It wouldn't fucking surprise me if they pass a law to allow married kin in Arkansas. That shit is real big in the South.
Texas Accidentally Bans All Marriage
- Thread starter BlueBalls
- Start date
It wouldn't fucking surprise me if they pass a law to allow married kin in Arkansas. That shit is real big in the South.
Namreg
Banned
So George Double-U isn't the single nut case from there
ah you beat me to it.:thefinger
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
Someone's bin messin' with Texas.
Well, a majority vote is not the end of it in our system. The majority doesn't get to vote any will they want as any law or measure affirmed by vote must also meet the test of constitutionality. If the majority passes law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right then it is the right if not duty of the disenfranchised party to bring suit against the law on that basis.
Instead of creating a new example...here's a former example I created illustrating the process....
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=3692456&postcount=141
I am aware of that. However, if we actually followed the constitution literally, we wouldn't have things like "In God We Trust" printed in all our bills, etc. Not that I have a problem with it, but it's clearly a violation of the separation of church and state clause.
The gay marriage cases are heading towards the US Supreme Court, however, the USSC tends to favor the idea that marriage should be left up to states to decide. And if states like Texas have the majority voting on constitutional amendments to deny the minority from equal rights and access to marriage, then that's pretty much the end of it. Unless they eventually wisen up and reverse such discriminatory laws, which unfortunately could take a very long time.
I am aware of that. However, if we actually followed the constitution literally, we wouldn't have things like "In God We Trust" printed in all our bills, etc. Not that I have a problem with it, but it's clearly a violation of the separation of church and state clause.
The gay marriage cases are heading towards the US Supreme Court, however, the USSC tends to favor the idea that marriage should be left up to states to decide. And if states like Texas have the majority voting on constitutional amendments to deny the minority from equal rights and access to marriage, then that's pretty much the end of it. Unless they eventually wisen up and reverse such discriminatory laws, which unfortunately could take a very long time.
Has that ever been challenged as a violation of the First Amendment? That unconstitutional "laws" are passed isn't the challenge...the challenge is to contest them when the occurrences arise.
Why then couldn't the cases be taken up naturally through the state courts? State constitutions can't be be inferior in protection than the US Constitution.:2 cents:
StanScratch
My Penis Is Dancing!
Can we just go ahead and ban Texas?
That's the reason they added constitutional amendments in the first place, to prevent so called "activist courts" from letting gay and lesbian people marry.
Only the USSC could overturn that, but like I said, this court favors the idea the marriages should be left up to the states to determine. If voters in those states choose to change their consitutions out of animosity towards this particular group, then there is nothing the courts or legislature can do about that.
How does that defeat the burden of state constitutions not being inferior in rights to the US constitution?
Just because a state amends their constitution doesn't mean they can impose laws that are violations of human and/or civil constitutional rights.
You can't simply amend your state constitution (well you can but that isn't the end of it) in order get around a right the US constitution guarantees.
Now my point is in the narrow vacuum of the role of our constitution. I'm not sure how the circumstance would be argued or apply in the particular case for gay marriage.
Well, the case will have to be tested in the USSC. Perhaps like interracial marriage was in the past. It's interesting how the arguments against interracial marriage are similar to those against gay marriage today.
It's even more incredible that just in 1958, 96% of Americans were against it. Definitely much more than those who are against gay marriage today. Hopefully, one day we will see this discrimination towards gays the same way we would see denying an interracial couple marriage now.
This comment was used by a judge in Virginia to uphold antimiscegenation laws:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
"The plaintiffs, Mildred Loving (nee Mildred Delores Jeter, a woman of African and Rappahannock Native American descent, July 22, 1939 – May 2, 2008)[2][3][4] and Richard Perry Loving (a white man, October 29, 1933 – June 1975),[5] were residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia who had been married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, having left Virginia to evade the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person. Upon their return to Caroline County, Virginia, they were charged with violation of the ban. They were caught sleeping in their bed by a group of police officers who had invaded their home in the hopes of finding them in the act of sex (another crime). In their defense, Ms. Loving had pointed to a marriage certificate on the wall in their bedroom; rather than defending them, it became the evidence the police needed for a criminal charge, since it proved they had been married in another state. Specifically, they were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified "miscegenation" as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years on condition that the couple leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that
“ Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
As you can see, "God" and "tradition" have always been used to deny people basic equality under the law."
Similar threads
