Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[martybegan]

Because that is federal law. Sorry.

So I guess that should apply to concealed carry laws as well right? Its just the same as a marriage liscense, right?

No, unless you can cite the law in question. Marriages are generally held to be reciprocal under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution.

Driver's licenses are held to full faith and credit, you want marriage to be redefined, and full faith and credit to be applied, why not CCW's?

 

[Seawytch]

You are not legally married in all 50 states. Not even in regard to the fed.gov.
Try again.

Wow...you're quick. Now justify that in a way that will stand up in a court of law.

The constitution of the state of Tennesse specifically defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Other states have similar language in their state constitutions.
Now tell me how that is wrong without resorting to false analogies of the civil rights era. Because gays ain't black.

And laws like your state's will be challenged and it will go to the SCOTUS. Your state will lose based on the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So what if they can't have children. Federal law does not require you to have children to file a married tax return, to receive Social Security survivor benefits, or to qualify for federal employment insurance benefits.

"Fags can't have kids" is a total red herring.

So is your post.
The expectation (not certainty) that most marriages will result in off spring is a fundamental interest of the state in fostering such unions.

So you are perfectly okay with the federal government performing collective social engineering.

Glad to have you on record for that.

The Rabbi would fit in well in Chinese Communist Collectivist Society

 

[Seawytch]

So I guess that should apply to concealed carry laws as well right? Its just the same as a marriage liscense, right?

Is your marriage license in your state valid in other states? Mine isn't.

You might have an argument if my CC was valid in all states but yours wasn't.

Not married so that is irrelevant. My point is that all these people who want a marriage liscense in one state to = one in all states because they see it as some "consitutional right" go running for the "but but but but" when it comes to a CCW, which is a liscense just the same as a marriage or driver's liscense, but is not recognized by some other states.

I know having hypocricy pointed out is difficult, but it is what it is.

CC laws are applied equally. Marriage laws are not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So I guess that should apply to concealed carry laws as well right? Its just the same as a marriage liscense, right?

No, unless you can cite the law in question. Marriages are generally held to be reciprocal under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution.

Driver's licenses are held to full faith and credit, you want marriage to be redefined, and full faith and credit to be applied, why not CCW's?

Driver's Licenses aren't really accepted under full faith and credit. If you check your DMV laws you will find that if you move from one state to another you have to get a new license in the new state.

If you are visiting Virginia and you hold a valid license from another state, your license is valid temporarily because Virginia Statute says it is. Even if your old license would be valid for years, you must get a Virginia Drivers License if you move here, a replacement must be obtained within 60 days.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-307
LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-308


>>>>

 

[zombiehunter696]

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

Correct, because there’s no rational basis for it, no compelling governmental interest, and no evidence justifying such ignorance and hate.

That's obviously incorrect. So obvious it needs no refutation.

Translation: "I know you're right, but I don't want to admit it"

There is no rational reason to deny gay couples the same legal marriage rights straight couples get.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, Loving pertains because it is government that grants the rights and conditions for marriage, not religion. As long as government does not prevent folks from marrying based on class and group, all is cool.

This conservative court is going to make the reactionaries and social traditionalists cry like big babies.

 

[martybegan]

Is your marriage license in your state valid in other states? Mine isn't.

You might have an argument if my CC was valid in all states but yours wasn't.

Not married so that is irrelevant. My point is that all these people who want a marriage liscense in one state to = one in all states because they see it as some "consitutional right" go running for the "but but but but" when it comes to a CCW, which is a liscense just the same as a marriage or driver's liscense, but is not recognized by some other states.

I know having hypocricy pointed out is difficult, but it is what it is.

CC laws are applied equally. Marriage laws are not.

So a CCW permit holder in Texas can carry his gun in New York?

 

[martybegan]

No, unless you can cite the law in question. Marriages are generally held to be reciprocal under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution.

Driver's licenses are held to full faith and credit, you want marriage to be redefined, and full faith and credit to be applied, why not CCW's?

Driver's Licenses aren't really accepted under full faith and credit. If you check your DMV laws you will find that if you move from one state to another you have to get a new license in the new state.

If you are visiting Virginia and you hold a valid license from another state, your license is valid temporarily because Virginia Statute says it is. Even if your old license would be valid for years, you must get a Virginia Drivers License if you move here, a replacement must be obtained within 60 days.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-307
LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-308


>>>>

You can drive through whatever state you want to with whatever other state's liscense. I dont think the founders thought that full faith and credit applied to people who actually moved into a given state, and then decided they didnt like the laws there. Nor did they assume that a person couldnt just haul up and move out if a state made laws not to thier liking.

My question is that as long as you dont live in Mississippi, why would you care if they want to ban gay marriage there?

and before you go to the gun argument, Arms are specifically protected under the consitution, to protect marriage the same way you have to jump through multiple court intepreted hoops.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Loving is actionable in this case, as was Brown. Federal law on this issue trumps state law as did Loving (and the 13 decisions that followed it) as much as Brown.

 

[Seawytch]

Not married so that is irrelevant. My point is that all these people who want a marriage liscense in one state to = one in all states because they see it as some "consitutional right" go running for the "but but but but" when it comes to a CCW, which is a liscense just the same as a marriage or driver's liscense, but is not recognized by some other states.

I know having hypocricy pointed out is difficult, but it is what it is.

CC laws are applied equally. Marriage laws are not.

So a CCW permit holder in Texas can carry his gun in New York?

I'm sorry you have a comprehension problem. You could only equate marriage laws with CC laws if my CA CC was good in all 50 states and yours wasn't.

 

[Seawytch]

Driver's licenses are held to full faith and credit, you want marriage to be redefined, and full faith and credit to be applied, why not CCW's?

Driver's Licenses aren't really accepted under full faith and credit. If you check your DMV laws you will find that if you move from one state to another you have to get a new license in the new state.

If you are visiting Virginia and you hold a valid license from another state, your license is valid temporarily because Virginia Statute says it is. Even if your old license would be valid for years, you must get a Virginia Drivers License if you move here, a replacement must be obtained within 60 days.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-307
LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-308


>>>>

You can drive through whatever state you want to with whatever other state's liscense. I dont think the founders thought that full faith and credit applied to people who actually moved into a given state, and then decided they didnt like the laws there. Nor did they assume that a person couldnt just haul up and move out if a state made laws not to thier liking.

My question is that as long as you dont live in Mississippi, why would you care if they want to ban gay marriage there?

and before you go to the gun argument, Arms are specifically protected under the consitution, to protect marriage the same way you have to jump through multiple court intepreted hoops.

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right with the Constitution as justification. Would you deny me a fishing or gun license for being gay? Why a marriage license?

 

[Qball]

The legislature passed the bill legalizing marriage, not the court.

Huh? The legislature can't pass a bill in direct contradiction with a law passed by the initiative and referendum process, and it was the court that legalized SSM, not the legislature.

She didn't say the legislature passed a law to legalize SSCM, she said the legislature passed the law creating Civil Marriage.


>>>>

How does that have anything to do with my point?

 

[Qball]

It seems you have failed to notice that 1972 was a long time before DOMA.

DOMA, in and of itself, presents a substantial federal question.

Nice try.

How so? "Substantial federal question" pertains to the constitution, since the Supreme Court interprets...the constitution. It doesn't mean that the federal government has yet to take a stance on the issue, ergo, therefore, there is no case. Even if they just isolated DOMA, I don't think they would have a case other than maybe on FF&C grounds.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

So it looks like conservatives got bored with talking about guns and having their asses handed to them on most of the other issues on here so now gay marriage is the trend they're all on fire about. Who gives a fuck about gay marriage? Only stupid people are upset about this.

 

[Agit8r]

Not necessarily. During segregation I do not think states that refused to recognize mixed race marriages were forced to do so. This is no different in that respect.

Do you think that example helps your case?

 

[Qball]

It's always struck me as interesting how gay marriage proponents are quick to bring up Loving v. Virginia as if that's all they need to make their point about gay marriage being a civil right.

The main reason Loving doesn't pertain is because race and sexual orientation are not the same, not philosophically, biologically, or in this case, jurisprudentially, as the court has never found sexual orientation to require as high a level of review as race. Furthermore, anti-miscegenation laws were criminal statutes that carried jail time, fines, and other penalties. With same-sex marriage, it's just not of the law in most states. You're not going to be locked up because you have a legal same-sex marriage in another state.

But, the biggest thing that stands out is there is actual Supreme Court precedence on the exact question of gay marriage: Baker v. Nelson.

Basically, it was a case in 1972 (five years after Loving v. Virginia) where a couple went to court in Minnesota to say that for the state to recognize straight marriage but not gay marriage was in violation of the 9th and 14th amendment. Minnesota found no right to same-sex marriage and because of the circuit it was in, it was up for mandatory review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, "for want of a substantial federal question", and thus is binding precedence.

Now, of course, some people who think they're clever will say that it's only binding on cases that are exactly the same as the case they dismissed. It's not as strict as that -- precedence rarely is -- but isn't it funny that gay marriage proponents will reach back to Loving as being directly on the nose and completely bypass Baker, a case in which the Supreme Court, and most likely the exact same Court that struck down anti-miscegenation laws, also dismissed the claim that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right?

Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

And for good reason, it’s irrelevant.

With regard to DOMA;

The Republican lawmakers argued that Baker v. Nelson barred any challenge based on a claim of equality for gay couples The Circuit Court spent little time on the argument. It noted that DOMA, like the Minnesota law, defined marriage as a union of opposite-sex individuals, and it conceded that the Supreme Court precedent remained binding, and would thus bar any argument that either presumed or explicitly claimed that there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But, it said, that did not apply to the DOMA case, because the challenging couples and surviving spouses were making no such claim. They were, of course, already married. “Baker does not resolve our case,” it concluded.

Gay marriage and Baker v. Nelson : SCOTUSblog

Supporters of DOMA can’t argue that same-sex couples don’t have a right to marry when the respective states of the latter have indeed acknowledged and recognized that very right.

What does that have to do with there being a constitutional right to marry? This is something the state recognizes, I'd argue it doesn't have to recognize any marriage.

The same is true with regard to Proposition 8, the Perry case concerns itself with equal protection and due process rights, not a ‘right’ to marry; and subsequent case law further undermines Baker’s relevance. In Romer v. Evans the Court ruled that to deny homosexuals access to a state’s law is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; in Lawrence v. Texas the Court held that homosexuals are entitled to a right to privacy in accordance with the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Neither Romer nor Lawrence have anything to do with the state being compelled to recognize a particular form of marriage. Romer deals with an amendment that repealed protections based on sexual orientation, and Lawrence dealt with sodomy laws and the privacy couples have within their romantic affairs. Of course it is the homosexual minority that wants to marry, but as I've said elsewhere, you can't quarterback the argument to suggest the only reason we define marriage in heterosexual terms is to discriminate against gay people. Furthermore, this isn't an "equal protection" issue, as there are no protections in marriage. Equal protection pertains to laws abridging life, liberty, and property, not whether or not everyone is appeased by the law as it stands. There is a way to change or get rid of laws you don't like, and that's by repealing or amending them through the legislature. Gay marriage proponents want to use the courts to do the legislature's dirty work.

Loving is cited by defenders of marriage equality because it also addressed the issue of equal protection rights with regard to accessing marriage law, not a right to marry per se.

This doesn't make sense.

 

[Qball]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

Obviously that's up for debate. I don't think there's a good reason that supporters care about, but that doesn't mean there isn't one altogether. And I think it's wrong to assume the state has to give a good enough reason just because the pro-SSM side doesn't think one exists. I mean, democracy works when you get enough people in favor of something and are willing to stick their necks out to vote for and legalize it. I could say I think the government should give me an unlimited supply of Blue Bell banana pudding ice cream, and there's no good goddamn reason why they shouldn't. I couldn't drag them into court and make them explain to me why it's not a good idea.

Rough example, but you get my point. The state would have to explain itself if it took added measures to criminalize same-sex marriage...they would have to explain how same-sex marriage is so bad that it requires throwing people in jail over it. But it just not being of the law? It is what it is.

The state has to give a good enough reason because equal protection issues are involved.

There are no good reasons, so equal protection has to prevail.

There aren't any equal protection issues involved. It's not like married people are moreso protected than single people, because if they were, it would be unconstitutional for the government to recognize "marital status" altogether. I can see how it's an "equality" issue for some, though I don't necessarily think that's a matter for the courts, but the "equal protection" doctrine has a specific meaning. The Lovings faced imprisonment, fines, and banishment from the state if convicted under Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. Other cases like Redhail and Turner, that also found a fundamental right to marry, revolved around laws intending to punish, like denying a marriage license to someone in arrears for child support and denying a prisoner the right to marry. The state simply defining marriage as one thing, and not as something else, isn't a matter of equal protection.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Driver's licenses are held to full faith and credit, you want marriage to be redefined, and full faith and credit to be applied, why not CCW's?

Driver's Licenses aren't really accepted under full faith and credit. If you check your DMV laws you will find that if you move from one state to another you have to get a new license in the new state.

If you are visiting Virginia and you hold a valid license from another state, your license is valid temporarily because Virginia Statute says it is. Even if your old license would be valid for years, you must get a Virginia Drivers License if you move here, a replacement must be obtained within 60 days.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-307
LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-308


>>>>

You can drive through whatever state you want to with whatever other state's liscense. I dont think the founders thought that full faith and credit applied to people who actually moved into a given state, and then decided they didnt like the laws there. Nor did they assume that a person couldnt just haul up and move out if a state made laws not to thier liking.

My question is that as long as you dont live in Mississippi, why would you care if they want to ban gay marriage there?

and before you go to the gun argument, Arms are specifically protected under the consitution, to protect marriage the same way you have to jump through multiple court intepreted hoops.

Can you provide the name of any state the denies Drivers Licenses or CCW based on gender?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

It seems you have failed to notice that 1972 was a long time before DOMA.

DOMA, in and of itself, presents a substantial federal question.

Nice try.

How so? "Substantial federal question" pertains to the constitution, since the Supreme Court interprets...the constitution. It doesn't mean that the federal government has yet to take a stance on the issue, ergo, therefore, there is no case. Even if they just isolated DOMA, I don't think they would have a case other than maybe on FF&C grounds.

Baker was dismissed in 1972, at that time there was no federal question, the federal government recognized ALL Civil Marriages entered into under State law.

In 1996 DOMA was passed changing that situation, at that point the federal government start picking and choosing which legal, valid, Civil Marriages it would recognize based on the gender composition of the couple. DOMA changed the legal landscape so that now there is a valid federal question.

At least 4 Justices in the SCOTUS agrees with that as this week they will hear oral argument pertaining to selective recognition based on gender under Section 3.


>>>>