Minnesota Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

[JakeStarkey]

Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot. Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Narrow and perverted, thus askew. The reactionary certainly thinks he knows what is right and good for everyone else. Consider the definitions below. They are both philosophies. They are both willing to use court decisions. The voters of Minnesota refused the elite to prevent gay marriage, and the used the tools of progressivism and democracy to empower it.

populism: a political philosophy that struggles for the people against the power and privilege of the elite.

progressivism: a philosophy that works for reform in government, culture, society, and economics through political means.

Nice of you to make both definitions fit your worldview

Silly remark. Look up the definitions and the historical narratives of the movements.

You are entitled to your opinions but not your own definitions and narratives.

 

[boilermaker55]

Soo............explain to the board when you decided to be born white and when you decided to become heterosexual.
In no way to I condone anything that Ariel Castro did. If he is found guilty then he should be punished.
My comment is katz when he decided to be what he is.

Yeah, those darn "activist judges"...

Loving v Virginia

Race and sexual preference don't equate... Sorry

Like Ariel Castro, gays can't help themselves. They were born that way.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Where did I hear that argument before...oh yeah, Loving v Virginia again. Funny how it keeps circling back to that. Probably because the arguments and motives are the same.

Sorry but your race thing is a weak argument, it's not the same thing and the court is not going mandate everything and everything goes for all states when it comes to marriage. If the states pass it, then good for that state. Right now most states don't want gay "marriage" Civil unions are ok and would pass in most all states.

Then why are Red states passing laws that forbid even Civil Unions?

For the same reason the House majority insists on throwing money on defending the losing DOMA: last ditch stalling tactic. They know same-sex marriage across the country is inevitable.

 

[martybegan]

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

All of them do

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

 

[martybegan]

The SCOTUS was quite clear on there being a fundamental right to marry.

Loving v Texas
Zablocki v Wisconsin
Turner v Safley

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

Do you know what precedent is?

I know what stretching is, and stretching mixed race marriage into same sex marriage is about as big as a stretch as you can get.

 

[Seawytch]

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

Do you know what precedent is?

I know what stretching is, and stretching mixed race marriage into same sex marriage is about as big as a stretch as you can get.

Equal protection is equal protection and discrimination is discrimination.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

All of them do

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

Not all rights must be enumerated in the Constitution for them to be held by the people.



>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty is having trouble Article III of the Constittuion, precedent, populism, progressivism, and the will of the citizens of Minnesota.

This is what it is: an evolution in the definition of marriage, changing what was before. Similar to the woman's vote. Similar to the end of slavery. Similar to the end of segregation.

It is what it is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Marty is have trouble Article III of the Constittuion, precedent, populism, progressivism, and the will of the citizens of Minnesota.

This is what it is: an evolution in the definition of marriage, changing what was before. Similar to the woman's vote. Similar to the end of slavery. Similar to the end of segregation.

It is what it is.

Marty doesn't seem to have a problem with the will of the will of the people of Minnesota as exercised through their legislative body. He's posted in this very thread that he doesn't have an issue with the legislature passing it.


His beef is discriminatory laws being repealed by the courts. He seems to have a notion that rights don't exist unless enumerated in the Constitution (hence his "marriage isn't in the Constitution" statement). Some though like to ignore that due process and equal treatment under the law is in the Constitution. If it wasn't, then the SCOTUS would not have found for the Loving's in the Loving v. Virginia case.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

All of them do

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

However, equal treatment UNDER THE LAW is in the 14th Amendment. That is NOT opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

Do any of them apply to same sex marriage?

All of them do

Only in your opinion. There is no mention of marriage in the constitution as a right.

There is a mention of equal protection of our laws though

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's moving from Liberal State to Liberal State. Of course California will do it - they already give illegal aliens every right that a normal citizen has, plus lots of extra bene's. That's why they're bankrupt.

Iowa and Minnesota...those bastions of liberalism.

No, we don't give undocumented people "lots of extra benefits" and that is certainly not why CA had financial difficulties. In case you didn't notice, there was a this George Bush recession that hit the entire world.

Iowa and Minnesota have always had a populist streak, which leads to a "dont mess with me, I won't mess with you" attitude.

If this would have been imposed by court decsison, I guarantee the people there would be less supporting of it. They want to be able to have a say in how thier laws work, not have it imposed on them. That is the main difference between populism and progressivism.

Obviously you’re unaware of the fact that this makes no sense.

The people of no state may violate the rule of law; the majority does not decide the rights of the minority. The courts step in only when the people enact legislation offensive to the Constitution, such as Proposition 8.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

. . . populism and progressivism.

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Wrong again.

Citizens are forced to seek recognition of their civil liberties in the courts only as a last resort, it has nothing to do with ‘progressivism’ or ‘populism,’ it only has to do with the rule of law in the context of our Constitutional Republic, where we are ruled by laws, not men.

‘Progressives’ aren’t ‘forcing’ anything on anyone, laws that are struck down as un-Constitutional, such as Proposition 8, are invalidated as a consequence of their being in conflict with current jurisprudence, settled and accepted case law dating back decades.

The majority of a given state do not have the right or authority to determine that a class of persons may be denied their civil liberties.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

You’re at least consistent in being wrong.

Equal protection rights do indeed pertain to gender and sexual orientation.

See, e. g., Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

 

[legaleagle_45]

Some though like to ignore that due process and equal treatment under the law is in the Constitution. If it wasn't, then the SCOTUS would not have found for the Loving's in the Loving v. Virginia case.

The legal issue which arises is that in Loving the impacted class was based upon race. Racially based criteria is subject to strict scrutiny and thus Loving was properly decided. Conversely, not all restrictions on marriage are invalid and whole classes of persons can be prevented from marrying each other. Thus age, limitations and prohibitions upon closely related person marrying.

There are three levels of scrutiny:

1.) Strict Scrutiny (applied to protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin).

2.) Heightened or Intermediate Scrutiny (applied to "suspect classes" such sex, age, etc); and,

3.) Rational basis scrutiny (applied to everything else).


If strict scrutiny is applied the law invariably fails. It can only survive if a "compelling governmental interest" justifies the enactment of the law and the scope of the law is narrowly tailored to fit that compelling state interest.

If heightened or intermediate scrutiny is implicated then the law can survive if an "important governmental interest" justifies the enactment and the scope of the law is a "good fit" to the important governmental interest.

If rational basis scrutiny is applied, then so long as you can articulate a reason for the law which does not cause the judges to break out in hysterical laughter it probably is valid.

It is my belief that laws which prohibit same sex marriage would probably pass Constitutional muster under rational basis scrutiny, but would fail under either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. It is clear that sexual preference is not a "protected class" and thus not subject to strict scrutiny. Heightened or intermediate scrutiny seems to be a natural fit, but the problem is, SCOTUS has never had the guts to say that sexual preference is a suspaect class, although their decisions are very odd in this area. In Lawerence v Texas, Kennedy took great pains to emphasize he was employing rational basis scrutiny, but the decision can not be squared philosophically with rational basis scrutiny and some Circuit Courts have used Lawerence as a justification to employ heightened scrutiny for sexual preference.

The key for any case reaching SCOTUS is Kennedy. He will decide the issue. and will be joined by 4 other justices regardless of what he decides.... IMHO

 

[legaleagle_45]

Equal protection rights do indeed pertain to gender and sexual orientation.

See, e. g., Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

Both employed rational basis scrutiny.. albeit Lawrence v. Texas said it was decided by rational basis scrutiny it really appears to be heightened scrutiny analysis and most Constitutional commentators agree that Kenedy employed a form of heightened scrutiny even though he claimed he was not...

Some have speculated that this refusal to adopt heightened scrutiny openly in Lawerence does not bode well for proponents of gay marriage. Kennedy could easily state that such bans are justified under rational basis scrutiny and thus be "consistant" with his decision in Lawerence.

It will be interesting.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Some though like to ignore that due process and equal treatment under the law is in the Constitution. If it wasn't, then the SCOTUS would not have found for the Loving's in the Loving v. Virginia case.

The legal issue which arises is that in Loving the impacted class was based upon race. Racially based criteria is subject to strict scrutiny and thus Loving was properly decided. Conversely, not all restrictions on marriage are invalid and whole classes of persons can be prevented from marrying each other. Thus age, limitations and prohibitions upon closely related person marrying.

There are three levels of scrutiny:

1.) Strict Scrutiny (applied to protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin).

2.) Heightened or Intermediate Scrutiny (applied to "suspect classes" such sex, age, etc); and,

3.) Rational basis scrutiny (applied to everything else).


If strict scrutiny is applied the law invariably fails. It can only survive if a "compelling governmental interest" justifies the enactment of the law and the scope of the law is narrowly tailored to fit that compelling state interest.

If heightened or intermediate scrutiny is implicated then the law can survive if an "important governmental interest" justifies the enactment and the scope of the law is a "good fit" to the important governmental interest.

If rational basis scrutiny is applied, then so long as you can articulate a reason for the law which does not cause the judges to break out in hysterical laughter it probably is valid.

It is my belief that laws which prohibit same sex marriage would probably pass Constitutional muster under rational basis scrutiny, but would fail under either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. It is clear that sexual preference is not a "protected class" and thus not subject to strict scrutiny. Heightened or intermediate scrutiny seems to be a natural fit, but the problem is, SCOTUS has never had the guts to say that sexual preference is a suspaect class, although their decisions are very odd in this area. In Lawerence v Texas, Kennedy took great pains to emphasize he was employing rational basis scrutiny, but the decision can not be squared philosophically with rational basis scrutiny and some Circuit Courts have used Lawerence as a justification to employ heightened scrutiny for sexual preference.

The key for any case reaching SCOTUS is Kennedy. He will decide the issue. and will be joined by 4 other justices regardless of what he decides.... IMHO

Romer v. Evans, Colordo's attempt to target homosexuals for unequal treatment under hte law...

"First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects."



>>>>

 

[legaleagle_45]

Romer v. Evans, Colordo's attempt to target homosexuals for unequal treatment under hte law...

"First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects."

From Romer:

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

Classic rational basis scrutiny analysis.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Romer v. Evans, Colordo's attempt to target homosexuals for unequal treatment under hte law...

"First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects."

From Romer:

Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

Classic rational basis scrutiny analysis.

You said "Heightened or intermediate scrutiny seems to be a natural fit, but the problem is, SCOTUS has never had the guts to say that sexual preference is a suspaect class,...".

The SCOTUS did identify sexual orientation as class being targeted by the Colorado Amendment. Tht it didn't hold up to even the rational basis test didn't change that identification. They felt they didn't even need to go even that far (Heightened Scrutiny) to find the law invalid.



>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some though like to ignore that due process and equal treatment under the law is in the Constitution. If it wasn't, then the SCOTUS would not have found for the Loving's in the Loving v. Virginia case.

The legal issue which arises is that in Loving the impacted class was based upon race. Racially based criteria is subject to strict scrutiny and thus Loving was properly decided. Conversely, not all restrictions on marriage are invalid and whole classes of persons can be prevented from marrying each other. Thus age, limitations and prohibitions upon closely related person marrying.

There are three levels of scrutiny:

1.) Strict Scrutiny (applied to protected classes, such as race, religion and national origin).

2.) Heightened or Intermediate Scrutiny (applied to "suspect classes" such sex, age, etc); and,

3.) Rational basis scrutiny (applied to everything else).


If strict scrutiny is applied the law invariably fails. It can only survive if a "compelling governmental interest" justifies the enactment of the law and the scope of the law is narrowly tailored to fit that compelling state interest.

If heightened or intermediate scrutiny is implicated then the law can survive if an "important governmental interest" justifies the enactment and the scope of the law is a "good fit" to the important governmental interest.

If rational basis scrutiny is applied, then so long as you can articulate a reason for the law which does not cause the judges to break out in hysterical laughter it probably is valid.

It is my belief that laws which prohibit same sex marriage would probably pass Constitutional muster under rational basis scrutiny, but would fail under either heightened scrutiny or strict scrutiny. It is clear that sexual preference is not a "protected class" and thus not subject to strict scrutiny. Heightened or intermediate scrutiny seems to be a natural fit, but the problem is, SCOTUS has never had the guts to say that sexual preference is a suspaect class, although their decisions are very odd in this area. In Lawerence v Texas, Kennedy took great pains to emphasize he was employing rational basis scrutiny, but the decision can not be squared philosophically with rational basis scrutiny and some Circuit Courts have used Lawerence as a justification to employ heightened scrutiny for sexual preference.

The key for any case reaching SCOTUS is Kennedy. He will decide the issue. and will be joined by 4 other justices regardless of what he decides.... IMHO

Romer is more on point than Lawrence, where “a state cannot deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws” absent a legitimate legislative end. Proposition 8, as with Amendment 2, “classifies homosexuals…to make them unequal to everyone else.”

And as with Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “is a status based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit.”

At trial and during appeal, supporters of Proposition 8 failed time and again to provide any rational basis for the measure, any objective, documented evidence in support of prohibiting same-sex couples from access to California marriage law.

As Justice Kennedy noted citing Department of Agriculture v. Moreno:

"f the constitutional conception of `equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Indeed, and Proposition 8 was motivated solely by animus toward homosexuals, a politically unpopular group determined ‘unworthy’ of equal access to marriage law.

We continue to see animus toward homosexuals exist in society currently, and in this very thread.