But if the judge rules that the Constitution means “all persons” and “*equal *protection” when it says those things, then where’s the problem?
And, since when do we put federal Constitutional rights up to popular vote, or make them nullifiable by the states, anyway? :dubious: You *know *that’s one of the reasons we have a Constitution at all.
Now, just for once, kindly cut the shit.
I have this case in my notes, as I live in the 6th Circuit. When and if you want to, read it and tell me if you agree or disagree with the court. The Plaintiff’s case was based mostly on the Equal protection Clause of the 14th AM, HE lost.
IANAL, but the gist of the Points and Authorities cited seem to some up is: Yes, the woman can give her child up for adoption, abort it before birth, or even just drop it off at a hospital, no questions asked. The man does not really have a right to sever his financial obligations. That’s because it’s the woman who gets pregnant and has to carry the child for nine months. That does not, in the court’s opinion, constitute discrimination.
Whether or not I agree with the court’s ruling, I don’t see what this has to do with apply the Equal Protection Clause to the question of same-sex marriage.
Because elvis posted, so out of curiousity on 14th AM grounds of =protection I asked his opinion.
Bottom line, if a court sides with you, it is a good ruling, if they don’t it is a bad ruling.
Those uphold the 9th’s current opinion, while at the same time reject Baker v. Nelson?
This was an interesting read. The guy seems a little abused in it. I think he had a point, but responding substantially to it would be a major hijack. Since it was only an “oh yeah what about THIS” I guess it is safe to say: the guy had a point about equal protection.
Interesting read, even if it doesn’t relate in any discernible way to uniformity of application of the US Constitution to the various states, or to contract law as it relates to marriage, or anything else that’s the subject of the damn thread. The link doesn’t make it clear if the woman actually lied to him about being infertile in an attempt to get a baby (don’t laugh; I know of cases when that’s happened), but if that’s the case, then fraud law should apply, right?
But you did ask me specifically, so I’d have to say I disagree with the ruling. When presented with a constitutional question, they rationalized ways to avoid wrestling with it, basically arguing that the law is what it is; you don’t like it, take it up with the legislature. That’s simply ducking the SC’s primary responsibility.
The 14th’s essential purpose is clearly to enforce fairness. That is a difficult issue in a situation where biology precludes symmetry of treatment, but that difficulty only makes it more important to deal with clearly and responsibly. The guy had a good point or three, but the court simply dismissed them rather than address them.
Well, you asked.
Elvis, if the Equal Rights Amendment had passed, and you were a Jurist faced with a question of = protection, would you rule it included same sex marriages?
EP *does *cover same-sex marriages regardless of the ERA. We’ve been over that one extensively here.
I’m surprised at you, Bricker. You know very well what the GOP platform and the proposed amendment advocates. The latest incarnation would make it not recognized at the federal level, and overturn any state judge’s decision that decided a particular state constitution guaranteed it.
However, should the people of a state, either through the legislature or through a ballot initiative decide to legalize SSM in their home state, then it would be permitted in that state (say New York) but the lack of a federal protection would not force the states that don’t want it (30 plus-ish) and also not judicially force it on people in states that don’t want it (Iowa, for example).
I believe from your prior posts that this is exactly your position on the issue. Please correct me where I am wrong.
Apparently some are proposing this very thing for the Democrats:
I seriously doubt it will make it as part of the party platform but they are talking about it which is something (a little thing but something).
Well, “we’re talking about it” is itself a political bit of hay, irregardless of whether theres actual serious conversation about including it. It doesn’t really mean anything in and of itself.
Fair enough but you have to start somewhere. I agree this is close to meaningless in and of itself but who knows…starting to kick it around now may mean it’ll grow to something in some future election cycle.
Personally I think Dems will leave it alone and wait and see how legislation progresses and any SCOTUS rulings. They will be happy if marriage equality sorts itself out in favor of same-sex marriages without them touching it. If the SCOTUS rules against SSM then the Dems will wait and see if it grows to a legitimate issue for voters before committing themselves to it.
Answer to the question in the thread title is yes
And that’s the most important kind of economy!
This became a lot less of a surprised after Obama and Biden announced they supported same-sex marriage rights a few months ago, but it’s still welcome news.