DOMA decision cited to block Michigan law

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With the statement, Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage,

Anthony Kennedy, in his hyper-emotional rant, has now ruled that there is no legitimate reason for opposing same-sex marriage except hate and bigotry. That is what will be cited as precedent by left-wing jurists from that point forward. The precedent you cite has been superseded.

Sadly.

I would say what I fully feel about that, but, well, I don’t care to be suspended or banned, so I’ll leave it alone.

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down

 

[Holly3278]

Yes, one can only hope. Small steps are the best in the right direction.

No, its more like one can only hope and pray that it doesn’t happen! Its also more like these are steps in the wrong direction.

I am so sick of seeing “gay rights activists” making more and more advances in our nation. Our morality is declining and it seems to be doing so rather rapidly.

 

[markomalley]

I am not sure if Wilson v Ake has been superseded if DOMA section 2 was not struck down

Well, Windsor should have had nothing to do with benefits offered to state employees, particularly where a state has not given in to “same sex marriage”, but this judge applied it thusly.

What will prevent another leftist judge from doing the same regarding the striking down of a legitimately passed state constitutional amendment?

Surely, after the Kennedy rant in Windsor, you don’t expect SCOTUS to rule correctly anymore, do you?

 

[SeannyM]

Supreme court could have ruled that all state bans on homosexual marriage violate the Constitution and they didn’t. I do not know if the Supreme court would want to make an overbearing ruling that would affect all those state bans and/or force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it in those states because if you force states that ban homosexual marriage to recognize it. Many states do not recognize common law marriage, but some states do, is the supreme court going to force all states to recognize common law marriage?

Wilson v Ake, a homosexual couple ‘married’ in Massachusetts and moved to Florida and they and wanted their marriage license accepted in Florida and a federal court dismissed the case

clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12475

Except from the ruling from ‘full faith and credit clause’

Adopting Plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit would create a license for a single State to create national policy. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 423-24 (1979)(“Full Faith and Credit does not . . . enable one state to legislate for the other or to project its laws across state lines so as to preclude the other from prescribing for itself the legal consequences of acts within it.”)(quoting Pacific Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 505-06 (1939)); Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 296 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). The Supreme Court has clearly established that “the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require a State to apply another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” Hall, 440 U.S. at 422 (citing Pacific Ins. Co, 306 U.S. at 493). Florida is not required to recognize or apply Massachusetts’ same-sex marriage law because it clearly conflicts with Florida’s legitimate public policy of opposing same-sex marriage. See infra pp. 9-18; Fla. Stat. § 741.212.6

courses.washington.edu/gens197/Wilson.doc

Wilson doesn’t set precidence, it was dismissed and the plantiffs did not appeal. I’m confident that the decision would be vacated if it made it before SCOTUS. The logic in the decision is flawed. I don’t see how it’s difficult to understand how section 2 of DOMA is in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause. Find one other type of marriage not recognized by another state (besides common law). The refusal to recognize a legal marriage from another state is unheard of except in the case of gay marriages. There is no logical justification for this, leaving only religiously and socially based animus as the motivating factor.

 

[SeannyM]

From EWTN News:
A federal judge has blocked a Michigan law barring domestic partner benefits for public school and local government employees, citing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act.

U.S. District Judge David Lawson’s June 28 ruling said it can “never be a legitimate purpose” to deny health benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees. He said the plaintiffs who lost benefits or had to pay for more expensive private health insurance have a “plausible claim” that the law violates the U.S. Constitution.
Just in case any of you thought that Kennedy’s ruling was narrow.

Next step: ruling any state laws (including state constitutional amendments) that define marriage as between a man and a woman as unconstitutional. And this will be cited as the precedent.

Good!

 

[SeannyM]

Well, Windsor should have had nothing to do with benefits offered to state employees, particularly where a state has not given in to “same sex marriage”, but this judge applied it thusly.

What will prevent another leftist judge from doing the same regarding the striking down of a legitimately passed state constitutional amendment?

Surely, after the Kennedy rant in Windsor, you don’t expect SCOTUS to rule correctly anymore, do you?

There is no such thing as a legitimate voter initiative or any other legislation that violates the constitution.

 

[markomalley]

There is no such thing as a legitimate voter initiative or any other legislation that violates the constitution.

Can you please show me in the Constitution (not a bunch of case law…but in the black and white of the words written in the document itself), where:

a) marriage itself is a right (NB: if marriage is a “right”, then why is it “licensed”?)

b) where states do not have the discretion to determine who can and cannot be married? (NB: if that is the case, then why can states control consanguinity and age limits?)

c) where a state does not have the right to determine how it makes its own laws?

Answer: you can’t. The only way you can do so is through citing a bunch of case law made up by activist judges.

So if the people of Mississippi wish to modify their state’s constitution to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman, they have that right. Period.

That is a legitimately passed law (whether by legislative action or voter initiative, it doesn’t matter)

Before Kennedy’s rant in Windsor, that right would be respected. If the Congress had had the foresight to insert a few little words in section 3 of DOMA (i.e., “This is not subject to judicial review”), that would still be the case.

Post Windsor, a group wishing to overturn a legitimately enacted state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman will be challenged, citing Windsor in their argument. And SCOTUS, with Kennedy writing the opinion, will agree. Frankly, the only thing that shocked me is that they didn’t do in Windsor, itself.

Welcome to Gomorrah.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Next step: ruling any state laws (including state constitutional amendments) that define marriage as between a man and a woman as unconstitutional. And this will be cited as the precedent.

One can only hope that this ruling will allow those who wish to marry their sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers the opportunity to do so. After all, they are consenting adults.

 

[markomalley]

One can only hope that this ruling will allow those who wish to marry their sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers the opportunity to do so. After all, they are consenting adults.

Is there a particular reason why you condone age discrimination?

(note: the preceding was, as indicated by the emoticons, an attempt at humor)

 

[SeannyM]

Can you please show me in the Constitution (not a bunch of case law…but in the black and white of the words written in the document itself), where:

a) marriage itself is a right (NB: if marriage is a “right”, then why is it “licensed”?)

b) where states do not have the discretion to determine who can and cannot be married? (NB: if that is the case, then why can states control consanguinity and age limits?)

c) where a state does not have the right to determine how it makes its own laws?

Answer: you can’t. The only way you can do so is through citing a bunch of case law made up by activist judges.

So if the people of Mississippi wish to modify their state’s constitution to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman, they have that right. Period.

That is a legitimately passed law (whether by legislative action or voter initiative, it doesn’t matter)

Before Kennedy’s rant in Windsor, that right would be respected. If the Congress had had the foresight to insert a few little words in section 3 of DOMA (i.e., “This is not subject to judicial review”), that would still be the case.

Post Windsor, a group wishing to overturn a legitimately enacted state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman will be challenged, citing Windsor in their argument. And SCOTUS, with Kennedy writing the opinion, will agree. Frankly, the only thing that shocked me is that they didn’t do in Windsor, itself.

Welcome to Gomorrah.

The answer is that’s not how it works. The constitution is not a complete list of all things considered civil rights. That’s why we have the ninth amendment. When there is a question about if a something is considered a civil right, we turn to the courts to answer that question. The answer comes in the form of case law. You’re asking for a sixth grade answer which doesn’t exist, because the question is above a sixth grade complexity.

As to the legitimacy of laws restrict gay marriage, I’m convinced they are unconstitutional… I’m also convinced that when the question is brought before the court (by someone with standing to do so) it will be overturned.

And no, the people of a state do not have a right to impose their religious beliefs on a class of people in a manner that takes away their civil rights. Since marriage is considered a civil right (loving v Virginia) I believe those laws are unconstitutional. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority… You don’t get to vote on civil rights.

 

[markomalley]

The answer is that’s not how it works. The constitution is not a complete list of all things considered civil rights. That’s why we have the ninth amendment. When there is a question about if a something is considered a civil right, we turn to the courts to answer that question. The answer comes in the form of case law. You’re asking for a sixth grade answer which doesn’t exist, because the question is above a sixth grade complexity.

As to the legitimacy of laws restrict gay marriage, I’m convinced they are unconstitutional… I’m also convinced that when the question is brought before the court (by someone with standing to do so) it will be overturned.

And no, the people of a state do not have a right to impose their religious beliefs on a class of people in a manner that takes away their civil rights. Since marriage is considered a civil right (loving v Virginia) I believe those laws are unconstitutional. The constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority… You don’t get to vote on civil rights.

So the bottom line is that the side of perversion won. The side for morality lost.

ON EDIT: And the founders would be perfectly THRILLED with the result.

We may as well get over it and get with the program.

Got it.

 

[SeannyM]

One can only hope that this ruling will allow those who wish to marry their sisters, brothers, fathers and mothers the opportunity to do so. After all, they are consenting adults.

That is again ridiculous. There is a legitimate state’s interest in forbidding incest, in order to prevent genetic mutations. Also, there are more states that allow first cousins to marry than there are that allow same sex marriage.

 

[SeannyM]

So the bottom line is that the side of perversion won. The side for morality lost.

We may as well get over it and get with the program.

Got it.

Why can’t people recognize that they don’t have a monopoly on morality. We are a nation with many different belief systems, and many different definitions of morality. I don’t believe that my relationship is perverse. You should continue practicing your religion, and believing what you want… But when it comes to my rights, yes, you should get with the program. Just like I have gotten with the program when it comes to your right to belittle gay people and demean them in public… That is a right you have, and I am 100% supportive of it.

 

[iamrefreshed]

That is again ridiculous. There is a legitimate state’s interest in forbidding incest, in order to prevent genetic mutations. Also, there are more states that allow first cousins to marry than there are that allow same sex marriage.

So your cool with incest among the sterilized?

 

[SeannyM]

So your cool with incest among the sterilized?

I haven’t really considered it… I don’t believe that it is a very common occurrence, and if it is, I’d have to defer to someone who has spent time researching and who knows the legal arguments behind the topic. But seriously, I don’t think it is a wide spread thing.

 

[markomalley]

Why can’t people recognize that they don’t have a monopoly on morality. We are a nation with many different belief systems, and many different definitions of morality. I don’t believe that my relationship is perverse. You should continue practicing your religion, and believing what you want… But when it comes to my rights, yes, you should get with the program. Just like I have gotten with the program when it comes to your right to belittle gay people and demean them in public… That is a right you have, and I am 100% supportive of it.

There are some aspects of morality that are not based upon a single religion. Murder is immoral. Armed robbery is immoral. One doesn’t need a Bible, A Quran, or a Baghavad Gita to tell us that. Sodomy used to be one of those little items.

But, hey, things change. And those of us who believe that murder is wrong, robbery is wrong, cheating on a spouse is wrong, and sodomy is wrong need to just get over ourselves and celebrate diversity, I guess

 

[iamrefreshed]

I haven’t really considered it… I don’t believe that it is a very common occurrence, and if it is, I’d have to defer to someone who has spent time researching and who knows the legal arguments behind the topic. But seriously, I don’t think it is a wide spread thing.

So you’re bigotted against those who want to marry their sister?

 

[SeannyM]

There are some aspects of morality that are not based upon a single religion. Murder is immoral. Armed robbery is immoral. One doesn’t need a Bible, A Quran, or a Baghavad Gita to tell us that. Sodomy used to be one of those little items.

But, hey, things change. And those of us who believe that murder is wrong, robbery is wrong, cheating on a spouse is wrong, and sodomy is wrong need to just get over ourselves and celebrate diversity, I guess

Murder denies someone the right to life, robbery causes the loss of personal property, there is no question that these are wrong. There is however a lot of disagreement about gay marriage. There is no legitimate reason to deny marriage equality that is not based in religion. Gay marriage doesn’t cause any harm, or deprive anyone else of their rights. Enforcing your religion on the other hand does. It both denies me the right to equal treatment, and it places my religious beliefs as inferior to yours, which is what the founders were attempting to avoid when the wrote the first amendment.

 

[SeannyM]

So you’re bigotted against those who want to marry their sister?

No… I’m not. But I do see a legitimate reason to deny them the right to do so. Just like I see a legitimate reason to limit free speech in the military, or to deny people the right to purchase rocket launchers. While there is a right to free speech and a right to bear arms, when there is a legitimate interest to do so, those rights may be limited.