Another blow to the bigots

[kallend 1,649]

Federal Judge Kern rules Oklahoma ban on same-sex marriage to be unConstitutional.



In his opinion, Kern had particularly sharp words for the Alliance lawyers' arguments that Oklahoma's ban protected the sanctity of marriage.

"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage has done little to keep Oklahoma families together thus far, as Oklahoma consistently has one of the highest divorce rates in the country," Kern wrote.

Kern added that such a justification for a same-sex marriage ban was "insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[grue 1]

Wait I don't wanna blow a bigot. I don't wanna blow anyone

cavete terrae.

[BIGUN 1,073]

So much for majority rule and the tenth amendment.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 1,649]

BIGUN

So much for majority rule and the tenth amendment.

If that always held sway we'd still have slavery in the southern states.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

BIGUN

So much for majority rule and the tenth amendment.

Sorry, but it's consistent (and does not conflict) with the 10th Amendment. The 10th reserves to the states that which is not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment prohibits any state from depriving any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 10th is thus satisfied in this case.

As for the notion that majority rule trumps the Constitution: Shirley, you jest. Do I really need to lay out the long version of the rebuttal to that?

[freethefly 6]

Andy9o8

***So much for majority rule and the tenth amendment.

Sorry, but it's consistent (and does not conflict) with the 10th Amendment. The 10th reserves to the states that which is not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment prohibits any state from depriving any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 10th is thus satisfied in this case.

As for the notion that majority rule trumps the Constitution: Shirley, you jest. Do I really need to lay out the long version of the rebuttal to that?

There you go again, being all lawyerly, with sound explanation of the truth.
You're amongst of the good ones, Andy.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[BIGUN 1,073]

Andy9o8

***So much for majority rule and the tenth amendment.

Sorry, but it's consistent (and does not conflict) with the 10th Amendment. The 10th reserves to the states that which is not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, by the Constitution. The 14th Amendment prohibits any state from depriving any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The 10th is thus satisfied in this case.

As for the notion that majority rule trumps the Constitution: Shirley, you jest. Do I really need to lay out the long version of the rebuttal to that?

Nope. And, I was aware the good Professor would counter-punch with the "slavery" jab. So, here we go...

As a legal and constitutional question, do gays and lesbians have a right to marry under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment

Marriage is a civil (as well as religious) institution; married couples benefit from more than 1000 benefits under federal law
Supporters of gay marriage argue that equal protection requires equal access to civil benefits of marriage
Opponents of gay marriage argue that there is a legitimate rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples
Currently legal classifications based on sexual orientation are subjected only to the rational basis test, not to strict scrutiny

On the surface, the answer might seem simple (to advocates of gay marriage, at least). Marriage is, after all, a civil as well as a religious institution. People enter marriage by obtaining a license from local authorities and—in about half of all marriages these days—they later end it by securing a divorce decree from a local civil court. In between, the United States Government Accounting Office has identified more than a thousand federal benefits and responsibilities (such as homebuyer programs and educational assistance) affected by marital status. In other words, there are thousands of laws touching upon marriage and, consequently, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the laws suggests—to some—that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be protected in their right to marry.

But as a question of constitutional law, it's not quite that easy. For starters, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the guarantee of equal treatment within the equal protection clause does not mean that governments cannot ever treat different people differently. States need not permit children to drive cars, for example, nor must they allow senior citizens to enroll in grammar school. As a basic rule, the Court has said that it is reasonable for states to build categories or classifications into the laws that they pass, and in fact, the "rational basis test" is one of the standards used by the courts to determine whether these classifications are fair. Also known as the Lindsley test, this standard says that if the reasons for treating people differently are reasonable and logically related to the law's purpose, then they are constitutional. Opponents of gay marriage insist that there is a rational basis (usually, they argue, rooted in cultural or religious tradition) for restricting marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman.

But the Court has also held that certain types of laws need to pass a tougher standard than the Lindsley test; certain types of classifications within the law are more suspicious and require closer scrutiny. In particular, the Court has said that America's history of racial oppression requires that all laws employing racial classifications must be more rigorously examined by the courts. Consequently, it is far less likely that these sorts of laws will survive judicial scrutiny. On occasion, the Court has also applied this heightened level of scrutiny to state laws using classifications based not only on race but also on citizenship. And in recent decades, the Court has developed an intermediate standard for evaluating laws employing gender classifications. Statutes that treat men and women differently must be more than merely reasonable, they "must serve important governmental objectives," and the differing treatments of men and women "must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives."40

In terms of gay marriage, the critical issue thus becomes the level of scrutiny that laws affecting gays and lesbians should receive. Are gays, like racial minorities, considered a "suspect" class in terms of constitutional law? Does the court rigorously scrutinize laws impacting them? Or do laws that create classifications based on sexual orientation receive a lesser degree of vigilance, like those based on age? Should the courts then apply the lowest level of scrutiny, the rational basis test? Or do they impose an intermediate standard like the one used to examine laws incorporating gender classifications?

SOURCE: http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/same-sex-marriage.html

Now let's hear from a gay man in a same sex marriage:

You will, however, find the 10th Amendment, which reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Marriage is not commerce, war, or taxation. It is unrelated to money, the post office, the patent system, or any of the other enumerated powers of the federal government. Its regulation is neither necessary nor proper in pursuit of those powers...

At the drafting of the Constitution, the states all had marriage laws of one kind or another. There were wide disparities among them, both then and now, and such disparities have existed at all times in between.

The founders had no desire to settle such matters, and they did not wish a future Congress to do so either. The Constitution they wrote left only two choices: Either allow the states to regulate marriage (with, perhaps, federal consequences to follow)—or else return marriage to the people, to individuals, families, churches, and communities. Either approach would be consistent with the Constitution. The Defense of Marriage Act, however, is not.

SOURCE: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-same-sex-marriage-be-left-to-the-states/marriage-should-not-be-regulated-by-the-federal-government

Now for my own opinion. The reasons for the Federal Government not be involved in same sex marriages are the same ones that have prevented them from intruding on State gun laws.
Gay Marriage, Guns and Marijuana are fragmenting the US.

And, I do hope that you gentlemen will as vehemently defend my right to marry 4 or 5 women. I haven't decided on a number yet.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[lawrocket 3]

The Constitution used to only apply to the Federal government. The 10th Amendment was a reflection of that - that powers are delegated to the states. So while the federal government couldn't censor speech, a state could. A state could ban firearms. A state could search and seize without probable cause.

The the 14th Amendment came along. And the individual States were now required to give the same protections as the US Constitution. Between the 14th Amendment and the reinterpretation of the Commerce in the 30s and 40s, the 9th and 10th Amendments have gone on to be the functional equivalent of male nipples. Something interesting but mere vestiges.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

BIGUN

And, I do hope that you gentlemen will as vehemently defend my right to marry 4 or 5 women. I haven't decided on a number yet.

Expect no sympathy from me, you deserve what you get...

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[grue 1]

BIGUN

And, I do hope that you gentlemen will as vehemently defend my right to marry 4 or 5 women. I haven't decided on a number yet.

I support the right for any combination of consenting adults to have registered domestic unions. I think marriage needs to be removed from government completely, and that said unions need to take the legal place of marriage.

cavete terrae.

[BIGUN 1,073]

lawrocket

The Constitution used to only apply to the Federal government. The 10th Amendment was a reflection of that - that powers are delegated to the states. So while the federal government couldn't censor speech, a state could. A state could ban firearms. A state could search and seize without probable cause.

The the 14th Amendment came along. And the individual States were now required to give the same protections as the US Constitution. Between the 14th Amendment and the reinterpretation of the Commerce in the 30s and 40s, the 9th and 10th Amendments have gone on to be the functional equivalent of male nipples. Something interesting but mere vestiges.

I'm going to back away and do some homework on this... I've bookmarked the following to read tonight as a starting point. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv I'll be down some research bunny trails for a couple of days. And as of this morning, the State's top law dog is going to file an "Amicus Brief" and vows to take it to the Supreme Court... which I can't tell if it's a political or legal move.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,073]

lawrocket

The Constitution used to only apply to the Federal government. The 10th Amendment was a reflection of that - that powers are delegated to the states. So while the federal government couldn't censor speech, a state could. A state could ban firearms. A state could search and seize without probable cause.

The the 14th Amendment came along. And the individual States were now required to give the same protections as the US Constitution. Between the 14th Amendment and the reinterpretation of the Commerce in the 30s and 40s, the 9th and 10th Amendments have gone on to be the functional equivalent of male nipples. Something interesting but mere vestiges.

As promised, I've been doing some homework on this - which included speaking with a constitutional attorney whose been to the US Supreme Court three times and "Won" (you know what I mean)...

Anyway, there is the provision for treating different people differently. And, a majority of the States are still apposed to same-sex marriage. The point in which I was making is the part on majority. A majority of this State and others are still opposed to it. In Oklahoma, the reason it was overturned (for now) was because the law was written improperly.

He said that you have a point regarding the 10th & the 14th amendments, but that he did not agree in its entirety. He also said that if attorneys agreed and laws were more common sense; there would be less attorneys and less reason to have courts.

I'm no scholar on the matter and for me personally; same sex makes me no never mind. I care less about people's sexual proclivities than I do about the number of ants on planet earth. For the most part and for me, I think its a matter of "Reactance Theory" It's kind of like a tennis match. The harder you hit the ball to the opponent' the further they will move back from the net (Metaphor for understanding).

Of course, I also believe there's a reason man only lives about 74 years... it's so the next generation can move things along.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[kallend 1,649]

Next: Virginia

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/23/virginia-ag-gay-marriage/4791715/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Southern_Man 0]

http://newsok.com/news9-lawmakers-consider-banning-marriage-in-oklahoma/article/3926997

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Pacific 0]

And Oklahoma divorce lawyers rejoice.