Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Oct 10, 2013.
Christie will appeal to no avail.
I sent Christie a tweet asking him to gay marry me.
Good for NJ. Now perhaps Snooki and JWoww can get married, since they've basically inseparable for the past few years.
So that makes 13 States plus DC that has gay marriage.
Sanity slowly prevails...much too slowly, but it is what it is.
Actually it would make NJ the 14th. From wikipedia...
I'm very glad to be wrong!
Thanks for the correction.
Only 44 more to go!
So we have 58 States now!? Where was I when this happened!?
Texas is next ......
Once we get all the illegals legalized and turn Texas blue then it will be quite possible!
Then we better get Wendy Davis all the help she can get! She'll need it for this coming year's race, seeing that the Republican frontrunner already has a near $50 million war chest to play with.
That's an Obama joke, right?
Ohhhh....wow you're good. I would have never caught that.
It's a gift.
Was wondering how long it would take.
So now that you had your little jab at Obama, how do you feel about gay marriage?
Can someone explain this to me please? Christie doesn't think that one judge should be able to force the state to recognize gay marriage. Isn't that the a major part of a judge's job, to determine when a state is doing something unconstutional and force them to change it? Just because you don't agree with the judge's ruling, it doesn't give you the right to question the judge's authority. You can appeal it, but it's completely childish to question a judge's well established authority.
Apparently, they were attempting the same thing that the same-sex marriage opponents did with Prop. 8 and Vaughn Walker: challenged his authority over his striking down Prop. 8 in the 9th Circuit, because they believed that his being gay would have clouded his impartiality in presiding over the case. That didn't work, either.
This may be a bit off topic. But what do you think would have happened if in the 90's instead of passing DOMA, they actually passed an amendment to the US constitution that banned gay marriage? That way no one would be able to say that states denying gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional since there is a constitutional amendment about it. And we all know that in the 90's an amendment like that would have been easily ratified. What kind of impact would that have had on gay rights today?
It would have had a HUGE impact, no doubt. But also in looking at what started to happen in the 90s, I'm not too sure that it would have passed. Yes, a lot of people would have still been "in the closet" at that time, but I honestly do think, as funny as it sounds, the 3rd season of MTV's The Real World was the catalyst for what we have today, as it woke up people back then who would become the people to affect that change today. It didn't help that it was shot in San Francisco, either. With that season, it (gays and gay rights) stopped being a joke you'd see in a Police Academy movie, and started to get real, especially around a person that people couldn't help but like (who died during that season).
My point: because of that, and how close it brought people around that issue, I don't think every state would have ratified such an amendment; California in particular. I can't remember the political makeup of each state at that time, but I'd say that California wouldn't have ratified that amendment; finding 12 other states to do the same back then would have been a hard sell.
Exactly. Being that gay marriage is now legal in 14 states, a constitutional amendment would be impossible today. But in the 90's, I'm more than positive they could have easily passed such an amendment. If this happened, it would have destroyed the gay rights movement for at least 30 years until there are at least 38 states willing to repeal that amendment. And being that currently most states have an amendment in their own constitutions banning gay marriage, it would be decades before a repeal of the rhetorical amendment would pass.
But on the other side of that, the Constitutionality of such an amendment would have been hard to uphold, especially in the face of the 9th and 10th Amendments. If such an amendment were to be ratified, lawsuits challenging the ban would pop up everywhere, based on the 9th amendment alone.
But isn't that the point of the amendment? To modify the constitution in order to make something constitutional which previously wasn't?
Depends. Interpreting the 14th as they possibly could regarding Prop. 8, civil unions =/= marriage, so marriage would have to be allowed for everyone, regardless of sexual preference. From there, per the 9th Amendment, that right would preempt any Amendment to ban same sex marriage in the US Constitution, so the constitutionality of such an amendment would come under the scrutiny of SCOTUS.
Additionally, marriage was ruled as a right under the 10th Amendment, then it would be up to the individual states to come up with their own rules regarding it (which is what we have now). Since SCOTUS didn't touch on that in either ruling this year, I don't think such an Amendment would have survived back in the 90s, just based on how the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments could be interpreted.
It isn't really fair to take rulings now and apply them back then, but surely with the 9th and 10th, there would be some play into who should have jurisdiction over marriage. That's probably why DOMA was just a separate law, and not part of the Constitution itself. It would be interesting to see the state-by-state breakdown of which ones supported or opposed DOMA. that would be a good indication of if an amendment banning same-sex marriage would have survived then.
I personally don't really care. But that's probably the Libertarian side of me.
I'm pretty sure the 21st amendment shows that later ones can contradict earlier ones without being unconstitutional, so I don't think your analysis means anything.