[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution.

Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo

If you need a Good Opening for black, use this.

"Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now"

How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion

Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men

Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK.

South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Back PRIORS AND PRECEDENT Same-Sex Marriage Gets Its Big Day At The Supreme Court
Source: FiveThirtyEight
URL Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ ... -big-day-at-the-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: Oliver Roeder
Post Date: 2015-04-29 12:33:58 by Jameson
Keywords: SCOTUS, Marraige, 538
Views: 23161
Comments: 119

The question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage will finally have its day in court this week. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral argument in a quartet of cases on this subject. If the court reverses lower court rulings that upheld bans on same-sex marriage, it could mean that every state would have to honor such marriages performed in other states, and could require every state to permit them. A decision is expected this summer, most likely in late June. In this edition of Priors and Precedent, we’ll dig into some data and two sources of predictions for this landmark case. First, some background.

The Case

The petitioners are 12 couples and two widowers from states that bar same-sex marriage. A recent profile by NPR dubbed them “‘accidental activists,’ meaning they filed lawsuits not to further a cause but because of the way the bans affected their lives.”

The challenge to the bans, known as Obergefell v. Hodges, is actually four cases rolled into one.1 The court consolidated them and limited its consideration to these two questions:

Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

The first is called the “marriage” question, the second the “recognition” question. The court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the former and an hour of argument on the latter. Civics refresher: The 14th Amendment guarantees certain rights under its “due process” and “equal protection” clauses.

If the answer to the first question is “yes,” then the answer to the second is irrelevant, of course.

Click for Full Text!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 103.

#28. To: Jameson (#0) (Edited)

"Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?"

What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

"Does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?"

The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-30   11:13:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: misterwhite (#28)

What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Yeah, I have no idea. You'll have to take up these questions with an attorney.

(even then, I'll bet that there will be multiple opinions)

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   11:16:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Jameson, misterwhite (#30)

[misterwhite] What part of the 14th amendment requires this?

The 14th amendment?? Why isn't this covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution -- "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is argued on behalf of the right to enter into same-sex marriage. Article 4 is said to apply to require all states to recognize an existing same-sex marriage, even where it would not be legal to enter into according to the laws of said state.

At 1-4:

ORAL ARGUMENT OF MARY L. BONAUTO

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS ON QUESTION 1

MS. BONAUTO: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The intimate and committed relationships of samesex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support and are the foundation of family life in our society. If a legal commitment, responsibility and protection that is marriage is off limits to gay people as a class, the stain of unworthiness that follows on individuals and families contravenes the basic constitutional commitment to equal dignity.

Indeed, the abiding purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to preclude relegating classes of persons to secondtier status.

- - - - -

At 1-31

GENERAL VERRILLI: It is different, I agree.

And I and it leads to the second thing I think that the that the Lawrence catalyzed for our society, was it put gay and lesbian couples, gay and lesbian people, in a position for the first time in our history to be able to lay claim to the abiding promise of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that was just impossible when they were marginalized and ostracized.

- - - - -

At 1-40

GENERAL VERRILLI:

But what these gay and lesbian couples are doing is laying claim to the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment now.

And it is emphatically the duty of this Court, in this case, as it was in Lawrence, to decide what the Fourteenth Amendment requires.

And what I would suggest is that in a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community, that it is simply untenable untenable to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals.

Gay and lesbian people are equal.They deserve the equal protection of the laws, and they deserve it now. Thank you.

- - - - -

At 2-26

ORAL ARGUMENT OF JOSEPH F. WHALEN

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS ON QUESTION 2

MR. WHALEN: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

The Fourteenth Amendment does not require States with traditional marriage laws to recognize marriages from other States between two persons of the same sex.

JUSTICE SCALIA: What about Article IV? I'm so glad to be able to quote a portion of the Constitution that actually seems to be relevant. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State." Now, why doesn't that apply?

MR. WHALEN: Your Honor, this Court's cases have made clear that the Court draws a distinction between judgments between States and the laws of each State. And the reason in part that the Court's decisions have said that is that otherwise, each State would be able to essentially legislate for every other State.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Public acts? It would include the act of marrying people, I assume.

MR. WHALEN: My understanding of this Court's decisions as the reference in the Constitution to public acts is that each State's laws.

JUSTICE SCALIA: So there there's nothing in the Constitution that requires a State to acknowledge even those marriages in other States that that are the same.

MR. WHALEN: That's essentially correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

- - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   19:32:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: nolu chan (#40)

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:28:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: A K A Stone (#48)

And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it.

See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:42:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: nolu chan, aka stone, liberators, y'all are (#56)

: A K A Stone (#48) --- And the 14th truthfully wasn't ratified legally.

I would agree with you. But its ratification was certified by the Executive Branch and that action is not subject to any judicial review. If you had a truckload of proof, there would be no place to deliver it. See my post on another thread here for two books on the ratification of the 14th. It's a disgrace, but they got away with it. --- nolu chan

Hmmm...I had no idea, nor had given any thought to the genesis of the 14th and grounds and background for ratification. "Disgraceful," Chan?? Sounds like someone or some people had a motive.... liberator

The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.

tpaine  posted on  2015-05-01   12:49:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: tpaine, A K A Stone, Liberator (#77)

The 'motive' for passing the 14th is well documented in the congressional record by those who wrote and passed it. --- The southern states that had just lost the war, were infringing upon the rights of their citizens, and ignoring the constitution of the USA to do so.

What they did, and what they said off the floor of congress is more persuasive. Notably, the Southern states were not represented in the Congress and the Congress entirely of Union states refused to pass this dog. The radicals denied representation to the South until those states ratified under the Federally appointed governors.

Horace Edgar Flack, The adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, A DISSERTATION, Submitted to the Board of University Studies of The Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 1906.

Published 1908.

Note: Where Flack refers to Secretary Oliver H. Browning, I believe he meant Secretary Orville H. Browning, Secretary of the Interior (September 1, 1866 – March 4, 1869).

At pages 146-47

[146 ]

Probably the strongest and most illuminating letter giv­ing an exposition of the Amendment was that written by Secretary Oliver H. Browning to Colonel W. H. Benneson and Major H. V. Sullivan. It was written October 13, 1866, and was given a wide publication, with much comment on it by the leading papers. In this letter Mr. Browning, who was a member of the President's Cabinet, declared that new and enormous powers would be conferred upon Congress by the proposed Amendment; that it would be possible to de­stroy the judiciaries of the States under it; and that the object and purpose of the clause “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” was to subordinate the state judiciaries to federal supervision and control, thereby totally annihilating the inde­pendence and sovereignty of state courts in the administra­tion of state laws, as well as destroying the authority and control of the States over purely local affairs. He also asserted that, since the federal judiciary already had juris­diction of all questions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this new provision would make possible the drawing of every matter of judicial investigation, civil and criminal, however insignificant, into the vortex of the federal judiciary. For it was certainly possible, he con­tinued, for either party to a controversy to claim that he was being deprived of life, liberty, or property, as the case might be, by the States without due process of law, and that this question would be cognizable in a Federal Court, resulting in delay if nothing else. There will be a tendency, he says, on the part of the Federal Government to take away the con­trol of local affairs from the people, the States, and the local municipal bodies, and to concentrate it in its own hands."27

27 Cincinnati Commercial, October 26, 1866. The letter was given in full.

[147]

The editorial comment in the paper from which the letter was taken never controverted the statements of Mr. Brown­ing as to the effect of the first section, but rather admitted them by saying that the danger to our country was disinte­gration, not consolidation.

The editorial comment of the New York Times, October 25, in regard to this same letter did not deny any of the statements made in it, but said that it was impolitic to pub­lish it since it was supposed to express the views of the Pres­ident. The same paper, three days later, seemed to admit Browning's contentions by saying that the dangers set forth in his letter could be avoided if the States would act justly— would deprive no one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It evidently agreed, however, with the dec­laration made in that letter that any one who alleged that he was deprived of either of those things, could bring his case before the Federal Courts. If that much be granled. then the whole case falls, and Mr. Browning's position be­comes unanswerable. To show further the view taken by the Times in regard to the Amendment, citation was made in the same editorial of the case of James Lewis, colored, which had been decided by Justice Hardy, of Alabama. In that case the Civil Rights Bill was declared unconstitutional, the decision of the lower court fining the negro for carrying arms being sustained. The Times added that this could not have been done had the Amendment been a part of the Con­stitution, and that its object was to prevent such legislation and such decisions.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   15:31:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: nolu chan (#90)

nolu chan posted (on FR, 2003): ---

"What is offered as authority for the absurdity of the assertion of the Fourteenth Amendment's fraudulent place in our jurisprudnce is a patent illustration of 'pounding on the table."

LINK Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment -Nchan-

I posted back then: ---

-- So? - Your link is, -- in effect, pounding on the table.

It's a given [imo] that the ratification of the 14th was in part a cynical political act. -- Its immediate effects back then may have enriched nefarious scalawags & carpetbaggers. Big deal.

In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments.

The fact that the federal government is more out of control than various state & local ones cannot be rationally blamed on the 14th. Political failures in our check & balance systems are to blame for our current state/fed power disparities. States still have the constitutional power to just say no.. They lack the will.

tpaine  posted on  2015-05-01   16:55:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: tpaine (#97)

In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments.

In the last century and a half, the 14th is one of the greatest reasons we face an out of control federal government. It's purpose was to revolutionize the government by destroying the power of the states and expanding the power of the Federal government. One look about and anyone can see they accomplished their goal.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   17:01:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: nolu chan, y'all (#99)

In todays political reality, the 14th is one of our most important protections against out of control state & local governments.

The fact that the federal government is more out of control than various state & local ones cannot be rationally blamed on the 14th. Political failures in our check & balance systems are to blame for our current state/fed power disparities. States still have the constitutional power to just say no.. They lack the political will.

In the last century and a half, the 14th is one of the greatest reasons we face an out of control federal government.

Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none..

It's purpose was to revolutionize the government by destroying the power of the states and expanding the power of the Federal government. One look about and anyone can see they accomplished their goal.

No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens. Heller is a recent example of where it's finally working.

tpaine  posted on  2015-05-01   17:23:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: tpaine (#100)

No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens.

No, it was to basically change the power structure and expand the power of the Federal government, which is what it did.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   17:29:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: nolu chan (#102)

In the last century and a half, the 14th is one of the greatest reasons we face an out of control federal government.

Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none..

It's purpose was to revolutionize the government by destroying the power of the states and expanding the power of the Federal government. One look about and anyone can see they accomplished their goal.

No, it's purpose was to force state and local govts to stop infringing on the rights of their citizens. Heller is a recent example of where it's finally working.

No, it was to basically change the power structure and expand the power of the Federal government, which is what it did.

Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none..

tpaine  posted on  2015-05-01   17:40:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 103.

#108. To: tpaine (#103)

Why is that your opinion? Exactly what wording in the amendment gives the feds more power over the States than was in the original constitution? --- I see none..

If you are unable to see the language, see the right to same-sex marriage attributed to the 14th. See the right to abortion attributed to the 14th. See the broad right to privacy in the 14th. Photographers being required to work at same-sex weddings despite religious objections. A baker with religious objections being required to decorate a cake with a gay theme.

If the 14th were benign, and for the glorious purpose you suppose, and a war was fought for that glorious purpose, why was the amendment refused ratification when only the union states voted upon it? The Radicals did try to ratify it without Southern participation but could not get ¾ths of the Union states to ratify it. The 13th amendment met no such resistance, not even from the unreconstructed Southern states of 1865.

The Federal government dictates to the states who its citizens are. It told the states who may be elected to State offices.

The States created a union of States, and a Federal government to be an agent to serve them for certain purposes. They did not create a master to rule over them. And yet, we have Lincoln consider them as big counties,

If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?

“States rights died at Appomattox,” is a statement attributed to Salmon P. Chase. More appropriate, they were extinguished by the 14th Amendment.

Big counties cannot mount serious resistance to Federal power.

As noted by Horace Edgar Flack in his dissertation at 146,

Probably the strongest and most illuminating letter giv­ing an exposition of the Amendment was that written by Secretary Oliver H. Browning to Colonel W. H. Benneson and Major H. V. Sullivan. It was written October 13, 1866, and was given a wide publication, with much comment on it by the leading papers. In this letter Mr. Browning, who was a member of the President's Cabinet, declared that new and enormous powers would be conferred upon Congress by the proposed Amendment; that it would be possible to de­stroy the judiciaries of the States under it; and that the object and purpose of the clause “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” was to subordinate the state judiciaries to federal supervision and control, thereby totally annihilating the inde­pendence and sovereignty of state courts in the administra­tion of state laws, as well as destroying the authority and control of the States over purely local affairs. He also asserted that, since the federal judiciary already had juris­diction of all questions arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this new provision would make possible the drawing of every matter of judicial investigation, civil and criminal, however insignificant, into the vortex of the federal judiciary.

As the Republicans of that era proved in 1876, they had used Blacks to gain and consolidate power. The Radicals had been ejected when no longer useful. When it came to wheeling and dealing to get four more years, Blacks were as disposable as a used diaper. The party got four more years, and reconstruction was terminated without a moral problem. It almost makes one wonder why Blacks do not write those glowing biographies about Lincoln, or vote Republican.

Section 5 reads, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Congress sometimes has strange ideas about what is "appropriate." It seems SCOTUS had to constantly remind them.

The 14th was unscrupulously certified by what is widely regarded as the most corrupt administration in American history (Grant).

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/102-enforcement.html

Congressional Definition of Fourteenth Amendment Rights

SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

ENFORCEMENT

Generally

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress, in addition to proposing to the States the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, enacted seven statutes designed in a variety of ways to implement the provisions of these Amendments. Several of these laws were general civil rights statutes which broadly attacked racial and other discrimination on the part of private individuals and groups as well as by the States, but the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional or rendered ineffective practically all of these laws over the course of several years. In the end, Reconstruction was abandoned and with rare exceptions no cases were brought under the remaining statutes until fairly recently. Beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, however, Congress generally acted pursuant to its powers under the commerce clause until Supreme Court decisions indicated an expansive concept of congressional power under the Civil War Amendments, which culminated in broad provisions against private interference with civil rights in the 1968 legislation. The story of these years is largely an account of the "state action" doctrine in terms of its limitation on congressional powers; lately, it is the still-unfolding history of the lessening of the doctrine combined with a judicial vesting of discretion in Congress to reinterpret the scope and content of the rights guaranteed in these three constitutional amendments.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01 19:27:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 103.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com