Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

roguenuke · May 12, 2015

matchlight said:
The hell it doesn't. Some of its decisions have tortured the meaning of this or that part of the Constitution beyond recognition. Its substantive due process decisions in general have involved the justices in substituting their personal views for the constitutional text. The Court itself commented on that very problem in at least one decision, in effect saying it recognized it had been guilty of excesses in the bad old days of the "Substantive Due Process Era" from 1904 to 1937. But it had conveniently forgotten about all that, at least outside the context of economic regulations, by 1973, when it once again went on a SDP bender in Roe v. Wade.

In other words "they don't rule the way I want them to for certain cases so that means they are "rewriting" the laws". It is bull****.

Lursa · May 12, 2015

Tetron said:
If homosexual couples wish to insure that their spouses are legally entitled to their benefits, or belongings then there are legal procedures that can be instituted for such requirements.

Separate but equal has been found to be unConstitutional.

And why should the govt invent a whole new bureaucracy in order to provide the exact same things for the exact same purposes? Are most looking for less 'big govt?'

Lursa · May 12, 2015

Tetron said:
The problem is homosexual couples are not seeking legal equality they are seeking moral equality which is not something the government can or should try to give anyone.

Tell that to all the gay couples that tried to get health coverage for their partners, that were denied access to their partners in hospitals, that tried to adopt, that need equal legal recognition in custody battles, that want state inheritance laws to apply to their partners and kids...the list is huge.

JANFU · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
:lamo I could go all, "it's a fact" on you. But yes, just as your opinion seems to be that the two are tied somehow.

I support abortion- I do not support the DP -
But one could argue it is the State taking lives in each instance.

clownboy · May 12, 2015

roguenuke said:
The Constitution does not talk of copyright law so they do not in any way rewrite the text of the Constitution by ruling on any such laws. You are making absolutely no sense.

Indeed it does, it's known as the Copyright Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.

clownboy · May 12, 2015

JANFU said:
I support abortion- I do not support the DP -
But one could argue it is the State taking lives in each instance.

Yeah, except it's not. One is a matter of law and due process the other is an individual elective decision. The state is not the one taking the life in the case of abortion.

roguenuke · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
Indeed it does, it's known as the Copyright Clause. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.

Except it does not place a limit on it except for "limited time", which the SCOTUS is right, could mean pretty much any amount of time, since that is relative. I'm not seeing your problem here.

JANFU · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
Yeah, except it's not. One is a matter of law and due process the other is an individual elective decision. The state is not the one taking the life in the case of abortion.

Except many States place roadblocks in the way of that elective choice.
And if you take the time to read up on the DP processes you may be surprised at the monstrosity it really is.

clownboy · May 12, 2015

roguenuke said:
Except it does not place a limit on it except for "limited time", which the SCOTUS is right, could mean pretty much any amount of time, since that is relative. I'm not seeing your problem here.

Leaving aside a little thing called the Federalist Papers and a couple early presidents named Madison and Jefferson. Jefferson was an actuary and in the Federalist it was determined that limited time would be 14 years.

Although perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited—the language specifies "limited times"—the Supreme Court has ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute a perpetual copyright

Copyright Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which in fact they do and were the very reason for the clause to be included in the constitution.

OR you can check out how the court ruled on the New Deal. They found much of it to be unconstitutional. Then after FDR threatened to pack the court and the public was up in arms, they reversed themselves post haste. So, were they just joking the first time?

clownboy · May 12, 2015

JANFU said:
Except many States place roadblocks in the way of that elective choice.
And if you take the time to read up on the DP processes you may be surprised at the monstrosity it really is.

Doesn't matter in this context. They are not equivalent morally or legally.

Lursa · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
Yeah, except it's not. One is a matter of law and due process the other is an individual elective decision. The state is not the one taking the life in the case of abortion.

What life? The state is not aware of any lives beyond those of born people. Constitutionally, it has no right to be and legally cannot get that information against the will of born people.

prometeus · May 12, 2015

Tetron said:
The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage.

Really? When did any particular group or entity monopolize the word?

Marriage originated as a religious institution

You need to read a bit more history.

it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it.

That is just ignorant religious babble.

The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state.

BS. It is an institution recognized by the state and the state has no basis upon which to redefine it or restrict it and yes that includes polygamy too.

As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized.

More BS. Marriage is created by the persons getting married and again the state has no basis by which to recognize somme but not others.

If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions.

No, the option is anything and everything anyone else can do.

Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply.

You have no clue what you are talking about. Marriage is NOT a religious institution. Are you denying that atheist are getting married?

The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples.

Why is it so important to ignorant bigots?

roguenuke · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
Leaving aside a little thing called the Federalist Papers and a couple early presidents named Madison and Jefferson. Jefferson was an actuary and in the Federalist it was determined that limited time would be 14 years.

Copyright Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which in fact they do and were the very reason for the clause to be included in the constitution.

OR you can check out how the court ruled on the New Deal. They found much of it to be unconstitutional. Then after FDR threatened to pack the court and the public was up in arms, they reversed themselves post haste. So, were they just joking the first time?

The federalist papers are not law. And while I agree that it should not last that long, the Constitution itself does not provide a limit for how long "limited time" actually is officially. Doesn't matter what those in the past felt it should be. They should have put that limit in the actual Constitution.

prometeus · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
The constitution doesn't mention marriage and the SCOTUS has some major shoehorning to do to rule for homosexual marriage as a right.

Only to the extent that any marriage is a right.
The real issue here is on what premise if any can a state deny the marriage of some individuals? The real answer is that there is no such premise.

prometeus · May 12, 2015

Helix said:
let's hope that the SCOTUS ruling is decisive and not some wishy washy loophole filled compromise. this is a clear cut equal protection issue, and the decision should be unassailable.

You know, on second thought I am no longer sure it should be. I mean the incessant bitching an moaning by so called conservatives over the decades to come may be too much to bear, compared to violating the rights of a small segment of society...

matchlight · May 12, 2015

roguenuke said:
No, complying with the constitutional interpretation of the SCOTUS does not require "amending" the actual laws. Amending a law is an actual process, completely outside of a law being made valid or not. No laws have to be "amended" to comply with a SCOTUS ruling that makes same sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

I see. So when the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to punish any crime other than murder with death, a state with a statute that said "the penalty for the crime of rape shall be either imprisonment for a term as prescribed below, or death" had no need to amend or repeal that statute to take out the "or death" part. They could leave it just as it was, only it would no longer mean what it said. Right.

In the same way, I guess, states with statutes that made it a crime for a doctor to perform any abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother didn't need to amend or repeal those statutes after Roe v. Wade was decided. No, they could leave them just like they were, but now the text would mean the opposite of what it plainly said.

And because of this, all this amending and repealing of statutes that states are constantly doing is a big waste of time. That may make sense to someone, but it makes no sense whatever to me.

Cardinal · May 12, 2015

Tetron said:
Marriage originated as a religious institution

[citation needed]

CriticalThought · May 12, 2015

matchlight said:
I see. So when the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to punish any crime other than murder with death, a state with a statute that said "the penalty for the crime of rape shall be either imprisonment for a term as prescribed below, or death" had no need to amend or repeal that statute to take out the "or death" part. They could leave it just as it was, only it would no longer mean what it said. Right.

In the same way, I guess, states with statutes that made it a crime for a doctor to perform any abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother didn't need to amend or repeal those statutes after Roe v. Wade was decided. No, they could leave them just like they were, but now the text would mean the opposite of what it plainly said.

And because of this, all this amending and repealing of statutes that states are constantly doing is a big waste of time. That may make sense to someone, but it makes no sense whatever to me.

That is how it works. When Lawrence vs. Texas invalidated sodomy laws in several states the actual laws stayed on the books in those states. In Louisiana, police still arrest some folk for sodomy, they just aren't prosecuted. As far as the police are concerned, the law is still enforceable.

In fact, Alabama did not repeal its ban on interracial marriage until 1999, several decades after Loving v. Virginia found such laws unconstitutional.

roguenuke · May 12, 2015

matchlight said:
I see. So when the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to punish any crime other than murder with death, a state with a statute that said "the penalty for the crime of rape shall be either imprisonment for a term as prescribed below, or death" had no need to amend or repeal that statute to take out the "or death" part. They could leave it just as it was, only it would no longer mean what it said. Right.

In the same way, I guess, states with statutes that made it a crime for a doctor to perform any abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother didn't need to amend or repeal those statutes after Roe v. Wade was decided. No, they could leave them just like they were, but now the text would mean the opposite of what it plainly said.

And because of this, all this amending and repealing of statutes that states are constantly doing is a big waste of time. That may make sense to someone, but it makes no sense whatever to me.

You do know that laws that make sodomy illegal are still on the books many states, including Texas, right? The laws are unable to be enforced.

matchlight · May 12, 2015

roguenuke said:
In other words "they don't rule the way I want them to for certain cases so that means they are "rewriting" the laws". It is bull****.

Let's say the Supreme Court one day upheld a new state law that authorized the death penalty to be carried out by guillotine, rejecting a challenge that it violated the Eighth Amendment by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. Let's also say the Court had offered no legal reasoning to support its holding, while blithely ignoring a mountain of undisputed evidence to the contrary. And that was that every case, every treatise, every study, every law review article in this country's history where scholars had analyzed the issue had concluded, based on all available historical evidence, that the use of a guillotine was exactly the sort of punishment the people who wrote and ratified the Eighth Amendment meant to ban as "cruel and unusual."

Would you deny that this decision had rewritten the Eighth Amendment? Would you claim that people who attacked the decision on that ground did so only because the Court hadn't ruled the way they wanted, and call their claim bull****? After all, you'd have us believe it's just not possible for judges on the Supreme Court to rewrite any part of the Constitution to substitute their personal views for those of the people who wrote and ratified it. Or, maybe you think the justices are only guilty of "rewriting" the Constitution when they refuse to treat it as a "living, breathing document." I mean, to do that is to commit the heresy of frustrating the statist agenda.

matchlight · May 12, 2015

CriticalThought said:
That is how it works. When Lawrence vs. Texas invalidated sodomy laws in several states the actual laws stayed on the books in those states. In Louisiana, police still arrest some folk for sodomy, they just aren't prosecuted. As far as the police are concerned, the law is still enforceable.

In fact, Alabama did not repeal its ban on interracial marriage until 1999, several decades after Loving v. Virginia found such laws unconstitutional.

Baloney. As someone who has been involved several times in redrafting ordinances and statutes to bring them into compliance with case law, I know very well that is NOT how it usually works. Both local ordinances and state and federal laws are constantly being amended or repealed to reflect the results of court decisions.

Assuming what you claim about the laws you mention is accurate, what difference does it make? Once a law is invalid, it is no longer truly a law. The fact the text still appeared in various books or documents would have no practical significance whatever.

matchlight · May 12, 2015

roguenuke said:
You do know that laws that make sodomy illegal are still on the books many states, including Texas, right? The laws are unable to be enforced.

I don't know, nor do I care. If they are unenforceable, what difference does it make?

Lursa · May 12, 2015

matchlight said:
I don't know, nor do I care. If they are unenforceable, what difference does it make?

Very good point! Such ability to enforce would directly infringe on privacy and due process, so there's no legal way to do so.

Redress · May 12, 2015

clownboy said:
Interesting. So in all the rulings upholding the state's right to ban homosexual marriage and that banning homosexual marriage is NOT unequal treatment in the past, they were just joking right? Were they rewriting the constitution then, or now? And no, you should know better than to make that last claim with me.

No one is talking about homosexual marriage. Mother issue is same sex marriage. That is a kinda important legal distinction.

CriticalThought · May 12, 2015

matchlight said:
Baloney. As someone who has been involved several times in redrafting ordinances and statutes to bring them into compliance with case law, I know very well that is NOT how it usually works. Both local ordinances and state and federal laws are constantly being amended or repealed to reflect the results of court decisions.

Assuming what you claim about the laws you mention is accurate, what difference does it make? Once a law is invalid, it is no longer truly a law. The fact the text still appeared in various books or documents would have no practical significance whatever.

It is mostly symbolic.

Louisiana Sodomy Sting: How Invalidated Sex Laws Still Lead to Arrests | TIME.com

Alabama was a final holdout on desegregation and interracial marriage. It could happen again on gay marriage. - The Washington Post

Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

roguenuke

Lursa

Tenacious

Lursa

Tenacious

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

clownboy

clownboy

roguenuke

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream

clownboy

clownboy

Lursa

Tenacious

prometeus

roguenuke

prometeus

prometeus

matchlight

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

CriticalThought

roguenuke

matchlight

matchlight

matchlight

Lursa

Tenacious

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

CriticalThought