Courts to the States - GFY

[War Wagon]

Alabama the latest domino to fall, despite 80% of citizens there emphatically rejecting legalizing gay marriage.

At what point does government of the people, for the people, by the people kick in?

And please dick suckers, don't post any current or random opinion polls showing that acceptance of the LGBT agenda is gaining traction. The only opinion that matters is at the ballot box.

Or not, when 5 of 9 people in black robes can dictate (interpret) the Constitution to mean whatever the fuck they want it to mean.

[Screw_Michigan]

At what point does government of the people, for the people, by the people kick in?

Sounds great!

Sincerely,

Segregation

[War Wagon]

Some folks once thought Prohibition was a great idea as well.

There is a way and means to change laws.

[War Wagon]

It's weird.

What's really weird is that 20 years ago Bill Clinton signed the DOMA act... and that since then the courts have trampled states right to govern themselves as they see fit.

Actually, that's not weird. It's infuriating.

[Screw_Michigan]

Poor babies. Why don't you go ahead and cry it out, maybe you'll feel better. But probably not.

[War Wagon]

I won't "cry it out" because I'm not changing my beliefs.

I do, however, weep for the future of this Union knowing that imbeciles are now making the rules.

The Founders would not be pleased.

[R-Jack]

I'm 100% sure if the courts were granting gay marriage licenses against state mandate, Wags would be here waving his spindly arms around declaring it an abomination and demand these judges be removed.

[War Wagon]

I'm 100% sure if the courts were granting gay marriage licenses against state mandate...

Was that some sort of Orwellian double-speak you just conjured?

I'm 99% sure it was... and that in having more leverage, I could take you down in an arm wrestling contest.

Not that I want to meet you on I-70.

[Diego in Seattle]

At what point does government of the people, for the people, by the people kick in?

Sounds great!

Sincerely,

Segregation

Bingo.

Someone needs to clue Judge Moore in on how well disobeying SCOTUS worked out for Gov. George Wallace.

[Diego in Seattle]

Some folks once thought Prohibition was a great idea as well.

There is a way and means to change laws.

And there is a way & means to change the Constitution. Don't like the government establishing religion nor denying rights & privileges w/o due process? Get cracking on having the 1st & 14th Amendments either amended or deleted.

[Y2K]

There is a way and means to change laws.

Yes there is
And sometimes you may hate the outcome
oh well

[Left Seater]

While it is likely that the SCOTUS will rule to make gay marriage legal in all states, the states will still have ways to limit such marriages if the residents of their state so wish.

Abortion is legal here in Texas. The state recently passed a law that requires abortions be performed in a surgical facility and the doctor performing the procedure must have hospital admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility. This law was challenged in court and upheld. The result is that abortion clinics in Texas have dwindled from 40+ two years ago to 4 today.

If states so choose, they can pass similar type laws to legally restrict marriage of same sex couples. They will have to issue marriage licenses, but nothing says people must perform the marriages. Currently most judges and approved clergy along with justices of the peace are permitted to perform marriages. Texas has a bill in front of the State Legislature that will limit those permitted to perform marriages to religious clergy and justices of the peace only. No one can force a preacher to marry a same sex couple so many of those are unlikely to do it. Justices of the Peace are elected and many have said they will stop performing all marriages so as to keep their jobs. They are worried that if they marry a same sex couple they will not be re-elected. They can't perform only traditional marriages and refuse same sex marriages. But they can refuse to perform any marriages.

This would have the same effect as the abortion restrictions and make same sex couples travel out of state or to the five or six JPs in blue counties.

[BarFlie]

catchy

[Diego in Seattle]

While it is likely that the SCOTUS will rule to make gay marriage legal in all states, the states will still have ways to limit such marriages if the residents of their state so wish.

Abortion is legal here in Texas. The state recently passed a law that requires abortions be performed in a surgical facility and the doctor performing the procedure must have hospital admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility. This law was challenged in court and upheld. The result is that abortion clinics in Texas have dwindled from 40+ two years ago to 4 today.

Just curious, did that piece of legislation make the same requirements of doctors performing other elective surgeries (like the one that Joan Rivers died from)?

If states so choose, they can pass similar type laws to legally restrict marriage of same sex couples. They will have to issue marriage licenses, but nothing says people must perform the marriages. Currently most judges and approved clergy along with justices of the peace are permitted to perform marriages. Texas has a bill in front of the State Legislature that will limit those permitted to perform marriages to religious clergy and justices of the peace only. No one can force a preacher to marry a same sex couple so many of those are unlikely to do it. Justices of the Peace are elected and many have said they will stop performing all marriages so as to keep their jobs. They are worried that if they marry a same sex couple they will not be re-elected. They can't perform only traditional marriages and refuse same sex marriages. But they can refuse to perform any marriages.

This would have the same effect as the abortion restrictions and make same sex couples travel out of state or to the five or six JPs in blue counties.

If that bill becomes law I would expect it to have a tough time passing constitutional muster, especially if all the JP's stop performing marriages.

I would also imagine there will be a large increase in the number of pastors from the Universal Life Church in Texas if that bill becomes law.

[Moving Sale]

Alabama ...

Just another example that the South won the civil war.

88,
You think justices make wacky rulings, try filing a few hundred criminal defense motions and try a criminal trial or a hundred. Shit will make your head spin.

[Left Seater]

Diego

Most elective surgeries here already had a similar requirement. So the new abortion law just brings that up to existing standards.

If the law stating who can perform marriages is found unconstitutional then it will affect all states. Texas is just moving inline with many other states. Since JPs are elected they serve at the will of the people and are easily replaced.

As for the Univ Life Church or other such Internet nonsense Texas is tightening up their definition of clergy as well. A certificate one prints online is unlikely to be recognized today and this will only strengthen.

[Diego in Seattle]

But when it comes to public officials, they must be equal. So if a judge or JP performs marriages for heterosexual couples, then they must perform them for same sex couples as well.

The bill that LS has mentioned would be an end-run to that. The JP's would stop performing marriages altogether, leaving only religious organizations as the only option to get married. That in itself would make it grounds for being struck down. Establishing that rights & privileges can only be obtained through a de facto system that restricts access to marriage (and all the R & P's that come with it) to churches is a blatant violation of the 14th & 1st Amendments. Such a law wouldn't stand a chance in court.

[Moving Sale]

Diego

Most elective surgeries here already had a similar requirement. So the new abortion law just brings that up to existing standards.

If the law stating who can perform marriages is found unconstitutional then it will affect all states. Texas is just moving inline with many other states. Since JPs are elected they serve at the will of the people and are easily replaced.

As for the Univ Life Church or other such Internet nonsense Texas is tightening up their definition of clergy as well. A certificate one prints online is unlikely to be recognized today and this will only strengthen.

Yea because Texas is ALL about freedom for 'mericans.

Everything is dumber in Texas.

[Left Seater]

But when it comes to public officials, they must be equal. So if a judge or JP performs marriages for heterosexual couples, then they must perform them for same sex couples as well.

The bill that LS has mentioned would be an end-run to that. The JP's would stop performing marriages altogether, leaving only religious organizations as the only option to get married. That in itself would make it grounds for being struck down.

You are correct about your point to Jsc810, but you miss the mark on the new law. Currently Texas has more options for those who can officiate a wedding. This law will move them more in line with other states, limiting it to only recognized clergy and JPs. Now if a JP decides he/she will not perform any marriage ceremonies at all, how would someone challenge it using a law that defines who is allowed to officiate marriages? Especially when this law moves the state in line with other states?

On top of that a Federal Court telling a local elected official how to set his calendar when that official isn't breaking any laws would open up a huge can of worms.

There will still be some JPs that will perform marriages after the laws passage and that is within the power vested in them. Some will then be voted out of office. Others will not. After a few years there will be 4 or 5 locations in the state where JPs will marry anyone with a valid liscense. I imagine there will be one ceremony every week at say 2:00pm on a Tuesday where this JP can marry folks in one quick process.

Everything is dumber in Texas.

Prolly has something to do with all these folks from CA moving in every day.

But if you don't like a state trying to find legal was to follow the will of it's people, you don't have to move.

[Left Seater]

Now Left Seater suggests that the definition of clergy will be restricted. Good luck with that. I have been ordained at World Christianship Ministries for more than 2 decades and have performed over 50 weddings. In the eyes of the state, I (and all like me) have the same authority to perform marriages as the Pope himself. Should Texas try to restrict that, it will be an easy case to get that law struck down as unconstitutional.

If WCM is currently recognized by the state and you are ordained thru them then you would see no change in what you were allowed to do. However, not all of these "churches" are recognized by the state. This has been tried as well and upheld. What the state wants to do is not recognize clergy who just payed $20 and filled in an online form in 15 minutes. Proof of attendance in divinity courses and a minimum number of hours will be required to be recognized.

*EDIT*

I should also add that this bill was proposed to stop some of the thieves that were preying on the poor minorities. There has been an explosion of minority ministers in the past decade that have obtained "clergy" status for a few minutes and a few bucks. They then set up "churches" and use the "donations" they receive to provide a comfortable living for themselves instead of using it for its donated purposes. Someone even went to so far as to try to claim it was fraudulent use of Federal Monies since many of the "donations" came from people with no assets and relied completely on welfare. Don't believe that one stuck.

I am delighted to see the fight against same sex marriage, and hope it continues throughout the presidential election cycle. Carry on as loud as possible, right wingers.

Be careful what you wish for. There are plenty of D's and Liberal leaders who are very happy the SCOTUS is hearing the marriage case this year and not next. They realize that gay marriage doesn't play well with most minorities and don't want this to be a central issue of the campaign. Their fear is that if it is, many of the minorities that carried Barry to victory will stay home.

[Dinsdale]

Wags, et al...


Have you ever actually read the Constitution of this great nation?

I'm guessing you haven't.

You should, since it's actually pretty cool.

And try paying extra-special attention the Ninth and the Fourteenth... and you might figure it out.

The issue couldn't be any more cut-and-dried, really.

[BSmack]

The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet spoken regarding the issue.

Scalia and Thomas were right about one thing. The refusal to stay the order is telegraphing how the Supreme Court will rule. Not just to Alabama, but to any other Circuit Courts that might be ruling between now and then.

[BSmack]

Not supposed to and how shit is working now are two different things.

[Left Seater]

When did 'holic move to Alabama?




Jsc810,

I heard this on a local radio news report and I have an email from a PAC about the subject. I will cut and paste from the email and look for a real link after I fly these two segments.

The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court ruled in a divorce case involving a couple that their marriage and a prenuptial agreement were void because the officiant had been a Universal Life minister.

“A church which consists of all ministers, and in which all new converts can become instant ministers, in fact has no minister,” the court wrote, concluding, “A minister whose title and status is so casually and cavalierly acquired does not qualify for licensing to marry.”

[BSmack]

The Constitution was amended to say the following,

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.

In other words, voters can't make laws denying equal rights.

[Diego in Seattle]

88, yes or no: the Constitution was intended to, and does, articulate all of your rights.

No. The Constitution was intended to limit the extent to which government can interfere with rights already held by the people.


Jsc810, yes or no: Did people of the same sex have a right to enter into a legally binding marriage contract when the Constitution or any of its amendments were ratified?

Did blacks have rights at that time as well?

[BSmack]

The Constitution was amended to say the following,

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.

Do citizens of the United States have a privilege to marry persons of the same sex?

Nice straw man argument. The argument isn't that marriage is a privilege. The argument is that Alabama violating the plaintiffs’ rights under
the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Left Seater]

Wow. I was not aware of that. Thank you Left Seater for bringing it to my attention.

I still believe that when all is said and done, that Universal Life ministers will be fully recognized. I do not think it is constitutional for the state to regulate churches in this manner.

But the legal issue exists, and again thanks for showing me that.

Edit: I was aware of a few legal challenges, but it was my understanding that all of them were resolved in favor of Universal Life.

Here is an example of why the state would get involved. Take the day care run by the Baptist church in my neighborhood. The Church has retired teacher and day care workers that volunteer their time one day a week. These people have all of the required training and licenses to work in such a facility. The parents pay the church a fee for their kids to attend the day care. The volunteers are not paid and do it for ___________ (insert reason of your choice) here. The church is in a better place financially and parents have a quality day care in the neighborhood for their kids. No problem right?

Ok, now let's change that up. Let's say I get ordained online like so many people have done. I get my certificate just like you did. I decide to take it a step further and set up a full on church with 501c3 benefits. Instead of running a day care, I decide to provide a service where the church matches up a qualified pilot (me, the minister) with small companies that need a pilot to fill in while one of theirs takes time off or is sick (what my company does today). I volunteer my time to the church like the day care volunteers do. When I complete the flight or assignment the company pays the church for the service.

The difference is I am the church and therefore the church owns my house, car, furnishings, belongings, etc. The benefit to me is I don't have to pay any business or income taxes and I can still live the same lifestyle and do a ton of good work with the funds that used to go to the IRS. That would further cement the scam.

This is why ministers must be held to some sort of standard and have active congregations.

[Diego in Seattle]

LS;
So are you asserting that making those who are not religious travel unreasonable distances to access said R & P's is not a violation of the Establishment clause?

[War Wagon]

The Constitution is not a piece of malleable clay to be molded by political appointees. It is a rigid framework that defines the limits of government action. Certain powers are conferred upon the Executive and the Legislature and the Courts. And all powers not expressly provided to them are reserved to the States and to the People.

This.

The obvious problem of course being when people who are "legally" married in one State then move to another where it's not recognized.

Tough shit.

The obvious solution being - it shouldn't be legal anywhere unless it was approved at the ballot box.

How many times has that happened?

[Left Seater]

LS;
So are you asserting that making those who are not religious travel unreasonable distances to access said R & P's is not a violation of the Establishment clause?

What's an unreasonable distance? One can get to damn near any large city in this state in just over an hour on Southwest.


The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and others tried to make the same unconstitutional claim due to unreasonable distances (in their view) the new abortion restrictions created. The courts found that without merit. Don't see why this would be any different.

The Framers created a system where the law would grow and evolve, both legislatively and jurisprudentially

If that is the case then why was the Constitution ever amended? If it can by changed as you and others claim, why did the Framers lay out a process to amend it? There would be no need to amend it.

[War Wagon]

They will hear it directly from the Supreme Court of the United States. Maybe then they will get it. I hope so.

I don't recognize or accept the SCOTUS as being the final arbiter of right and wrong.

I hope you get that 50 individual States didn't sign up to be force fed which laws they may or may not enact or enforce.

[Mikey]

They will hear it directly from the Supreme Court of the United States. Maybe then they will get it. I hope so.

I don't recognize or accept the SCOTUS as being the final arbiter of right and wrong.

I hope you get that 50 individual States didn't sign up to be force fed which laws they may or may not enact or enforce.

You might want to sign up for Civics 101 with Prof. Smackaholic.

[The State]

3. If a state doesn't want fags to marry - then fags should move.

You must be a southerner... your brilliance is on display once again.

[The State]

You must be a fag... Because you are, and you're dumber than a box of eel shit.

[Moving Sale]

Jsc810, yes or no: Did people of the same sex have a right to enter into a legally binding marriage contract when the Constitution or any of its amendments were ratified?

I think I understand what you think the 14th Amendment doesn't say/mean, but I'm still a little fuzzy in what you think it does say/mean. Can you help me out?

[mvscal]

Jsc810, yes or no: Did people of the same sex have a right to enter into a legally binding marriage contract when the Constitution or any of its amendments were ratified?

I think I understand what you think the 14th Amendment doesn't say/mean, but I'm still a little fuzzy in what you think it does say/mean. Can you help me out?

There is nothing in the 14th amendment or anywhere else which grants the Federal government to define marriage. That power is reserved to the states which issue the licenses. If a state defines marriage as between a man and a woman and then issues licenses to any man and woman wanting to get married it has passed the equal protection test.

Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other, but it is clearly an issue for the states to decide.

[Moving Sale]

Thanks for the blast, but it doesn't answer what you (or 88) thinks the 14th Amendment means.

[BSmack]

Jesusfuckingchrist.

I've been talking about same sex marriage on these boards for a decade or so now. I've said all along that when the issue finally gets considered by the SCOTUS that it will find the prohibition of same sex marriage is unconstitutional. For a long time y'all could just blow that off, hey that's just some crazy lawyer from Louisiana.

I'm sure poptart will dig up one of those old threads and give you your props.

[Moving Sale]

Nice dodge, but I will play... I'm unclear as to what you think the equal protection clause covers. What would be some examples of laws that a state might, or has passed, that violate the EP clause.