Lesbian Couple Sues to Have All States Recognize Massachusetts Marriage

[mom cat]

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - A lesbian couple who married in Massachusetts sued the federal government on Tuesday to have their union legally recognized in the rest of the country.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Rev. Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether, who married July 2 in Massachusetts. The couple applied for a marriage license in Florida soon afterward and were denied.

It was believed to be the first such lawsuit since gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts in May, said their attorney, Ellis Rubin.

"No one has anything to be afraid of by recognizing our marriage," Wilson said outside the courthouse Tuesday.

Rubin said the federal Defense of Marriage Act and a Florida law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman violate his clients' equal-protection rights.

.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBC81XLWWD.html

[2Design]

1. wonder if this will help fuel the fire against gay marriages.

I feel their pain.....just not sure what can or will work in this country when there are so many who believe in discrimination....

[Massacure]

2. Just because one state recognizes it, doesn't mean the others have to

I feel sorry for these women, but if they actually win this there will be a precedent for a lot of other issues that can be abused.

[Lex]

3. If a heterosexual couple gets married in *any* state

then *all* other states recognize the marriage.

These ladies are just saying that they are entitled to the same treatment--if not, then law has to have a rational basis as to why one citizen is given more rights than another.

The case of Loving vs. Virginia in the late 1960's is the case that went to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court said that people of different races had the right to marry, and that certain states couldn't bar or refuse to recognize that marriage.

[dolstein]

7. Not true

If, say, a man marries a 14 year old in Mississippi and then moves to another state where people can't get married until they're 18, the Constitution does NOT require the state to recognize the marriage.

Your interpretation of Loving v. Virginia is off the mark. Loving was not decided on the grounds that one state had to recognize an out-of-stage mariage of a mixed race couple. Loving was decided on equal protection grounds.

[Lex]

9. And this suit will be decided on equal protection grounds too.

Which was my point.

And, if a person gets married to a 14 year old girl in a state which recognizes that a 14 year old has the right to consent to be married, then WHATEVER state they move to, they are legally married still.

[doctorbombeigh]

14. Actually, they DO have to recognize the marriage...

that's what has the fundies in such a state. Constitutionally, each of the several states is required by the Constitution to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of the other states. That means if you're legally married in MA, you're legally married in FL. Period.

In other cases related to the full faith and credit clause, the Supremes have always upheld it. In the current case, the reason why the right wingers are forcing the Amendment (other than as helpful political fodder for Rove), is because they know that as a constitutional matter, the Supremes will rule that full faith and credit is the law of this land and will be upheld. I doubt that even Scalia would be able to decide against it, though he'd sure try to find a way. Basically, absent a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage in every state, the anti-marriage crowd is constitutionally Cheney'd on this and they sure know it.

Gay marriage will shortly become a legally recognized reality in the United States. Still, it's nice to see 'em twist in the wind for a while, before they are humiliatingly defeated.

[Amarant]

15. Wrong

Loving V Virginia

Check that SCOTUS ruling.

If we followed your opinion interracial marriages would still be illegal in some states.

Really I'm glad this case was brought now considering the repubs are trying to pass the limitation on the courts. Looks like they are too late.

[Elginoid]

73. wouldn't it fall under laws of reciprocity?

just askin'...

[Not Me]

4. There are a lot of issues to be resolved...

Like can states pick and choose which type of marriages they will recognize from other states and countries, ie: recognize Massachusetts hetero but not gay marriages? Or Canadian, Dutch or Belgian similar arrangements? or will they need to not recognize *any* from those jusisdictions?

And the real fight will come when all those couples legitimately check off the "married" box on their 1040's next April. Or claim survivor Social Security benefits.

Bush* in office: all hell broken out culture war.
Kerry in office: movement toward equality.

[SoCalDem]

5. As much as I agree, I wish they would have waited until Kerry was elected

This almost sounds like they were "put up to it", in order to make this issue even more "radioactive"..

It sucks when people who should be helping Kerry, are making it harder..

This is where the dems fall down.. The rightwing "fringe" knows when to lay back and bide their time.. They understand the "wink-wink-nod-nod...ya know what I mean" code-speak that their party leaders spout durin campaigns..

It's good to get people on the record, but I wish Kerry did not have to have this on his plate so close to the election..

This is the kind of issue that brings the knuckledraggers to attention.. I would rather that they just stay home on election day :(

[UnityDem]

80. Bingo.

Timing is everything.

[hightime]

6. One states laws are not recognized in another state.

Gun control, gambling, prostitution, qualifying age to marry ...etc.

[Lex]

10. But if the Supreme Court says it is a matter of Equal Protection

under the federal Constitution, then all states will have to recognize the same-sex marriage that happens in another state.

[hightime]

11. This topic has outpaced my knowledge, I am currently reading on it.

I have the constitution in another window and think Article 4 section 2 clause 1 is the relevant portion. I will have to continue from there unless you can steer me in a more direct path. I hesitate to discuss issue until I have at least tried to educate myself on the subject. I have a computer you know. :evilgrin:

I'll take any directions people want to give.....just trying to keep up. Thanks.

[Lex]

12. I suggest that one place look is to read

the case of Loving v. Virginia where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state's rights to restrict marriage between persons of different races. It was decided under the Equal Protection Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

It is still good law. This is where the same-sex marriage arguement is headed.

Here is a site: http://www.fact-index.com/l/lo/loving_v__virginia.html

At the site, you can click on a link at the bottom to get to the full text of the case.

[Not Me]

16. Qualifying age to marry....

While one state may set any age it wants within its own borders, I don't believe there are any states who refuse to recognize marriages from any other state based on age.

[Amarant]

18. I suggest you read the constitution

full faith and credit does NOT say "one states laws are to be recognized in another".

It says proceedings, documents, etc. Those are NOT laws - those are cases such as contracts, marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.

[Gothmog]

23. Marriage is a decree or official act

The laws of one state need not be recognized in another state but the decrees and proceedings of a state must be recognized in every state. If a person is convicted of an act that is a crime in one state, then that person can still be extradited for such crime even from a state that does not recognize such act as a crime.

The declaration that a couple is legally married in one state is the type of decree that has to be given full faith and credit in the other states. That is why the FMA is set up as an amendment to the Constitution. The only way for Congress to overrule a provision in the Constitution is by amending the Constitution.

[Lex]

29. Exactly. The fundies know they are screwed on case law

grounds because of the U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Virginia's Loving case on interracial marriage, and on Texas's Lawrence case from last year, and on a whole host of cases that say gender can't be used to deprive one's rights under the law either.

[David Zephyr]

8. Good! Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.

Of course, this will upset a lot of fine-feathered friends who like to call themselves liberals...but tough.

Once again (as always) direct action always prevails over electoral action in the land we call America.

Kudos to Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether.

[Gothmog]

13. Full faith and Credit clause

Each state must give full faith and credit or effect to the decrees of another state. That means that if a marriage is valid in Mass. then it needs to be recognize in the other 49 states. This is the reason why the FMA has to be done on the constitutional level, i.e., because only an amendment to the Constitution can negate the effect of another provision of the Constitution. The FMA in effect provides that the full faith and credit provision of the Constitution does not apply to marriages that do not meet the requirements of the amendment.

[DoNotRefill]

17. Really?

so when a court in one state issues a concealed weapons license, courts in other states have to recognize it as valid in their states too?

[Lex]

20. No, different thing altogether. We are talking Equal Protection

.
under the Federal Constitution which doesn't apply to gun laws and stuff, but to the rights of citizens to be treated equally under the law in matters of marriage, etc.

Read Loving v. Virginia and it will become apparent what the legal framework will be on this.

Here's a link http://www.fact-index.com/l/lo/loving_v__virginia.html

At the bottom, you can click on a link to take you to the full text of the case.

[DoNotRefill]

21. Sorry, but...

a ccw is issued via a court order, the same as a restraining order, a felony conviction, et cetera. It's a court order, and as such, should, in theory, also have equal protection.

[Lex]

26. "The right to marry cannot be infringed by the State"

unless there is a "rational basis" under the law for the infringment.

Here is what the Supreme Court said in Loving v. Virginia, which is still good law:

-----------

At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense." McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 198 (STEWART, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring).

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied <388 U.S. 1, 12> the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
II.
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

----------------------

[DoNotRefill]

27. Is homosexuality a racial classification?

eom

[Lex]

31. Arggh. Surely you understand the broader implications

under the Loving case?

The Court in Loving said discrimination under the law MUST HAVE a rational basis and cannot stand unless the states can provide a rational basis for the discrimination.

Gender cannot be used to deprive a citizen of basic rights. No rational basis for that discrimination. (Long line of cases on this.)

Marriage is a basic right per the Loving case.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence case said the states cannot punish homosexuals for acts that are deemed okay for heterosexuals.

Do you see how this is shaping up? You have to be able to see that Supreme Court cases build on each other over the years--that is why "precedent" is so very important in each case decided by the Court.

[hightime]

30. "fundamental to our very existence and survival"

Seems to imply the "potential" to have children as 1 of it's underlying reasons for being a "basic civil rights of man," . While I know it does not exclude couples unable or unwilling to have children, I don't see how this concern, when adress in a racial context, transfers to a discussion about sexual preference.


Still reading.

[Lex]

32. I know lots of gay parents with kids.

And lots of straight couples with no kids.

The court is saying that the right to marry, or not marry, is NO BUSINESS of the state to regulate unless the state can establish a rational basis to regulate it. The ability to have children is not going to fly.

[hightime]

42. I think you got my take on the stated ruling backwards.

I am not arguing that being able to have children regulates the right to marriage. I am reiterating the courts statement that one of the reasons marriage is a basic human right is that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival". Homosexual marriage would not be "fundamental to our very existence and survival" and would lose this argument if used to show that marriage was a asic human right.

[Amarant]

46. Uhhh marriage is NOT

fundamental to our very existance and surivial.

People can reproduce just fine with out marriage if they wanted to (and do all the time). I'm sure several hundred thousand years ago we survived just fine with out it as well.

Flawed argument.

[Lex]

52. The stability that marriages affords a family with children

can't be cornered by heterosexuals either precisely because there ARE gay parents with kids. And plenty of them too.

[jdj]

54. Not to mention a divorce rate of 50%.

[hightime]

72. What is the homosexual "divorce" rate?? Or was that everyone?

[Pachamama]

79. Good Parenting has to do with the "very existence and our survival"

...and this dear hightime has absolutely nothing to do with being married, single or straight or gay....Plenty of married straight people in this country screwing up kids left and right....plenty of straight married parents who neglect or abuse their children....Plenty of parents working and letting young Au Pairs or Day Care workers raise their kids instead of themselves (not always by choice and often by economic necessity) but parenting has absolutely nothing to do with sexuality and sexual preference.

For the record - And I have saved my 1000 posting just for you hightime....

I was raised by Lesbian mothers...my mother left my father when I was 4 and I was raised by her and her partner along with my brother and sister.....I was taught to "marry" and "love" my best friend....that's what I did....and same with my siblings...and for the record - I'm a stay-home Mom of two and I am "straight"...my brother and sister - both married with kids and "straight"....so, I guess the "existence and survival" argument and "destruction of the American family" argument a la Rick Santorum doesn't fly, does it now?

:think:

[doctorbombeigh]

19. The general thinking is that the FMA will be struck down...

the first time it hits the Supremes (it's en route even as we type). You correctly cite the full faith and credit clause, which will be the basis for the FMA being overturned, as well as the basis for the approaching recognition of gay marriage in every state.

Elvis has left the building on this one, so I'll just enjoy watching these homophobic freaks spend a lot of time, money and energy burning the building down anyway, out of pure spite.

The Amendment got almost NO traction where Rove needs it, though it may energize the fundies to some extent. It's not the issue the neo-cons need and it's getting awfully late in the game to find one.

[Lex]

22. Yes indeed. The writing is on the wall. n/t

[Gothmog]

25. FMA is being proposed as an amendment to the Constitution

If the FMA is passed as proposed, it will be an amendment to the Constitution. The only way that Congress can override one provision of the Constitution is by means of an amendment to the Constitution. That is why a super majority vote was required and then the whole mess would have to be sent to the states for ratification. Luckily, the Senate Democrats killed the FMA for now by means of a filibuster.

[Gothmog]

24. Not applicable

A concealed carry permit only applies to you while you are in the borders of a particular state and is not the type of decree that is applicable in other states. Just because Texas says that you can carry a gun while you are in Texas does not mean that you can also carry a gun in Virgina.

A marriage is a declaration by the state that a couple meet the requirements to be "married" in that state and is the type of decree that must be given full faith and credit. This is why the FMA is being proposed as an amendment to the Constitution. The only way for Congress to override a provision of the Constitution is by amending the Constitution.

[DoNotRefill]

28. actually...

many states DO recognize other state's CCWs...

For instance, Kentucky recognizes ALL CCW permits from any state. If you've got a CCW in virginia or Texas, you can carry in Kentucky.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't have disclaimers in it. There's no language in it which says "states must give full faith and credit to X, Y, and Z kind of decrees, but not A, B, or C decrees."

[jdj]

34. Who cares?

[depakid]

33. Interesting case- it would be nice if the pleadings were online

The so called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) relies on the second sentence of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states:

"And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

In other words, Congress claimed to have the authority under the Constitution to declare what "effect" one State's acts, records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State. Congress has actually done this in two previous family law situations- the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and the Full Faith and Credit for child Support Order Act. Of course, neither one of those laws involved significant equal protection concerns.

Applying the rationale of Loving to override DOMA is tricky because it involved a racial classification and the Lovings were in fact prosecuted under a criminal statute forbidding what used to be called miscegenation. Gay marriage is a fairly novel concept and even in criminal cases the Supreme Court is still evenly divided over sodomy laws. Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether have filed a civil case seeking to compel Florida to grant a marriage license (why a license would be necessary, I don't know).

At any rate- here's the essential reasoning behind Loving v. Virginia. Decide for yourselves whether and how it applies:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

[jdj]

38. "principle of equality at the heart of the 14th amendment"

14th amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law"

so theoretically, each couple could sue to marry from here to kingdom come

"the freedom to marry...resides WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL."

Excluding pedophilia which is pretty well defined under the law, it's not about a COUPLE of people. It's about the right of the INDIVIDUAL to marry. The gender of the person is not the gov's business.

[depakid]

45. As I said, it's an interesting case

And even what we here in America consider pedophilia in our laws are accepted elsewhere in the world via age of consent laws- should a 14 year old girl be allowed to consent to sex or marraige? Some advanced western countries think so. I don't, but that's the custom.

[jdj]

48. Queers are fighting to marry in America.

I think the more appropriate question is CAN a 14 year old consent to marriage (in this country). I don't think so.

[depakid]

53. So your point is?

That people of the age of consent in America shouldn't have equal rights (after all, this is what the debate is all about) or are you upset that other countries have lower ages of consent? I'm only passing along facts. Look 'em up for yourself.

[jdj]

55. No, that the issue is here in the U.S.

Many, if not most, children that age and younger that marry in other countries do so in arranged marriages, so there really isn't any "consent" involved. And I'm not convinced a fourteen year old here in the U.S. can consent to marriage because I don't believe a fourteen year old can truly conceive what marriage means. I mean, they aren't allowed to vote...

[depakid]

56. Even in the US

There are lots of 30 somethings that can't conceive what marraige means-

And they don't vote!

[ljaycox]

35. Full faith and credit ain't

gonna feed the dog here. Marriage is a license. Like a law license or a medical license or an insurance license... you get the drift. A state cannot be compelled to accept licenses from other states. Marriage licenses are recognized as a matter of custom, not of law. What will happen here is that a state may not be able to discriminate against marriage licenses granted by Mass. to homosexual couples, but they will be able to stop recogizing ANY out state marriage licenses. What will happen here is that if you move to another state you will be pulling a new marriage license under the laws of THAT state if you want your relationship recognized as such, in said state. Not pretty, but I think it is where we are going. You are not going to see states compelled to recoginze gay marriage by this court, if it does happen, unfortunatley you will see the constitution ammended. This could create more backlash than we want on this issue. I hope we move forward with civil unions for all where it can be and let this culture get used to it for awhile, then move forward. This is a dangerous development for progrresives. I think we underestimate the underlying emotional volitility on this at our peril.

[Lex]

37. Equal Protection will be what wins this case, not

Full Faith and Credit.

The states will not be able to provide a rational basis for the discrimination based on the gender of those wishing to get married.

[depakid]

39. The flaw in your reasoning

is that a marraige license isn't like a license to practice law, medicine or even to sell insurance or real estate. The whole point of Loving was to dispel the notion that "customs" like denying marraige licenses based on ethnocentric (and I'll submit ignorant) notions like miscegenation are clearly unconstitutional.

You may well be proven right with respect to backlash- but then again, that's what people used to say to Frederick Douglas and Susan B. Anthony.

[Lex]

41. Too right.

People thought white people would never drink from the same fountain as blacks or sit beside them at a theatre either.

People will get used to the idea and then later it won't be a big deal at all.

[jdj]

43. I think this controversy is the greatest gift the fundies ever gave queers

T.V. coverage of the dumpy, sagging, balding and totally unspectacular, normal average joe and jill queer, who are by far the vast majority of queerdom.

We NEVER got a realistic portrayal of our culture from pride marches. Thank you fundies, for showing America that we are just as plain and pudgy as you are. I hope they see us on T.V. at night and think, hell they aren't twenty something clubber coke fiends or whatever,they are us ugly as we are,let the poor sods marry each other, it's the least we can do.

I don't think we need to be seduced by the reich-wing media uber-screeching on this. Most Americans are smart enough to know this isn't going to affect their lives one whit, while the policies to privatize social security and medicare, cut social services and outsource as many American jobs as possible WILL, and will just under 900 of our soldiers dead in Iraq, I think they will be mightily offended if pukes spend alot of time on this issue. Contrary to what you stated, I think it's a dangerous development for reich-wingers to appear as concerned about this as they are in a time of war and recession. They are showing their true colors on this one, to their peril.

[Square_Peg]

36. History and case law says they will lose

Gay marriage is nothing new in terms of constitutional law. Anyone who cares to get informed will easily discover that our country has been down this road long before. Remember polygamy laws? The mormons lost this case decades ago.

If the government can define marriage as a union between two people, and thus exclude marriages of three, four, or more, then it has just as much right to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

[Lex]

40. Can you explain the legal reasoning behind

restricting polygamy? The reasoning that the Court used, that is.

What was the legal standard used?

I mean, since you mentioned case law.

[Nashvilliberal]

44. If Square Peg doesn't, will you?

You seem very knowledgeable, and I've wondered this myself. If gay marriage is protected under the constitution, what would be the court's reasons for not recognizing polygamous relationships?

[jdj]

47. I'm so sick of this reich wing argument.

Utah had to outlaw polygamy in order to become a state in 1894.

If polygamists want legal recognition, they can sue at any time for it. It's not gay people's battle, and if the reich is so concerned, let them sue for the right of polygamists to do their thing. The right wing is the one harping on the issue.

It kills me that were polygamy legalized, all the little fundie harpies that are fighting gay marriage would be shocked to find their pseudo xtian husbands bringing home 14 year old cousin Susie to marry. It also kills me that the very fundies that oppose gay marriage are ACTIVELY giving polygamists in America a pass, because of their support for freedom of religion, despite the fact that polygamous communities are rife with incest (easily proved as offspring is usually present in the house), physical and sexual abuse of children and welfare fraud as a way of life. Yet you never heard Helms talking about mormon welfare kings. When polygamists are prosecuted it is almost never FOR polygamy, but for rape or incest or battery or welfare fraud.


Estimates vary about the # of polygamists in this country, anywhere from 40,000 to 100,000 http://www.polygamy.org

[depakid]

49. It's the Box Turtle argument

Throw out a strawman- and supposedly burn it.

Just don't do it in Page, Arizona. ;-)

[jdj]

51. I actually love box turtles.

Of all the animals to pick on, why did he have to pick box turtles anyway?

[Hekate]

82. He picked box turtles cause he be a pre-vert

Maybe he was abused as a boy by a box turtle.

We could go the Sigmund Freud route and see if we could get him to free-associate on the term Box Turtle as it pertains to Sex.

Could probably get a few DUers to free-associate too. :evilgrin:

Hekate

[Square_Peg]

57. Supreme Court cases on the subject

<b>Reynolds v. US</b>, 98 U.S. 145 (1878) - "From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. <b>In the face of <***40> all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal</b>. ...In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control....<b>So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed.</b> Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? <*167> The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."<br><br>

<b>Davis v. Beason</b>, 133 U.S. 333 (1889) - "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. HN3To call their <*342> advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind....And in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45, referring to the act of Congress excluding polygamists and bigamists from voting or holding office, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice Matthews, <***641> said: HN11"Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a <*345> free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, <b>than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony;</b> the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment."<br><br>

Anyone who wants to define marriage as something other than one man and one woman is going to need a constitutional amendment to do it, or a revisionist/activist supreme court to reinterpret the law.

[Amarant]

58. Haha

I think you might want to be a little bit more up to date mr rep... err mr Square. Like you know quoting something from either the 20th or 21st century for example.

Quoting cases from the 1800's... bit out of date don't you think? I can quote a lot of cases from the 1800's supporting slavery/segregation/etc. You think they would hold an ounce of legal weight today? Not bloody likely.

" revisionist/activist supreme court to reinterpret the law"

Which we have, and it will be even better when Kerrys appointments take office. Hahaha :)

[Square_Peg]

59. Um I'm just quoting law

The simple fact is that nothing and noone has ever doubted the government's power to regulate marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The point of these cases is that even religious freedom under the bill of rights is not enough to trump such a fundamental building block of our society. So, if certain States want gay marriage, existing constitutional law says that other states are within their rights to define marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years.

[Amarant]

60. Ok I'll quote law too

And it won't be over 2 centuries old. 1978 Zabloki v. Redhail supreme court good for you?

"The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry.

Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"

Pay attention to that last paragraph. It's forshadowing the future ruling in this matter.

[Square_Peg]

61. The fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex

Not the right to marry just anyone. The law, and history, is quite clear on the subject. That case is talking with a man and woman. The difference between race and gender should be pretty clear.

[Amarant]

63. Hmmm

Yet know the courts have started ruling the right to marry the same sex. The case I quoted clearly says it is of importance to all individuals even BEYOND race. True, they have not yet ruled on same sex marriage specifically. I find it ironic you attack my (recent) SCOTUS ruling when just moments ago you posted over 100 year old cases with rulings that would NEVER be given today and are totally unapplicaple.

Regardless, right now we have 4 or 5 potential justices on the supreme court who will rule same sex couples can marry. Some of the conservatives are expected to resign soon - soon as in sometime when kerry is in office. He will appoint liberal justices. So while you are correct the SCOTUS has not yet ruled this - the key word is YET.

[Square_Peg]

67. Old Supreme Court cases are not "inapplicable"

I'm not attacking anything, or arguing one side or the other. I'm just trying to point out long-established law.

[Amarant]

68. Uhh yes they are

when they have been trumped by newer precedents and a VASTLY different society and situation are now in place.

Once the courts begin to rule in a manner contrary to past precedents you can expect those past precedents to quickly become null and void.

[DoNotRefill]

75. It's beyond race. It's beyond gender. Is it beyond species?

as long as one is human?

I wish I had the graphic available off of TDS tonight, of a man having sex with a turtle....

BTW, racial discrimination is explicitly unconstitutional. So is gender discrimination. HOWEVER, I've NEVER seen a law which outlaws, for example, sodomy or "buggery" (and there is a difference) struck down if it's across the board. The Texas statute was struck down because it was only homosexual sex that was banned. But in Virginia, ALL freaky ("non-vanilla") sex is illegal, regardless of the orientation of the performers and the respective genders of the participants. THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. The ONLY sex that's legal here is between married partners, and only if it involves one penis and one vagina, in "missionary" position, in the dark, under blankets, and you can't enjoy it. Given that, how can Virginia be forced to recognize a marriage between homosexuals, when the purpose of such a union is essentially to "governmentally bless" their engaging in a categorically illegal act, since they are unable to have sex without violating the (valid) law?

[Amarant]

76. Pretty simple

Virginia is a state. Virginia is inferior to the US constitution. Virginia gets slapped down by the US supreme court - just like they did with their racist marriage laws. Smack down part deux.

[DoNotRefill]

84. 100% wrong....

what federal law could possibly trump State anti-sodomy laws if they are applied in a non-discriminatory fashion, to everybody?

[Lex]

69. Wrong. It was NOT about the right to marry the opposite sex.

Loving v. Virginia was about the state (or federal government) NOT having the right to discriminate against persons based on who they want to marry.

It was a precedent-setting case that said:

1. Marriage is a fundamental right of citizens.

2. The government can't discriminate in matters of marriage unless the government has a "rational basis" for that discrimination.


Why do you think the Idiot in the White House wants a Constitutional Amendment? Because everyone already knows that the writing is on the wall as far as the precedent case law goes for the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Renew Deal]

71. If it's illegal

what do they need the amendment for?

[leesa]

50. Bless their brave little hearts!

[Fone Book]

62. The Supreme Court will strike it down!

If they try it in the (republican-controlled) Supreme Court, they will strike it down and then Gay Marriage will be gone forever!

[Amarant]

64. Oh really?

Like they struck down the Texas sodomy law? Face it - the SCOTUS isn't on your side - and when kerry appoints more justices you can be assured it will stay that way for a long time to come.

[Elginoid]

74. on what grounds will it be struck down?

sorry- but the homophobes are cheneyed on this one.

[napi21]

65. I also wish they would have waited until after November.

I don't really like the idea of gay marriage, but very much support something like civil unions to grant EVERYONE equal rights. It seems that persuing this suit now is just fueling the Pub agenda. We're only 3 1/2 months away from a national election. For goodness sake, wait to file this suit.

The fact is gays are a minority and if they want any chance at equal rights, they need the shrub to lose. Timing is everything, and you have to pick your battles.

[Amarant]

66. Any individual

can file a law suit. Not all individuals consider political situations when filing suit.

First of all don't expect a ruling to be even CLOSE within 3 months from now.

The media will NOT report this until there is talk of a ruling. Seriously - how often did the media mention the on going case in Mass before the week of the ruling? I count zero times. How about you? The vast majority of people were taken by surprise.

Now if a ruling was going to occur within the next 3 months THEN you would have a point. For the next several months 98% of the populace won't even be aware this case exists.

This is actually good because we can expect a ruling within 1-2 years from now - leaving Kerry 2 years after the ruling to demonstrate the sky has not fallen for past 2 years when he is campaigning in 2008.

[Amarant]

70. You know it's pretty pathetic

When it is perfectly legal for heterosexuals to marry and divorce literally within days, yet a same sex couple that has been together for 20 years can not do so.

[DaveSZ]

77. Yes

I agree with Napi on what stupid timing this is.


We all know this will go to the Supremes eventually.

That is why we can't let * appoint any fundamentalist gay-hating justices like Scalia (who gave a speech at an anti-gay group event before giving his dissent in the Lawrence vs. Texas decision).

http://www.sovo.com/advertising/etearsheets/03-19-2004/sovo0319_017.pdf

Their entire rationale for opposing gay marriage is that the bible says it's wrong.



Well, I'm sorry but this is not a theocracy, and I've also never seen a passage where Jesus was specifically against gays.

He preached love for all people.

[DaveSZ]

78. I don't understand

I don't understand why wingnuts want the government telling them what they can and cannot do in their bedrooms.

I thought you guys hated government telling you what to do?

This is simply proof in my opinion that the religious right has taken over the Repub party - though not completely when you take into account the Senators who voted against continuing debate on the FMA.

[DaveSZ]

81. Finally someone who sees gay "marriage" the way I do

http://www.ginnyschrader.com/Issues/gaymarriage.htm


Gay Marriage

The term gay "marriage" is a semantic smokescreen for unwarranted discrimination. Committed couples should be able to form a union with binding rights and responsibilities including inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership and medical decisions for each other. Whatever the name, the ability to form this union must not be withheld.

When a man and a woman go to the county courthouse to take out a "marriage" license they’re requesting that the State recognize their up coming civil union. Choosing to marry before a justice of the peace or at the courthouse, this couple is, in fact , entering into a "civil" union recognized by the State. If this same couple goes to a religious congregation to "marry", they are then not only engaging in a civil union recognized by the State but having a religious "marriage" recognized by their church, synagogue or mosque. These are two totally separate forms of recognition.

For inheritance, healthcare coverage, property ownership or for medical decisions, the couple is protected by State law governing civil unions. As to their religious beliefs, couples follow the teaching of their religious community. In fact, the couple’s rights and responsibilities as pertains to their religion may not be the same as the civil contract. Conversely, in case of a civil divorce, the religious organization may or may not recognize the dissolution of the union.

Today, gay and lesbian couples are asking for the same consideration, as heterosexual couples; recognition by the State of a legal union. Whether their particular religious community will conduct a "marriage" ceremony is a decision made by the religious organization and does not involve government. As to the civil contract, committed couples deserve to have the rights and responsibilities to form a civil union regardless of sexual orientation.

[Hekate]

83. You took the words right out of my mouth

Excellently put. I just don't see a problem with allowing two consenting adults to register a civil marriage at the town hall. This contributes to social stability and poses no threat to religious institutions. The civil contract (which has been part of marriages for thousands of years in one form or another) is a separate document, as you explained so well.

Here's where the separation of church and state actually should comfort those who are very religiously conservative: No church, temple, synagogue, shrine, mosque, coven or grove would ever be required to bless a union they did not approve of. They are not required to do so now, and they wouldn’t be required to do so if gays and lesbians were able to legally marry. The Roman Catholics have any number of restrictions on who they will marry and while it may aggravate some of their parishioners, the state will not interfere. Catholics who are not able to "marry in the Church" still have the option of going to a Justice of the Peace — and so should same-sex couples.

PBS Evening News (Jim Lehrer) just did a rerun of a Richard Rodriguez essay on gay marriage that first aired in March. It featured a lot of footage of couples lined up at the San Francisco City Hall. I cried all over again at the sight of so much love, so many baby strollers, so much evidence that many couples had been together for years already. (Yeah, you could say I cried at their weddings.) As Rodriguez pointed out, they've *already* formed families. That's what people do.

Their committed love is certainly no threat to the love my husband and I have for each other. The world can always use more love.

Hekate