The appellate process needs to run its course. Our forefathers saw the importance of our constitution and system of self-governance. That system has worked well for a long time and make us who we are as a country. I won't support any effort to undermine that."

http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/story/state-leaders-talk-impeachment-after-judges-same-s/33112/DH32y6uLEkyDiIWl4xjjEg

Paleocon said:

Actually while the legislators in question can be voted out over it, an impeachment itself cannot be overturned, and the Senate has the power when impeaching to forbid the individual from holding office again.

Click to expand...

Actually it is the House that impeaches, upon a vote to impeach it is the Senate that tries the impeachment.




AR State Senator Talks Impeachment After Judge's Same Sex Ruling - Local News, Weather, Sports, and Community for Central Arkansas
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/Summary/ArkansasConstitution1874.pdf


>>>>