Prop. 8 & DOMA Predictions.

I dont recall anyone ever making that claim.

 

Riiight...that's why texas fought to keep them....

 

Generally we expect our state governent to fight to support all our laws and prefer that they not pick and choose which laws they want to defend.

And your logic makes no sense. If they were saying the law would never be repealed, why would they even need to defend it.

 

Three court cases were presented and we can exclude Catalano v. Catalano because it didn't related to a marriage under US law but instead a marriage in Italy that was prohibited by the laws of all of the States.

In Wilkins v Zelichoski the Court ruled that the marriage performed in another State was valid in New Jersey but that the marriage could be annulled because she was under 18 yo when she filed for the annulment of the marriage. The marriage was not "void" in New Jersey (i.e. it was recognized that she was married) but it was voidable based upon the petition to the Court. The annulment was granted exclusively because of the age of the girl when she was married and when she filed for the annulment. She was legally married in New Jersey up until the point that the Court ruled in her favor based upon her petition to the Court.

Arizona, in the Mortenson v. Mortenson decision, ruled that the marriage was invalid because it was between to citizens of Arizona that were attempting to evade the laws of Arizona but it would have been valid had they been citizens of New Mexico that were married under the laws of New Mexico and later moved to Arizona. The key provision in the decision was that they had never been citizens or residents of New Mexico which would have validated the recognition of their marriage in Arizona.

As noted, under the precedent established in Mortenson v. Mortenson if a same-sex couple lives in Massachusetts and is legally married under the laws of Massachusetts and later moves to Arizona then Arizona would have to recognize that marriage under the Full Faith and Credit clause. It would not recognize a marriage performed in Massachusetts for citizens of Arizona that merely go to Massachusetts to evade Arizona marriage laws.

When citing court cases it's important to read the actual decision made by the Court and the supportive arguments provided by the Court in it's decisions.

 

I both read and comprehended the decisions. You still cant seem to grasp the meaning of the public policy exception to the fulll faith anf credit clause

 

Are you certain you have actually proven that? I doubt that you have.

 

Try reading Section 28 of US law:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/V/115/1738

Under federal law all courts is every state must accept the records and documents isssued including marriage certificates. As we also know, under the Supremacy Clause, federal laws override State laws when there is a conflict.

We can also note that for the last 2 years 50% of the American People endourse same-sex marriage. The percentage is much higher than that if religion is removed from the equation and laws based upon religious beliefs violate the protections for Freedom of Religion established in the First Amendment (SCOTUS decision in Reynolds v United States). 88% of those without bigoted religious beliefs support same-sex marriage in the United States.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

 

What nonsense. First Amendment has no such effect. Our laws against murder are based upon religious belief. Doesnt render them a violation of the constitution.

 

Don't sound so adamant and disappointed, dixon.

This stuff IS and WILL be in America's courts for good reason, dixon. You have your views/opinions of the law and so do others; I don't think that many here believe you have THE answers to the bulk of legal questions being deliberated today.

 

The laws against murder are based upon the violation of the inalienable Right to Life of the Person and are not based upon any religious belief. In fact, in the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v United States which addressed the First Amendment the court expressly established that laws cannot be based upon religious opinion but instead must address actions of the individual which are harmful to the Rights of others.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

Same-sex marriage is not a violation of social duties nor is it subversive of good order and, in fact, it promotes personal responsibility of those involved in the marriage and establishes social duties for those involved. No one's Rights are infringed upon when same-sex couples are allowed to marry and the legal prohibitions, which according to all polls are based upon religious beliefs, are a clear matter of "religious opinion" which is expressly prohibited under the First Amendment based upon Supreme Court precedent.

 

The laws against murder are based upon the violation of the inalienable Right to Life of the Person and are not based upon any religious belief. In fact, in the Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v United States which addressed the First Amendment the court expressly established that laws cannot be based upon religious opinion but instead must address actions of the individual which are harmful to the Rights of others.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

Same-sex marriage is not a violation of social duties nor is it subversive of good order and, in fact, it promotes personal responsibility of those involved in the marriage and establishes social duties for those involved. No one's Rights are infringed upon when same-sex couples are allowed to marry and the legal prohibitions, which according to all polls are based upon religious beliefs, are a clear matter of "religious opinion" which is expressly prohibited under the First Amendment based upon Supreme Court precedent.

 

The inalienable Right to life is based upon religion, endowed by our creator.

You arent comprehending the case. Had nothing to do with a law based upon religion and was instead a violation of that law, based upon religion. If anything, it upheld a law based upon the religion of every church in the US except the Mormon church who wanted to follow a different law.

 

I have never read any religious text that advocated a belief in the inalienable Rights of the Individual.

Of note our "creator" is Mother Nature and inalienable Rights are based upon logical deduction and are not based upon religious dogma or texts. We can also note that many religious texts, such as the Old Testament, advocate premeditated murder and that capital punishment is premeditated murder as it is completely unnecessary to protect the Rights of other in society.

The United States was established as a secular nation, not a sectarian nation, and the founders of America rejected sectarianism because of the historical violation of the inalienable Rights of the Individual by sectarian governments. None of the laws in the United State should ever be based upon religious opinion which, as noted in the SCOTUS decision in Reynolds v United States, would violate the First Amendment.

 

"Thou shal not kill"

 

This is not advocacy of inalienable Rights which are not contained in any religious texts. We can note that many religions do have religious laws that are coincidental to the protections of inalienable Rights but they were never based upon the establishment of inalienable Rights by religious texts. Thou shall not violate the inalienable Rights of other Individuals is not contained anywhere in the Bible nor does the Bible attempt to protect "unenumerated Rights" which is contained in the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution. The Bible dictates the prohibition of some actions by people but does not promote the inalienable Rights of the Individual.

 

A law can exist whethe or not it has a religious connection. That is not to say that ANY law that has a religious purpose can be enforced, nor does it mean the law must have a religious basis to be enforced. There are limits to what can be enforced.

Murder may have a religious connection, but that does no mean that this connection is alone sufficient to justify legal enforcement. It is done so on the basis o protecting individual rights, while other religious laws have no basis for legal enforcement

"Thou shall have no other gods"
"Thou shall not take the lord's name in vein"
"Remember the sabbath"
"Thou shall not bear false witness"

Some of the 10 commandments are enforced to various degrees as a matter of upholding social order, others on the basis of protecting individual rights, and yet others have no place in law. It's no quite right to say that the religiously connected laws that we are enforcing are only incidental, but it is not sufficient alone for a law to be enforced strictly for the religious connection, nor is it wrong to enforce a law without religious purpose.

 

I have long had the following as my signature because it established a universal principle of government upon which the United States was founded.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The primary purpose of government is to protect our inalienable (unalienable) Rights. For pragmatic reasons this does require government to infringe upon those Rights for the protection of the Rights of all in society but any such infringement should always be to the least extent possible to secure the greater Rights of all of the Individuals in Society.

Incarceration of an individual that has been convicted of a crime against the person or property of an Individual is an infringement upon the Right of Liberty and, so long as it is not excessive, is a pragmatic infringement upon that Right of Liberty to protect other Individuals in Society from the acts of the "criminal" that has demonstrated they would violate those Rights. We find these infringements upon our inalienable Rights to be a pragmatic necessity and it is for this reason that governments are created by the People.

What the ideals established in the Declaration of Independence do not support is the infringement or violation of a person's inalienable Rights where their actions do not violate the Rights of others in Society. Victimless crimes are an example of unjustifiable laws that we have as they protect no one's Rights and no one's Rights are being violated. Those laws do exist but they are contrary to the political ideals upon which America was founded. Someday we will eliminate these victimless crime laws but that requires Americans to understand the ideals upon which America was founded and that is a slow learning processs.

When we address the prohibitions of same-sex (gender) marriage virtually all of us would agree that individuals should be able to form personal/financial partnerships based upon voluntary consent by informed adults. Can anyone really argue that people shouldn't be able to form personal/financial partnerships based upon informed consenty by adults? The forming of these personal/fianancial partnerships is an inalienable Right of the Individual that does not infringe upon anyone else's Right to do the same thing.

We would also agree, and it's enshrined in our Constitution, that all individuals are entitled to equal treatment under our laws. There should be no discrimination. If our government creates laws then those laws, whether they are restrictive or provide benefits, must apply to all individuals that meet the conditions of the law. A legally married couple is a legally married couple so if there are laws related to legally married couples then all legally married couples must be treated the same under the law. This is where DOMA Section 3 failed because it didn't treat all legally married couples the same under the law. It violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause related to over 1,100 federal laws that established "marriage" as the criteria for the application of the law.

Always remember that the marriage of same gender couples does not violate anyone's Rights. If their actions don't violate anyone's Rights then there is no logical justification for denying them the same legal institution of marriage that opposite gender couples can engage in. The Rights of same gender couples are just as great as the Rights of opposite gender couples. There can be no discrimination by government under the political ideals upon which America was founded unless the purpose is to protect the Rights of other Individuals in society and prohibitions against same-sex marriage are not protecting anyone's Rights.

 

Thats your strawman Im ignoring. No such claim was ever made. I'll wait here while you chase that strawman down, likely for days.

 

The straw horse is the claim that because a religious belief happens to support an existing law that the law was based upon the religious belief. Laws based upon religious beliefs alone are prohibited by the First Amendment as established by precedent in the Reynolds v United States Supreme Court decision.

Our marriage laws are not based upon religious beliefs. They are based upon considerations for the personal/financial partnerships established by consenting adults. These partnerships benefit society and serve an interest of the State unrelated to any religious beliefs associated with "marriage" and the legal institution of marriage cannot be limited based upon religious opinion/beliefs as that would violate the First Amendment. From a government interest standpoint there is no difference between an opposite-sex (gender) couple marriage and a same-sex (gender) marriage as both serve the identical interests of government. There is nothing different between the two from the government's perspective and the government is required to provide equal protection under the law for all individuals that choose to form this contractual partnership with another person.

 

AND the claim that because people support a law because of religious beliefs, it becomes Unconstitutional is BS

Whether 100% of the population supports laws against theft because of religious beliefs, or because of purely practical reasons makes no difference as to the constitutionality of the law.

 

That has never been claimed but the law itself cannot be based solely upon religious opinion but must have it's foundation based upon pragmatic considerations related to how the acts of the individual would be an infringement or violation of the rights of other individuals based upon our American ideals. It is illogical to have laws that infringe upon the Rights of the Individual if that individual is not violating the Rights of others when the purpose of government is to protect our Rights.

 

DIG DEEP for some shred of integrity.

 

Bottom line: We should NOT have laws which effective discriminate against consenting adults being in same-sex relationships. If two people of reasonably appropriate status (properly consenting, not under control or duress) wish to tie the knot legally then there should be no law prohibiting the same.

 

People can support a law for any reason they choose, including a religious belief, which is what I addressed in my first statement. The second statement is also true. The law itself has be be based upon the actions of the individual unrelated to religious opinion.

The first addresses individual support for a law based upon opinion and the second addresses the criteria for a law which cannot be solely religious opinion or belief.

Passing a law and supporting a law are two completely different issues.

 

John Boehner's house BLAG just ran out of taxpayer's money to defend DOMA:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...7/boehners-doma-defense-hits-15-million-limit