Doma Lawyers Back Out.

The speculation here, has been extensive. Until pending cases (in the courts) are finalized, we can only guess what the outcomes will be.

Still, I suppose some are more interested in what has been... rather that what may or will likely be.

 

Often dealing with individuals that have no concept of how the Courts work and what is required related to a determination is akin to trying to teach a pig to sing but I will endeavor to address this regardless of the lack of knowledge related to the issue.

The Court found no irrational or invidious discrimination because the plaintiff's failed to present evidence of it in Baker v Nelson. The plaintiff's merely alleged that their Right to Equal Protection Under the Law was being violated because they were denied the Right of Marriage. The Court rightfully determine that this singular condition alone did not constitute a rational or invidious discrimination. The Court was not presented with any evidence related to denial of benefits or privileges that would establish rational or invidious discrimination so it did not rule on such violations as it was unaware of them. Thus the decision that irrational or invidious discrimination did not exist because no evidence to establish was presented before the court.

In all cases of Constitutionality the plaintiffs must establish the following:

In my statement I used the word "suffered" (an injury in fact) which is, in fact, one of the three criteria that the plaintiff must establish. In Baker v Nelson the plaintiffs did not establish that they had "suffered an injury in fact" so the issue of "causation" and "redressibility" didn't even come up for the Court to base it's decision. The decision was exclusively related to a failure of the plaintiffs to establish that they suffered an injury in fact.

I would suggest a reading of the following that's related to the California Bar Exam questions on Constutitional law to learn a little about the subject.

http://barnonereview.com/past-constitutional.php

Since that Baker v Nelson other plaintiffs have established that they "suffered an injury in fact", established the "causation" for it, and there is a means of "redressibility" related to the prohibition of same-sex marriage imposed by DOMA and the mini-DOMA's of the States. When these three criteria have been meet the Courts that have heard these cases have unanimously declared the DOMA and mini-DOMA laws unconstitutional. There are no exceptions to this fact.

 

nowhere in that quote is marriage limitted to a man and woman only.

which words don't you understand?

 

What don't you understand?

That was over a century ago, the law has changed since then, many other acts are recognized as sexual and able of consummating a marriage today.

Wake up.

 

Consummation seems as relevant as polygamy, "ownership" of ones wife, illegal divorce, arranged marriages and any other variety of forms of constructs around marriage that have long since changed, evolved or been disposed of. Focusing one aspect of an antiquated practice while ignoring the entirely different world and context marriage lives in today doesn't make much sense.

 

That would be the part that specifies a "MALE" "AND" "FEMALE"

 

As late as the 1960's there were states that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Does that imply that the prohibitions against inter-racial marriages was an "acceptable" practice before then? It was "legal" but I believe we'd all agree today that it was unacceptable. Why was the prohibition of inter-racial marriage "unacceptable" even though it was "legal" prior to the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia is a question of merit. It was "unacceptable" because it caused "suffering in fact" to those that were denied the legal institution of marriage.

Gays and lesbians have established that they are "suffering in fact" related to the prohibitions against same-sex marriage today and they have established that IN COURT with EVIDENCE.

 

Ill wait here while you slither on over from your earlier claim that the law didnt exist, to your new position that it does exist, but its not acceptable.

 

Let us readdress a point made by the court in Baker v Nelson decision.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

While some might claim that in the past same-sex couples we're raising children, a dubious claim at best, we can certainly document that about 30% of same-sex couples are raising children in a family today. In Baker v Nelson the Court was specific in addressing that this was a primary reason and justification for the legal institution of marriage.

So if we have same-sex couple establishing a family unit for the purpose of raising children, which the Court used as a reason in justifying the legal institution of marriage, should not those individuals also be included within that legal institution and receive the same benefits and privileges afforded to opposite-sex couples that also create a family unit for the purpose of providing a family for the raising of children?

It would be illogical to believe that one family raising children should be treated differently under the law than another family raising children. To discriminate is really to discriminate against the children moreso that discriminating against the adults. Does it make any sense, for example, that if one of the children's parents/guardians dies that they should be denied any right of inheritance? Does it make sense that the survivior and child should be denied Social Security benefits that the deceased person paid FICA taxes for? Why should the child suffer financial discrimination because the family is comprised of two individuals of the same-sex? It is still a family.

 

If this refers to the fact that no prohibition against same-sex marriage existed prior to the 1970's that has already been addressed. While some laws did have an "inclusionary" clause but inclusion does not establish exclusion. For example the statement, "Red is a color" (an inclusionary statement) does not imply that blue is not also a color.

What we continue to see are misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding of the English language, the laws, and the criteria for court decisions. Basically we've been repeatedly bombarded with ignorance as an argument against ending the established discrimination inherent in the prohibitions against same-sex marriage.

Either a person should be in favor of equal treatment under the law for all individuals or against it. All that gays and lesbians seek is equal treatment under the law. They do not seek any "special priviledges or benefits" related to a family but instead seek the identical benefits and privileges afforded to opposite-sex couples that are in a family relationship.

FAMILY = FAMILY

All families should be afforded the identical privileges and benefits, period.

 

What tortured logic you resort to. From Baker v nelson

"We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited."

"prohibited", excluded from marriage.

And claiming again and again and again that it didnt exist, isnt really addressing the fact that it did exist.

Ohhhhh stop with this charade. This is about giving special treatment to homosexuals, not equal treatment for all individuals. Equality in marriage would entail marriage for any two consenting adults who desire it. Constitutional rights to marrigae for homosexuals, because of animus towards homosexuals. Affirmative action to win "respect" and "dignity" for homosexuals, not equality for all.

 

You should give up on trying to interpret case law and instead try quoting it.

 

You are one to talk. LOL!!

I've read and listened to many experts, who disagree with you period.

 

nope. nowhere in that ruling was marriage limited to a man and a woman only. that didn't happen until the 1970's.

 

Thats not I, but instead a quote from the Court decision in Baker v Nelson, DIRECTLY contradicting Shivas claims as to what Baker v Nelson held. And the quote is accurate, there are no experts that would disagree. You just made that part up because you have no rational argument

 

You have no absolute interpretation of these things; stop pretending that you do.

Fact is, most people here including myself, are rational enough to challenge virtually any conclusions you cut/paste or come to yourself. Or do you actually think that anti-gay decisions by some court, should never be scrutinized or challenged?

 

The second sentence sums up the arguments for same-sex marriage.

The first sentence is false as a same-sex couple would not be afforded any special treatment or privileges that are not currently afforded to opposite-sex couples in marriage nor does the inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution of marriage adversely effect opposite-sex marriage in any manner.

 

I didnt interpret the decision, I quoted it. Shiva provided the interpretation.

 

Thats not a "ruling" and it is instead the marriage statute in California in the 1800s. LONG before the 1970s. And its the part that specifies a "MALE" "AND" "FEMALE" that limits marriage to a man and a woman.

 

dixon, you come to conclusions which are essentially irrelevant or have little to do with reality itself overall. And yes, you do a LOT of 'interpreting'. If America left this and related issues up to you, you'd obviously have everything all figured out.

 

Nope

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny."

Its only discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation that they judge to violate the constitution. Using the fiction that marriage hasnt been limited to heterosexuals in order to include those who have the potential of procreation but has instead been intended to exclude homosexual couples, motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

 

Laws have been changed before, are changing now and will in the future. So be it.

 

nowhere was marriage limited to man and a woman in that statute. nowhere in any US law, or court case was it so limited until the 1970's.

 

Plain as day

Seems to be a difference between the statutes use of the word "AND", and your perception that thinks they meant OR.

 

still nowhere in that ruling was marriage limited to a man and woman only. keep bolding and blowing up words though, maybe next time it will change reality for you.