• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
BOISE -- A federal judge has issued an injunction that will block enforcement of Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage, effective Friday morning.U.S. District Magistrate Candy Dale issued a memorandum decision and order this afternoon in the case of four same-sex couples who challenged the constitutionality of Idaho’s marriage laws, which voters approved as an amendment to the state constitution in 2006.
Gov. Butch Otter is appealing the injunction. Unless a higher court grants that appeal, Idaho must allow same-sex marriage, and recognition of existing legal same-sex marriages after 9 a.m. Friday.
Here is the full statement from Gov. Otter:
“In 2006, the people of Idaho exercised their fundamental right, reaffirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Today’s decision, while disappointing, is a small setback in a long-term battle that will end at the U.S. Supreme Court. I am firmly committed to upholding the will of the people and defending our Constitution.”


Read more @: Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban | KTVB.COM Boise

Keep the equality tide rolling:2razz:
 
my question to you is:

are you not one one the people on this forum who believes democracy and "will of the people"

since this is a constitutional amendment which the people approved of........:2razz:

I believe in a mixture of delegate and trustee representation. I dont believe in absolutes where a representative or our country should simply rely on the "peoples will" or where the representative or governmnet should simply just ignore the people.
 
I believe in a mixture of delegate and trustee representation. I dont believe in absolutes where a representative or our country should simply rely on the "peoples will" or where the representative or governmnet should simply just ignore the people.

lets put this into perspective...


in many parts of america, local referendums have been used to take away rights of property owners, to want to have smoking in their business [ creating a local law]......this is what is know as direct referendum or direct democracy

and it has been applauded by the left....is using this sort of action.

this story deals with a state referendum, in which the whole state voted.......meaning the whole state used direct democracy to institute a constitutional amendment to the state......and the left is against it?


so much for democracy .when the left does not like it!


i myself say that direct democracy is a terrible thing [referendums], the founders hated them because it did not secure the rights of individuals citizens....as we see with smoking bans......and you saw with a constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
my question to you is:

are you not one one the people on this forum who believes democracy and "will of the people"

since this is a constitutional amendment which the people approved of........:2razz:

It's only the people when they agree with him, otherwise it's the force of government. Like any good socialist.
 
It's only the people when they agree with him, otherwise it's the force of government. Like any good socialist.

Or maybe you just misunderstand the foundation of their beliefs.
 
Idaho same-sex marriage ban overturned in federal court

Idaho same-sex marriage ban overturned in federal court | MSNBC

Idaho same-sex marriage ban overturned in federal court

05/13/14 08:54 PM—UPDATED 05/13/14 09:06 PM

A federal judge has struck down Idaho’s ban on same-sex marriage.
One week after hearing oral arguments in the case Latta v. Otter, sponsored by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale found the state’s voter-approved amendment that prohibits gay couples from marrying to be unconstitutional. She joins federal judges in several other red states – including Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, and most recently, Arkansas – in overturning similar bans.Dale ordered clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting on Friday.
In her opinion, Dale wrote that the right to marry is fundamental, one which Idaho’s laws wrongfully deny its gay and lesbian citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has referenced the fundamental right to marry in at least 10 separate instances – most recently, in the landmark United States v. Windsor decision, which gutted the Defense of Marriage Act and cleared the way for federal agencies to begin recognizing same-sex marriages.
Backup links:
Gay couples could wed in Idaho as soon as Friday - The Washington Post
Judge Strikes Down Idaho Ban on Same-Sex Marriage - WSJ.com
Idaho Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down by Federal Judge (1) - Businessweek
Gay couples could wed in Idaho as soon as Friday - WVVA TV Bluefield Beckley WV News, Weather and Sports
Gay couples could wed in Idaho as soon as Friday - WSET.com - ABC13


another one goes down, equality just keeps winning and the victories large and small keep rolling in.

Changes/Updates in RED
5/13/14 Version 10.0

25 States with Equal Rights (5 pending/stay)

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 ( Stayed and will be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - ( Stayed and will be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - February 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virginia - February 14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - February 26/2014 (Stayed, pending 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Arkansas - May 5, 2014
Idaho May 13, 2014

22 States Working Towards Equal Rights

15 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights[/B]
Alabama
Indiana (ruling for ONE marriage but other law suits following)
Kansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


5 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Florida
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Colorado
Oregon

thats 47 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - april/may court case
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- two cases that the plaintiffs PLAN to take all the way up if needed but nothing pending
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
Nevada
Oregon
Pennsylvania

3 States that still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet, that’s it 3
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!



also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks
 
Last edited:
Won't survive appeals.

These rulings have done pretty well in the past, especially seeing as the judge cited the 14th amendment and equal protection which, as you may recall, are effectively the Okami Code for deeming unconstitutional any law against gay marriage. While the anti side on debate forums have taken the ever popular "nuh uh" position with regards to Equal Protection, that tactic tends to fare poorly in the court room.
 
No, I understand them quite well thank you.

You understand your own foundation, not ours. The Right Wing tends to take the State vs. Federal position, while liberals regard that as an irrelevant choice, opting for rights over nonrights instead.
 
If the people of a state pass an amendment to their state Constitution that is against the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, that law (amendment) will be struck down by the Federal Courts.

As it should be.

We cannot have second class citizens in this country. No matter how much some hate them, even if those that hate them have the majority in a public vote.

This isn't hard to understand.
 
These rulings have done pretty well in the past, especially seeing as the judge cited the 14th amendment and equal protection which, as you may recall, are effectively the Okami Code for deeming unconstitutional any law against gay marriage. While the anti side on debate forums have taken the ever popular "nuh uh" position with regards to Equal Protection, that tactic tends to fare poorly in the court room.

VERY poorly
dont forget the its not civil rights and doesn't compare to loving vs Virginia arguments which have also failed and many rulings refer to that case.
 
If the people of a state pass an amendment to their state Constitution that is against the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, that law (amendment) will be struck down by the Federal Courts.

As it should be.

We cannot have second class citizens in this country. No matter how much some hate them, even if those that hate them have the majority in a public vote.

This isn't hard to understand.

for some it is, no clue why but some would rather ignore reality/facts.
 
You understand your own foundation, not ours. The Right Wing tends to take the State vs. Federal position, while liberals regard that as an irrelevant choice, opting for rights over nonrights instead.

This is not a state versus federal argument. It's a US Constitution - Equal Protection argument. And as for me, I'm all for the Tenth Amendment and a small Federal Government. This is not a Tenth Amendment situation though. No matter how much some would try to make it so.
 
You understand your own foundation, not ours. The Right Wing tends to take the State vs. Federal position, while liberals regard that as an irrelevant choice, opting for rights over nonrights instead.
Define a right for me.... do you have a right to a job? Healthcare?
 
Define a right for me.... do you have a right to a job? Healthcare?

Red herring and threadjacking. The law (in an ever decreasing number of states) favors the treatment of one set of people over another. That's been shown to be unconstitutional every time. Ignoring the 14th amendment and Equal Protection isn't going to make them go away.
 
If the people of a state pass an amendment to their state Constitution that is against the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, that law (amendment) will be struck down by the Federal Courts.

As it should be.

We cannot have second class citizens in this country. No matter how much some hate them, even if those that hate them have the majority in a public vote.

This isn't hard to understand.

then i wlll ask you...why do states have referendums then?

if the people cannot have a referendum and create an amendment...then they sure as H*ll...... cannot create a local law to take away rights of business owners to have smoking in their business.
 
Red herring and threadjacking. The law (in an ever decreasing number of states) favors the treatment of one set of people over another. That's been shown to be unconstitutional every time. Ignoring the 14th amendment and Equal Protection isn't going to make them go away.
Thanks for answering though.
 
then i wlll ask you...why do states have referendums then?

if the people cannot have a referendum and create an amendment...then they sure as H*ll...... cannot create a local law to take away rights of business owners to have smoking in their business.

They can put into place any laws they choose. However, if those laws/amendments violate any part of the US Constitution, then they are going to be struck down as unenforceable laws when challenged.

If you believe that a law legitimately violates a constitutional provision/rights guarantee, and you can actually show that you are indeed affected by this law, then challenge the law. You may win, but you may not. It will depend upon the circumstances of the case, mainly how the law affects you and what the state's reasoning is for the law.
 
then i wlll ask you...why do states have referendums then?

if the people cannot have a referendum and create an amendment...then they sure as H*ll...... cannot create a local law to take away rights of business owners to have smoking in their business.

We're conflating issues here.

State or local referendums cannot infringe on the rights of others granted in the US Constitution. Certain implied rights, like the right to smoke in public places are not guaranteed. No one is stating that you cannot smoke, just that you cannot do it where it may harm others (second hand smoke studies by medical professionals).

This topic is not related to that topic. For instance, I hate local zoning laws. Yet, they have been found Constitutional in that they protect others from potential harm from others, and allow the local government to establish a plan for development of the community and local economy that benefits the whole. But, like I said, I hate those laws.

In this instance, the Equal Protection Clause:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a state law allows a license to be issued to two people to get married, they have to allow any two people to get married.
 
They can put into place any laws they choose. However, if those laws/amendments violate any part of the US Constitution, then they are going to be struck down as unenforceable laws when challenged.

If you believe that a law legitimately violates a constitutional provision/rights guarantee, and you can actually show that you are indeed affected by this law, then challenge the law. You may win, but you may not. It will depend upon the circumstances of the case, mainly how the law affects you and what the state's reasoning is for the law.

here is my point!!!!!

state governments are to be republican forms of government........in true republican forms there are NO REFERENDUMS....ITS illegal according to constitutional law.

because you see with these referendums, rights of individual citizens are not secure...the people through direct democracy,. are taking people's rights away.....which have to be directed to the USSC TO OVER TURN THEM.....

THE FOUNDERS HATED REFERENDUMS,. ........which is why no state or the federal government is supposed to be democratic!
 
They can put into place any laws they choose. However, if those laws/amendments violate any part of the US Constitution, then they are going to be struck down as unenforceable laws when challenged.

If you believe that a law legitimately violates a constitutional provision/rights guarantee, and you can actually show that you are indeed affected by this law, then challenge the law. You may win, but you may not. It will depend upon the circumstances of the case, mainly how the law affects you and what the state's reasoning is for the law.

Well said.

And, I see you're from the big city. I'm from Gaston County. The large metropolis of Dallas, NC - well, actually in the country about 5 miles outside of town.
 
here is my point!!!!!

state governments are to be republican forms of government........in true republican forms there are NO REFERENDUMS....ITS illegal according to constitutional law.

because you see with these referendums, rights of individual citizens are not secure...the people through direct democracy,. are taking people's rights away.....which have to be directed to the USSC TO OVER TURN THEM.....

THE FOUNDERS HATED REFERENDUMS,. ........which is why no state or the federal government is supposed to be democratic!

On a Federal level, you're correct. On a state and local level, the Tenth Amendment allows it, yet those referendum cannot infringe on the rights granted in the US Constitution - Superiority of law.
 
Back
Top Bottom