SubscribeDo federal courts overrule state constitutions using the federal constitution?The Fourteenth Amendment (to the federal Constitution) protects the rights of US citizens from their states.
If the amendment was found federally unconstitutional, how long might it take for the state in question to recognise the ruling and reverse the amendment?They wouldn't necessarily reverse it, but the amendment would be inoperative nonetheless.
The ruling is viewed as a victory for the gay rights movement in Iowa and elsewhere, and a setback for social conservatives who wanted to protect traditional families.WHAT?!? That sort of odious, insidious, crap writing is a fine example of the problem.
"Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children:"It is amazing, simply amazing, that the highest courts of a state are finally starting to point out in their opinions what college student bloggers have manged to point out in blog posts for the last eight or so years.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships.
The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.
Conservation of Resources.
Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest.
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.Says it all, really.
Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage MeccaAlternatively, perhaps Congressman King could promote the legalization of gay marriage in other states. This would also prevent Iowa from becoming the gay marriage Mecca, thus fulfilling his apparent goal.
Thus, a judgment in a lawsuit or a criminal conviction rendered in one state shall be recognized and enforced in any other state, so long as the original judgment was reached by due process of law.You seem to be trying to use this to back your apparent claim that one state can overturn the judgment of a second state.
Or, to paraphrase... "The water in those two water fountains comes out of the same public water supply. We've just labeled one of them Colored Only so the white supremacists don't freak out."I would agree with that in the case that it's "the government recognizes marriages for some people, and civil unions for others".
"Several hours ago, the Massachusetts House voted 118-35 to strike down a 1913 law banning marriages by out-of-state couples. The Senate has already voted to repeal the law, and the governor has promised to sign it when it reaches his desk (which will probably happen tomorrow).
What this means is that soon, every same-sex couple in the country will be legally able to marry in Massachusetts without establishing residency."
"The Burlington Free Press reports:'After nearly four hours of passionate debate from supporters and opponents of the measure, the House approved the bill by a vote of 95-52 shortly after 9 p.m. The legislation, S.115, gives same-sex couples the right to marry in Vermont. The bill will be brought up again Friday for final approval, then return to the Senate, where changes to language must be approved. Should the Senate OK those changes, the bill will head to Douglas’ desk and a promised veto. That veto — which Douglas declared last week he would deliver — would not kill the legislation. Instead members of the House and Senate will try to override the veto by securing a two-thirds majority of support in each chamber. The Senate would need 20 votes; the House would need 100 with all members in attendance.'There is no doubt members will switch their votes if Douglas proceeds with his veto. The big question is how many Democrats who voted against the measure will switch to vote with their party to override and how many Republicans who may have voted to pass the measure will switch to not override their governor."
"Via Rex Wockner comes this letter heterosexual author and Vermont resident John Irving sent to his friend, the gay author Edmund White. White told Wockner that Irving wanted it to be made public...Dear Edmund:
It's interesting that, as you and I are comparing our calendars to see when we might get together in Vermont -- and while we are both engaged in overseeing the editing and copy-editing phase of our new books -- my fellow Vermonters are deciding the fate of a gay marriage bill, which I very much support, and which has been supported by the Vermont State Senate (by a wide margin).
Some years ago, I was an outspoken opponent of my fellow Democrat, Sen. Peter Shumlin -- then and now, the President of the Vermont Senate -- on an issue having nothing to do with gay marriage. (It was a tax issue, and a school issue, called Act 60, and the disagreement between Sen. Shumlin and myself was very public. It was unfortunate, too, because we were friends -- formerly neighbors in Putney --and the issue was very divisive.) Not so now, when Sen. Shumlin and I are allies on the gay marriage issue; Peter Shumlin's statements in support of gay marriage have been clear, fair, and admirable -- and I've told him so. Gay rights have long been the 'new' -- as we both know, truly not so new -- civil rights. It is heartening to see that the Vermont Senate thinks so." [continued...]
Flunkie: The basic problem with the proposed California compromise is that (...)That may be so, and I'm not saying that there are no potential issues with this recent Californian plan. All I'm saying is that "it's like colored-only water fountains" is not one of them.
"Unlike the fight in California, I believe this issue is settled...I believe Iowa will not go backwards when it comes to civil rights."
In Re the Matter of Ralph, decided July, 1839. In 1834, a Missouri resident named Montgomery entered into a written agreement with his slave Ralph. The agreement allowed Ralph to reside in the Iowa territory to earn money to purchase his freedom for $550 plus interest. Ralph went to Dubuque where he found a job working in the lead mines. Ralph failed to pay this amount and after five years had passed Montgomery sent bounty hunters to abduct Ralph and return him to Missouri. Ralph was brought before the district court by a writ of habeas corpus, and the proceedings were transferred to the Iowa Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.Moral of the story: The Iowa Supreme Court has a long history of coming down on the right side of history.
The Iowa Supreme Court found that Ralph should pay his debt, but held that "no man in this territory can be reduced to slavery." The court rejected the argument that Ralph was a fugitive slave, reasoning that by allowing him to leave Missouri and reside in a free state, Montgomery could no longer exercise any right over him in the Iowa territory. The U.S. Supreme Court faced a similar question 18 years later when it decided the infamous Dred Scott (1857) case. However, unlike the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Ralph, the U.S. Supreme Court decision maintained the rights of the slave holder and ordered the slave returned.
In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down slavery laws 17 years before the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a slave owner to treat a person as property.So, yeah.
In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue.
In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law.
In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision.
Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing civil rightsSo, it seems very unlikely that we'll ever have a referendum or anything like that, unless republicans take over the statehouse, and even then it will take at least two or three years since you need two votes.
This is a joint statement from Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal and Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy on today's Supreme Court decision:
"Thanks to today's decision, Iowa continues to be a leader in guaranteeing all of our citizens' equal rights.
"The court has ruled today that when two Iowans promise to share their lives together, state law will respect that commitment, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.
"When all is said and done, we believe the only lasting question about today's events will be why it took us so long. It is a tough question to answer because treating everyone fairly is really a matter of Iowa common sense and Iowa common decency...
– King compared gay people to unicorns and leprechauns. “Unicorns, leprechauns, gay marriages in Iowa — these are all things you will never find because they just don’t exist.”
– King said Abu Ghraib abuse was just “hazing.” King said in a statement, referring to the abuse, “What amounts to hazing is not even in the same ballpark as mass murder.”
– King sought to uphold anti-gay employment discrimination. “The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would force employers to hire homosexual employees.”
– King refused to say ‘Happy Ramadan.’ In 2007, King refused to vote for a harmless resolution recognizing the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
– King insisted homosexuality was just a “behavior.” Declaring that “homosexual marriage is not a civil right,” King said sexual orientation “is a self-identified behavior, not an immutable characteristic.”
"On May 17, 2004, when Massachusetts began marrying its gay couples, that simple declaration — emblazoned on golden stickers shaped like deputy sheriff's badges and proudly worn by ecstatic gay-rights supporters — celebrated a seismic shift. State-approved gay marriage was no longer a theoretical possibility. It was a reality.
Now, a year and more than 6,100 gay weddings later, the reviews are in. Folks in Massachusetts, the first in the nation to experience this expansion of freedom, have swung 180 degrees to favoring it.
Bay State voters now overwhelmingly support gay marriage, 56% to 37%, according to a Boston Globe poll in March. That's a breathtaking turnabout from February 2004. Back then, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gays had to be allowed to marry but before the marriages began, voters opposed the change, 53% to 35%.
...While the outside world debates how to treat its gay couples, Massachusetts sees that fire-and-brimstone predictions didn't come true.
Religious institutions haven't been forced to bless the civil marriage of any gay couple, though many have done so voluntarily. Nor did supporting the court's order to extend all the state-conferred rights and responsibilities of marriage trigger a ballot-box backlash against gay-friendly lawmakers.
Having lived with gay marriage, Massachusetts seems a bit smitten with it. By 65% to 34%, voters say it hasn't weakened the institution of marriage. Only 13% say gay marriage has had a negative effect on married heterosexuals. And 71% expect the state to 'become more and more accepting of same-sex marriage,' Decision Research found in surveying 600 registered voters for MassEquality, a pro-gay marriage group."
"The House has given final approval to a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. But the tally was several votes short of the total needed to override a veto from Governor Jim Douglas.Vermonters, contact your legislators!
And so the scramble is on by Democratic leaders to secure the votes they need.
...The override vote is on a fast track. Legislative leaders expect the governor to veto the bill on Monday. The bill will then return to the Senate, where leaders are confident they have the votes to override.
The bill's fate is much less certain in the House, where it passed with less than the two-thirds majority needed to make it law, despite the governor's objection. House Speaker Shap Smith says he's asking members to respect the legislative process.'I think that part of it really is acknowledging the work of the Legislature and acknowledging the work of your colleagues, and acknowledging that more than two-thirds of the Senate have voted in favor of this bill, and more than 60 percent of the House. And it appears that a majority of Vermonters favor it. I think that that is a signal to members that they ought to vote to let it become law.'Democrats are about four votes shy of pushing back the governor's veto.
But it's possible that some members who voted against the bill will change their tack on the override vote.
South Burlington Democrat Sonny Audette is a Catholic who did not support the bill for religious reasons. But Audette says he may change his mind and vote in favor of the override. [more ...]
Watch crop yields plumett now. God takes His revenge in many ways. Just ask those people burned out of their homes (or had their crops dry up from drought) in California. Russia’s crop yields plummeted too, once she became an atheistic nation in 1922.
"Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);Republicans Appointed Most Judges Making Pro-Gay Decisions
in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);
in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 -- Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.
And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998."
"...Republican governors appointed six of the seven justices on the Massachusetts high court that recently ruled gay couples have the right to marry, and Republican presidents appointed four of the six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Texas's law banning gay couples from having sex. 'The claim that "activist judges" are behind these rulings for equality is nothing short of a fraud. Our Constitution requires judges to be fair-minded and independent, regardless of their political beliefs and sometimes in the face of strong political opposition.'"California Supreme Court Says Yes To Same-Sex Marriage
" The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.The right-wing branding that these have been decisions of "activist judges" is ludicrous and disingenuous.
The court's 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California.
...The court found marriage to be a 'fundamental constitutional right,' and that to deny that right to same-sex couples would require a compelling government interest. The Republican-dominated court said the state had failed to show such an interest.
...The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat."
"The Vermont House and Senate are expected to vote to override the veto tomorrow. An override is expected in the Senate while the House is still unclear."
« Older This is a laughing baby.... | Between 16 April - 13 May... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Jofus at 7:36 AM on April 3 [1 favorite has favorites]