:dubious: This is a joke, right? I rather doubt that the law is officially concerned with personal political disputes and negotiations conducted between family members, especially ones living in the same household.
Mind you, I think it’s personally rather unethical to try to pressure one’s family members or other intimates into supporting a particular political cause or voting a particular way, but unethical and illegal are not the same thing.
Please point out an exception for family members in the law.
I would think it was actually illegal.
That said I doubt in this case anyone would get fussed enough to do anything about it but still illegal.
That said though people vote in private so they can agree to vote as someone else wants on the ride over then vote however they feel once in the booth. Indeed they may be so pissed at someone arm twisting them they might vote opposite that person’s wishes just to get a little personal “screw you” in even if only privately.
Ah do declayah! [fans face with handkerchief]
Damn, I forgot all about that. 
OK, I’ll take that challenge. Because if I read Whack-a-Mole’s attempts, I’ll get so irritated that I’ll start correcting him, and it will look like I’m against the underlying concept, which I’m not.
So here’s the argument:
Laws that burden suspect classes are analyzed under EP with a higher level of scruntiny than rational basis review.
Sexual orientation, although not yet recognized as a suspect class, should be, because it fits the characteristics first articulated in Carolene Prodcuts’ “Footnote Four.”
By analogy, gender classifications are analyzed under intermediate scrutiny, and thus so should sexual orientation.
Analyzing a statute that limits marriage only to a man and a woman under intermediate scrutiny means that the statute must fail.
If you need me to expand upon the reasoning in any of those steps, let me know.
Now, now. It keeps things just as they are now, it is not a step backwards, it is a rearguard holding action by enemy forces in a fighting retreat.
And this is why we have a secret ballot. Nothing prevents someone from entering the voting booth and refusing to cast a ballot, or casting one for the opposite side of the proposition, and emerging to assure the person applying the pressure that his wishes were met.
It’s theoretically illegal, but she’d have no way of knowing whether the “correct” vote was cast anyway.
ETA: beaten to punch.
And prior definitions of marriage OK’ed by the Bible include getting to marry your half sister (Abraham), having numerous wives (David), and only allowing same race people to marry (read State v. Scott, or State v. Gibson for court rulings finding a biblical and God based reason for not allowing people of different races to marry).
Well, that’s another thing, in practical rather than constitutional terms, how can the legal definition of marriage be a state issue? With such a mobile population, how can we have a system where a given kind of marriage is recognized in one state but not another? We have always before demanded national lockstep on this point; Utah was not even admitted to the Union until polygamy was repudiated both by the Church of LDS and the proposed state constitution.
Also, 5) laws that burden a fundamental right (such as marriage, per Loving) are subject to strict scrutiny, like race or alienage classifications.
. . . That’s how smokers react to disappointment, is it? Not in my experience. More likely, they light up immediately. (Disappointment might kill one’s appetite for food.)
Good Lord, shut up.
There is no First Amendment claim here. Can you point to any First Amendment claim ever that invalidated a state’s same-sex marriage constitutional clause? Ever? I mean, look how many states have constitutional clauses similar to this one. Half the states in the country have them. Not one challenge has successfuly raised the idea that the First Amendment somehow vitiates their effect.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause is a non-starter too, because of DOMA.
The FF&C Clause says:
And guess what? Congress HAS provided the effect that same-sex marriage laws in one state shall have in another! 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C provide:
You’re right that there’s a Fourteenth Amendment EP argument to be made. You’re nuts dragging in the First Amendment and the FF&C Clause.
I am willing to bet nothing I wrote is something you would disagree with.
Bet hey…why bother when you can go with assumptions?
Nope, not going there. Loving discussed marriage between a man and a woman. No one believes that the Loving Court would have decided as they did if the plaintiffs had been Richard and Michael instead of Richard and Mildred.
SCOTUS has never found Loving to apply to same-sex marriage. Let’s keep the discussion narrowly focused on the strongest argument, please. Gays are a suspect class, entitled to intermediate scrutiny. Period.
There is no “national lockstep”. There are numerous states where first cousin marriage is allowed, there are numerous states where such marriages are not recognized, even if performed legally in other states.
Hey, our hypothetical driver could visit DC! We have gay marriage, and museums, and really good Ethiopian food! And art! And music! And bookstores!
I love my city. 
I don’t think it’s a terrible argument just because it hasn’t been tried. Your pal Scalia almost always raises "the state’s compelling interest in preserving traditional sexual mores"in gay rights cases. The legislative history of these enactments is almost always full of Biblical allusions. If the purpose of the enactment is to protect the Judeo-Christian belief system (regardless of whether that belief system prohibits gay marriage) then the Establishment Clause is in play.
To the extent that the post you quote suggests that it’s a winning argument, I agree with you, but it does have merit.
You miss my point. I’m not saying that Loving protects same-sex marriage. I’m saying that Loving established that marriage is a fundamental right. Conveniently, it also dispenses with some of the legal arguments against gay marriage (“they can marry people of their own race/the opposite sex, so it’s not a burden”), but that’s not why I raise it. Loving discussed a marriage between a man and a woman. The text of the opinion does not distinguish other types of marriage the government may permissibly regulate.
Jesus, Bricker, rest your sphincter. If courts can consider the underlying motivations behind moment of silence laws and intelligent design being taught in schools, why is it so outlandish that a litigant might *claim *that Amendment One, so often explained as defending Biblical marriage, violates the separation of church and state? I’m not talking about the likelihood of the argument succeeding (I agree, it is incredibly unlikely), but I would not be at all surprised to see someone file a lawsuit in part on those grounds.
I see your argument about DOMA, but still, at least one federal court has used FF&C to force acknowledgement of adoptive parenthood. Again, I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone bring the issue to court, even if they don’t eventually win.
Pardon me for thinking that these claims might have even a vaguely justifiable chance of making it through some iteration of adjudication. I suppose they’re right up there with complaining about the fringe on the flag in the courtroom.