1 - 10 Next
Exactly correct!! We are increasingly being governed by 5 unelected judges acting as our politburo, with them ruling under the GUISE of the const. There is no basis for striking traditionally defined one man, one woman marriage in the const, but scotus allowed to stand the ca federal court's decision striking traditional marriage. It is beyond debate that the framers never intended to strike traditional marriage.
Chemerinsky is another typical liberal lying "law professor" who doesn't care about the law, as long as scotus creates decision that the left likes, the actual meaning of the law be darmed. The const was never intended to change the definition of marriage from one man, one woman. The framers had no idea they were changing it, and their intent is what controls interpretation that is needed. Striking bans on gay marriage by use of the const is analogous to judges ignoring what the testator's intent was in drafting a will. We would never accept a judge said actions in the latter case, so we shouldn't in the former, either.
First, Barone is simply factually incorrect about all of Doma being overruled/ stricken as unconst. Only the part about federal benefits in section 3 was stricken. Section 2, that allows states to not have to recognize gay marriages from other states is still valid. SCOTUS doesn't exist to give "victories to the right or left" but to follow the law as the lawgivers understood they were enacting. SCOTUS could have ruled bans on same-sex marriage in the states was unconstitutional, and expressly did not, nor could they, even though scotus had 2 major opportunities to do so. The people are justified in accepting this as a tacit admission that the bans are constitutional, as the scotus had previously ruled in 1972. The framers of the equal protection clause, in 1868 had no idea they were changing the definition of marriage from one man, one woman. The only effect on marriage that the epc could have is to strike bans on interracial marriage, as racism was the main malady that was being attacked by the epc, having come on the tail of the civil war. It also, by its language, prohibits sexism. Those are the main bans of the epc, and that presumably persons similarly situated be treated simlarly. The Framers' understanding controls, and it can not be said that state laws banning same-sex marriage are inconsistent with this understanding, considering that one man,one woman has been the definition since the beginning of marriage eons ago. Just like you would not stand for a judge interpreting and applying a will without regard to the intent of the testator, so it is with the const. The Ninth amendment only eans that people's rights under their state const were not to be affected by ratification of the federal Bill of rights. The ninth is not a mechanism to have courts find rights that aren't indicated by the const elsewhere. The same goes for "subtantive due process", another oxymoron. due process is indicative of procedural guarantees in the legal system, not substantive rights that can only be denied thorugh fair procedures (due process). The worst part was the decision that only the governor or attorney general has standing to defend a democratically-enacted ballot measure. This was a ridiculous attack on the democratic process. Better have all ballot measures include language that certain officers MUST defend the law or appoint someone to do so. This ruling will just create more judicial mischief.
In response to:

How Far Does 'Marriage Equality' Go?

Liti-Gator Wrote: May 29, 2013 11:56 AM
The point is that the constitution has no command that states can not define marriage as between opposite genders, and only two people. There is no possibility that the framers of the equal protection clause had same-sex marriage nor polygamy in mind, and that is the understanding that controls. All law has preferences and distinctions, so an absolutist view of the epc would destroy all law. Because the phrase is general, it requires limitation to what the framers understood they were enacting, and it was not same-sex marriage. If anything, polygamy actually has a bit better argument for const protection, because some religions have allowed polygamy, and they can argue that polygamy is also protected by their freedom of religion, as well as the epc, while same-sex marriage arguments do not have the religious freedom argument to make. Neither polygamy nor same-sex marriage were intended by the framers, so, if we are to have either, it must be decided democratically and not by unelected judges under the GUISE of the const. All we ever hear about on this case is whether there are good POLICY REASONS for same-sex marriage, and no actual const argument. If the court leaves the framers' meaning and fraudulently create same-sex marriage a const right, they have no principled way to limit marriage definitions from that point, and they then MUST create polygamous marriage as a const matter, also.
In response to:

Marriage and the Constitution

Liti-Gator Wrote: May 01, 2013 3:33 PM
The Equal protection clause is of general language, reqiring interpretation. The framers understood they were prohibiting racism and sexism, but not any evidence exists that they intended to change the definition of marriage from one man, one woman. It's not posible they had that in mind, and it is their understanding that controls. If the framers' understanding doesn't control, then it is not law. Courts applying the Framers' understanding is the common sense, traditional view of what law is. Otherwise, judges are just making up law, and acting as an unelected oligarchy in striking down laws defining marriage under the GUISE of the constitution. The section under doma about benefits may be unconst., based on the fact that states have...
In response to:

Defending Marriage, Fighting Democracy

Liti-Gator Wrote: Apr 04, 2013 11:42 AM
But in Loving case the statute was one banning racial discrimination in marriage. Racism was the main component that the equal protection clause was meant to abolish. The Framers and ratifiers of the epc had no thought of banning one man, one woman definition of marriage. That's the difference that makes the const argument about gay marriage apple and oranges to ban on interracial marriages. The argument against gay marriage, is that society has an interest in genrally steering persons together that can themselves procreate and create a balanced, stable family with a male and female fiugure for the children to be raised by. This classification doesn't have to be perfect, to include only members who can actually procreate.
In response to:

Gays Don’t Have a Right to Marriage

Liti-Gator Wrote: Apr 01, 2013 1:40 PM
The courts have no authority to go beyond the framers' understanding, or they are judicial tyrants, imposing their WILL under the GUISE of the const. If they invent ssm in the const, they must invent every other imagined marriage classification, as they have no basis to stop once they've already crossed the line from interpreting to creating.
In response to:

Gays Don’t Have a Right to Marriage

Liti-Gator Wrote: Apr 01, 2013 1:37 PM
The Equal Protection Clause, as a general constitutional clause, like many of the others, are not absolute. Freedom of speech and religion are not absolutes. That is obvious, you can not defame someone, etc. If we took an absolutist view of equal protection, there could be no law at all, as all legislation has preferences/priorities/distinctions. For example, millionaires paying higher taxes doesn't violate epc, as that was not the intent. The intent was largely focused on eliminating racism and sexism, which is why segregation and laws against interracial marriage were unconst. However, the framers and the public at the time, had no idea that they were eliminating one man, one woman definition of marriage. The courts have no authority...
It's not bigotry to want to preserve the definition of one man, one woman marraige that has been the bedrock of society for millenia of time.
The const doesn't state ssm can't be allowed, whcih is why it is up to the states. The const takes no position on ssm either way, so it is left to the states and their elected reps to define marriage, as they have done. it isn't up to the court to decise, when tyhere is nothing in the const to support creating ssm or any other kind of marriage. Congress can define marriage as far as benefits go, because the federal govt is the one paying the benefits based on marriage definitions. It doesn't have to pay benes at all, if it doesn't want, so it can certainly attach whatever strings to benes it wants, by defing them the same way that marriage has been defined for thousands of years. Scotus should be 9-0 that there is no ssm definition in...
1 - 10 Next