Undemocratic?

Nooooo, you defer to Victoria Pynchon, a business and negotiation attorney writing about what Professor Sanders wrote in his blog. Victoria evidently took Sanders comment

and interpreted it to imply

When in fact, in the case of a homosexual couple, marriage creates no parental rights, so a states failure to recognize a same sex marriage, would have no effect whatsoever on the couples parental rights.

ONLY applies in the case of a mother and father because only a mother and father have the physical capability to produce children. Its biology, not homophobia.

 

No, we as individuals grant to our governemnt the authority to exercise our sovereignty.

Every state does.

 

The piece of history all this ignores is a minor skirmich known as the American Civil War. The US Federal Government won that war and has been taking edvantage of that fact ever since. There are good and bad things about this. But still, to the extent that the US is over-federalized, it all goes back to the Civil War.

 

Which of course includes creating and enforcing laws that "we" might not like. It's a catch-22

As shiva pointed out, the idea of states rights is based on the idea of each state being its own country. So if you support states rights, you actually support a strong centralized government, just on a smaller scale.

There is an inherent contradiction built into our system which is plainly evident in its very name: The United States. If we're a set of states, we're not really united. If we're united, we're not really separate states. But I think this was exactly the point! Conflict between larger and smaller versions of the same thing (countries) was built in to allow future resolution based on future, unknown, changing circumstances. To deny this is to essentially deny the whole idea of the United States.

 

Is there a substantive argument against Professor Sanders overall position that mini-DOMA's violate the due process clause of the US Constitution?

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-right-to-marry-and-the-right-to-remain-married/

 

Of note parental Rights relate to children that already exist in a relationship and do not related to the potential to create children. Approximately 30% of all same-sex relationships include children.

 

Nope. If you marry someone that already has kids, the marriage doesnt create any parental rights or responsibilities, A states failure to recognize a same sex marriage would have no effect on parental rights because the marriage has no effect upon the parental rights.

 

Why yes, the public policy exception to the full faith and credit clause. Revealing that the professor didnt even attempt to address it.

 

Funny, I thought Sanders was talking about due process...

 

So I ask a question related to "Due Process" and that is ignored and a "full faith and credit" argument is presented. Okay, I can deal with that.

In the case of "full faith and credit" a compelling interest has to be established by the State. There are no compelling State interests related to same-sex marriage. Compelling interests of the State were addressed by the California State Supreme Court in it's decision on Prop 22 and it noted a complete absence of such State interests in it's decision related to the prohibition of same-sex marriage.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF

While this was only a State Supreme Court decision that wasn't binding on any other state the issue was extensively explored in the arguments presented. We could ask that identical question here.

What compelling interest is there for a State to prohibit same-sex marriage and deny the official recognition of same-sex couples legally married in other States which would warrant denying them due process of the law?

 

Shhhh, it was a typical avoid the argument rebuttal. It is right in line with trying to establish that parental rights related to procreation, which they do not, instead of the rights of those raising children that have already been born.

As I noted in my previous post there are exceptions related to the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution but those limitations are expressly related to a compelling interest of the State. There are no compelling interests for the State to deny the institution of marriage for anyone married in another State.

 

Due process they allege is due to protect rights created in another state that they believe the full faith and credit clause requires them to recognize. Arguing that if a state cant terminate parental rights without due process, it shouldn't be able to terminate marital rights created in another state. Which is absurd to equate the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage with the rights, privileges and duties between a mother or father and their child. Their rights emanate from their biological connection to their child, not some novel idea dreamed up by judges or recently created through popular vote.

 

No, they only have to show a conflict with the public policy of their state. Thats why they call it the "public policy" exception, not the "compelling interest" exception.

 

Well, at least I got you to slither away from your assertions regarding "parental rights"

to your new assertions regarding "the rights of those raising children". All the monetary tax breaks and governmental entitlements. No more a denial of due process than when a person loses more generous tax breaks and governmental entitlements provided by their state, when they move away from that state to another that will not provide those same generous tax breaks and governmental entitlements provided in their previous state of residence.