2/27 Civics lesson 101: Marriage is not mentioned in the US
Constitution. Marriage is not restricted in the CA Const.
CA State Law defines marriage as being between a man and
woman, but relegates issuance of marriage licenses to cities.
By allowing gay marriages in San Francisco, Newsom is defying
CA State Law. In order to censure him, however, the Judicial
branch has to find the state ban on gay marriage constitutional
according to CA Constitution, which is unlikely after the
recent Mass. Supreme Court decision. Until the court rules,
the marriages are presumed legal and legitimate. If the court
rules that the ban is constitutional, the marriages will be
rendered null and void (and Newsom could face criminal
charges); if not, the law will be struck down, and the
marriages will stand and continue.
\_ Wouldn't Newsom only face charges if he violates a court order?
\_ His opponents might charge him with some abuse of powers
charge. Hm, then again, if that's illegal, why's Willie
Brown a free man?
\_ Well since there is some legal ambiguity about state law vs.
the US constitution, he could argue he was just making a good
faith effort to satisfy the needs of his constituents. His
opponents wouldn't have a very strong case unless he violates
a court order telling him to stop.
\_ BS. He modified state documents w/o state authority. He's
a felon many times over.
\_ You're frothing at the mouth. Would you like a napkin
to wipe it off. (At least I hope it's froth...)
\_ Hmm... the mayor modified the city marriage license.
That seems like it would be in his authority to do...
\_ good luck, the liberal courts are in his pocket
\_ See, this is why nobody likes you.
\_ Plus, there's this little matter that in order to get
convicted of a crime, you have to commit one.
\_ Nice universe you live in, how do I get there?
\_ Step one: take off the foil helmet.
\_ U.S. Constitution, equal protection clause -- this is why gay
marriage can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
\_ equal protection clause exist for 3-somes, 4-somes, 5-somes,
etc.. too right? who says that marriage should be only for a
man&woman or man&man or woman&woman... what about 2men&woman or
2women&man or 2women&2men or etc... if gay marriage can go to
the U.S. Supreme Court..polygamy will follow by the same premise..
\_ Unless the States have anti-polygamy definitions in their
Constitutions. Fed > State, unless Fed doesn't exist.
\_ Gay people have equal protection under the 14th amendment.
All men have the right to marry a woman, similarly all women
have the right to marry a man. No man has the right to marry
a man and no woman has the right to marry a woman. Since
the marriage rights are applied in a equal and fair manner
to all citizens there is no claim under the 14th amendment.
\_ I'm disinclined to agree with you: see the 1st amendment
where is mentions something about making no laws that respect
an institution of religion....
\_ Not institution, but 'estalishment'. While ignored today
establishment refers to a state established church as
existed and still exists in England, as well as most of
the Thirteen Colonies at the time.
Hence antidisestablishmentarianism. In the mid 1900's
leftists twisted this in an attempt to secularize US
society. Finally, the Constitution was written to
limit the scope of Federal power.
\_ What does religion have to do with it? Are you implying
that by not providing for gay marriage the federal gov
is somehow establishing a religion?
\_ "And what else floats on water? ... And therefore..."
\_ This exact same argument was used to rationalize
anti-miscegenation laws, too.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/106us583.htm
\_ so? The link refers to fines / incarceration for
miscegenation. No such equivalent exists today.
In fact homosexuals are a celebrated 'mascot' group
with special privileges such as hate crime statutes.
One could argue this is because of all the homosexuals
in academia and media. The analogy fails.
\_ Wrong, the argument was made by people just like you
that miscegenation laws were okay and did not violate
the 14th Amendment, since blacks could still marry
and have sex with blacks and whites could marry and
have sex with whites. The analogy stands. Gays
are still incarcerated and are subject to losing
their jobs for having sex with other gays. And
there have always been all those homosexuals in
there have always beens all those homosexuals in
academia and media and everywhere else. Now, with
lessened persecution, they are just finally coming
out of the closet where you can see them.
\_ You know nothing about the arguments I make
so please don't assume. If you have any
appreciation for history whatsoever you would
recognize that the 14th amendment was explicitly
aimed at free slaves. You see I have no problem
with you passing whatever legislation you want
through the legislature or referendum. Instead
you want to subvert the republican process to
atone for your bizarre notion of social justice.
Many states have anti-sodomy laws, so what?
You are a boderline fascist and remind me of the
homosexual elements of the Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
\_ And the point you're (purposefully?) missing
is that there is nowhere in the Constitution
a definition of marriage that excludes same
sex marriages; there is only the SC's
interpretation that marriage falls under the
umbrella of "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." Until there is language
explicitly defining marriage as being between
a man and a woman, any law to that effect
will be unconstitutional. So, no, they're
legislating from the bench; they're doing
their job of making sure the legislature
does no pass laws contrary to the US
Constitution.
\_ Defense of Marriage Act signed
by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
Except Hamilton, Madison, Washington
Adams and Jefferson were all closet
homosexuals and really meant to provide
for uninhibited sexual gratification
regardless of gender, age or species -
right?
\_ Defense of Marriage Act is a law,
not a Constitutial Amendment. It's
been sitting pretty, waiting for
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
a challenge for quite some time. |
http://csua.com/feed/