Federal Judge: No Right to Gay Marriage!

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Federal Judge: No Right to Gay Marriage!

After a week dominated by the Chick-fil-A grassroots support movement there is more good news for marriage that you will never hear on the nightly news. Earlier this week another federal judge rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage!

A same-sex couple tried to get Hawaii’s marriage laws struck down on the grounds that they are allegedly irrational and rooted in bias towards gay people.

Hawaii, you will recall, was the original seat of the litigation wars seeking to impose gay marriage upon the American people. The population of the blue state of Hawaii responded in 1998 by overwhelmingly passing (69 percent to 29 percent) the very first marriage amendment, clarifying that the legislature has the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now a federal judge has affirmed the right of the people of Hawaii to make that determination—and in the process rejected the argument that marriage is rooted in bias or bigotry:
http://www.nomblog.com/26750/

more…
 
Here’s the way I see it, every U.S. citizen has the equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex. If he/she chooses not to, that is his/her choice. It is no different than someone who doesn’t believe in marriage choosing to just have live-in boyfriends/girlfriends. Anyone thought about why gay people want a government recognized marriage? Money. If it wasn’t about money, it wouldn’t matter. Even in states where it is illegal, they can hold a wedding ceremony that mimics a marriage if they so choose.
 
buffalo said:
Federal Judge: No Right to Gay Marriage!

After a week dominated by the Chick-fil-A grassroots support movement there is more good news for marriage that you will never hear on the nightly news. Earlier this week another federal judge rejected the claim that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage!

A same-sex couple tried to get Hawaii’s marriage laws struck down on the grounds that they are allegedly irrational and rooted in bias towards gay people.

Hawaii, you will recall, was the original seat of the litigation wars seeking to impose gay marriage upon the American people. The population of the blue state of Hawaii responded in 1998 by overwhelmingly passing (69 percent to 29 percent) the very first marriage amendment, clarifying that the legislature has the right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Now a federal judge has affirmed the right of the people of Hawaii to make that determination—and in the process rejected the argument that marriage is rooted in bias or bigotry:
http://www.nomblog.com/26750/

more…
Click to expand...
Bufallo,

You can read the ruling here. Interestingly it is based on the ability to “procreate” and the benefits to society.

scribd.com/doc/102440860/Hawaii-Decision-Jackson-vs-Abercromnie
 
It’s likely to be appealed. Any guess how the 9th circuit (same one as California) will handle it?
 
Tsudeaux_Gnymm said:
It’s likely to be appealed. Any guess how the 9th circuit (same one as California) will handle it?
Click to expand...
TG,

It can be appealed however there is no reason it will be heard.

The 7th and 9th Circuit court have ruled that AA is a religion. It violates the establishment clause and because of that the government cannot force people into AA. Many do not know that. A person being offered a reduced sentence for a DUI accepting a 12 step/AA program can invoke their rights not to attend however many do not know that they can. The US Supreme Court will likely never hear these cases because they don’t have to, because there is no reason to and the same is true for these cases.

Why does the US Supreme Court have to hear this case? Why is a ruling necessary? The States are arguing these cases and unless there is some compelling reason then it is unlikely that the US Supreme Court will hear these cases and they don’t have to review it. They can just spit it out and say it is a State rights issue.
 
From the article:
… far from backing down, a major Chicago gay rights group filed multiple human rights complaints against Chick-fil-A charging that [Dan] Cathy’s personal views violate Illinois civil rights laws.
Click to expand...
This is amazing. We have reached the point in America where you can go to jail for what you are thinking!!!
To avoid appearing uncharitable, Christians must now not only tolerate evil, but they must fund it and validate it as well.
 
sedonaman said:
From the article:

This is amazing. We have reached the point in America where you can go to jail for what you are thinking!!!
To avoid appearing uncharitable, Christians must now not only tolerate evil, but they must fund it and validate it as well.
Click to expand...
Seriously, last time I checked Americans have the freedom to think and say whatever they want. Obviously, you can’t commit hate crimes, but it should be legal to express your opinion.
 
WingsOfEagles said:
Seriously, last time I checked Americans have the freedom to think and say whatever they want. Obviously, you can’t commit hate crimes, but it should be legal to express your opinion.
Click to expand...
Some opinions are apparently hate crimes, even if unspoken.
 
Sorry, but Chick-fil-A doesn’t discriminate against gay people. Gays are allowed to line up and buy food just like anyone else. Nobody is going to beat them up for being gay.

I think a major problem is that in the places where garriage is legal, they use it to bully religious people into shutting down their businesses. Christian adoption agencies are more than happy to refer gays or unmarried people to another agency, but no, they want to be able to adopt wherever they want, even if it means forcing someone to act against his/her conscience. Party planners are more than happy to organize birthday parties, graduations, family reunions, etc., for gay people, just not marriage. And so they get sued if they don’t do what the gays want. Same thing with people who make cakes.

Regarding property ownership, insurance, hospital visitation, and other ways gays feel discriminated against, why do people need to be married to do those things anyway? What if two brothers or two friends wanted to buy a house? Or someone wanted to help their neighbor? And tax returns, each person can file his/her own, unless it’s a married couple with children (in that case you get to claim the kids), and if the kid was adopted you get money from the state for them anyway so there isn’t a need to “claim” them because you are already getting money to help with them.
 
stephe1987 said:
Sorry, but Chick-fil-A doesn’t discriminate against gay people. Gays are allowed to line up and buy food just like anyone else. Nobody is going to beat them up for being gay.
Click to expand...
I think the reason people were boycotting was because they donated to anti-gay organisations, or something, which I suppose makes sense. 🤷
 
There is some real dynamite in this decision:
The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21 (“[w]e have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ . . . This approach tends to rein in the subjective elements that are necessarily present in due-process judicial review”)
Click to expand...
Because a fundamental right or suspect classification is not at issue, Plaintiffs’ due process claim is subject to rational basis review.
Click to expand...
Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is also subject to rational basis review.
Click to expand...
Significantly, the Ninth Circuit, which is binding authority on this Court, has affirmatively held that homosexuals are not a suspect class. [A class of individuals based on race, national origin, alienage (the official status of an alien), or religious affiliation.]
Click to expand...
Rational basis review is the “paradigm of judicial restraint.” Under rational basis review, a law is presumed constitutional and “[t]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.”

Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a super legislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.”
Click to expand...
Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.”
Click to expand...
It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate, and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.
Click to expand...
The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.
Click to expand...
Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional. Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
“[T]he unique social institution of marriage involving the legal relationship of matrimony between a man and a woman is a protected relationship of fundamental and unequaled importance to the State, the nation, and society.”
Click to expand...
It reasserted that marriage should be dealt with by the legislature, not the courts: “[T]he question of whether or not to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people.”
Click to expand...
The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims determining, inter alia, that a right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is not a fundamental right. The court further determined that the Equal Protection Clause was “not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry” and that there was “no irrational or invidious discrimination.” Id. at 187. The United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.”
Click to expand...
scribd.com/doc/102440860/Hawaii-Decision-Jackson-vs-Abercromnie
Click to expand...
 
WingsOfEagles said:
Seriously, last time I checked Americans have the freedom to think and say whatever they want. Obviously, you can’t commit hate crimes, but it should be legal to express your opinion.
Click to expand...
How does a hate crime differ from a regular crime?
 
buffalo said:
How does a hate crime differ from a regular crime?
Click to expand...
The commonly accepted thing is it’s a hate crime if it is committed because of someone’s race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc. The murderer commits a crime against the person simply because they do not like one of these details about the person. It’s the motivation of the crime.

A regular crime could be random with no motive. It could also be do to a specific disagreement between two people (like a formal couple that ended badly).
 
buffalo said:
How does a hate crime differ from a regular crime?
Click to expand...
A crime is a crime however is Hate is proved as the intent for the crime then this is treated differently.

Assault is Assault but different than aggravated assault.
 
CopticChristian said:
A crime is a crime however is Hate is proved as the intent for the crime then this is treated differently.

Assault is Assault but different than aggravated assault.
Click to expand...
In the case of murder the victim is dead in either case.
 
buffalo said:
In the case of murder the victim is dead in either case.
Click to expand...
This is true. The criminal that performed the act then is treated differently if it is determined that the intent was hate motivated.
Penalty-enhancement hate crime laws are traditionally justified on the grounds that, in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s words, “this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm… bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.”
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
In the case of murder the victim is dead in either case.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is arguing that point, but the case is treated differently if the murderer committed the crime just because someone was black, gay, female, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top