[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: 23014
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 # 45.

#2. To: Jameson (#0)

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

Why two people? Why not three?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-04-29   12:43:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite, Jameson (#2)

Why two people? Why not three?

Why not four?

deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons?

Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person.

Obergefell v Hodges, Dir. Ohio Depart of Health, U.S. Supreme Court No 14-556, Official Transcript of Oral Arguent, April 28, 2015.

In citation, Obergefell is the first named case. Other named cases are Tanco v Haslam No. 14-565 (Tennessee), DeBoer v Snyder No.14-571 (Michigan), and Bourke v Beshear No. 14-575 (Kentucky).

Transcript of Oral Argument, Part 1 of 2, at 10:02 a.m.

Transcript of Oral Argument, Part 2 of 2, at 11:39 a.m.

In part 1 at 18,

17 JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what if there's no -- 18 these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it's not -- it's 19 not the sort of polygamous relationship, polygamous 20 marriages that existed in other societies and still 21 exist in some societies today. And let's say they're 22 all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all 23 lawyers. 24 (Laughter.)

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-29   16:59:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#8)

Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons?

Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person.

Yes....the slippery slope argument....

Always popular in these discussions.

I'm not sure any of this applies to the North American Marlin Brando Look-Alikes (NAMBLA) ....but good point anyway!

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   8:12:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Jameson (#17)

Why would an ultra-liberal interpretation not apply to protect the love expressed by those of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)? Are those not persons?

Why would a certain judge in New York not apply her interpretation of person to protect the love of a chimpanzee and any other(?) person.

Yes....the slippery slope argument....

It is a constitutional argument. Justice Alito raisded the question "Well, what if there no -- these are 4 people, 2 men and 2 women, it not - it's not the sort of polygamous relationship ... [a]nd lets say they're all consenting adults, highly educated. They're all lawyers."

Why would the legal logic offered for same-sex marriage not extend to polygamous marriage? Or Man-boy marriage?

The 14th amendment provides that "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the 14th amendment is the basis, what persons does it not apply to? How is it limited? What are the possible unintended consequences?

For real resistance, picture an orthodox rabbi being ordered to perform a marriage between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew.

Quite obviously, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," applies to anchor babies, even babies born of two illegal aliens in a detention center awaiting deportation.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   14:09:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#33)

Why would the legal logic offered for same-sex marriage not extend to polygamous marriage?

Don't know, maybe it would... I have always believed that the whole multi-spouse deal was settled in the 1800's....

Or Man-boy marriage?

Maybe because one is a minor?

For real resistance, picture an orthodox rabbi being ordered to perform a marriage between a gay Jew and a gay non-Jew.

I don't think this decision if it is rendered "forces" any member of the clergy to do anything - it would, I think compel states to issue licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.

Jameson  posted on  2015-04-30   14:20:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Jameson (#34)

Maybe because one is a minor?

That sounds rational but the law gets in the way. The age to get legally married goes as low as 13. If opposite-sex marriage is permitted at 13, age does not seem a legal barrier to man-boy marriage if same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

JUSTICE ALITO: Well -- well, I had asked a simple question. At the present time, what is the next most dramatic variation in the marriage laws of the States?

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: It probably is age.

JUSTICE ALITO: And what is the -- what -- what's the range?

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER: The -- the -- I think it goes from 13 to 18. And -- but -- but as I said before, the tradition of the States the issue does not come up that much, but the tradition of the States is to recognize a marriage that was entered into by someone of an age that could not have been entered within the State, because of the nature of the marriage once it's established, recognizing that the fundamental nature of that relationship is not one that the State should put asunder.

JUSTICE ALITO:

Well, I thought you answered me earlier that a State could refuse to recognize a marriage in -- contracted in another State where the minimum age was puberty.

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER:

Well, they they could, and I do believe that if, in the individual case, it was shown that it was because of lack of consent, the the State could decide not to recognize the marriage.

But with respect to the categorical nature

JUSTICE GINSBURG:

It would have to be shown, I think, the presumption would be in such a State that someone age 13 can't consent.

MR. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER:

The age 13, I think probably you're right, but if it is a matter of 15 instead of 16, that the courts probably would recognize it, especially if, in reliance on their marriage, the the couple had already conceived of a child, it would do no one any good -- to destroy that marriage and the stable environment that it might provide for the children, just as it does no one any good it certainly doesn't advance the interests of the children of oppositesex couples to destroy the marriages that provide stability to the children of samesex couples who are already married under the laws of other States.

- - - - -

I have always believed that the whole multi-spouse deal was settled in the 1800's....

The issue of polygamy was addressed in a federal case against the LDS/Mormans, but that did not involve a state but a territory.

Here is what the Federal government did to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) in 1890 over the issue of polygamy.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/136/1/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U.S. 1 (1890)

The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States

Nos. 1031, 1054
Argued January 16-18, 1889
Decided May 19, 1890

136 U.S. 1

Syllabus

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was incorporated February, 1851, by an act of assembly of the so-called State of Deseret, which was afterwards confirmed by act of the Territorial Legislature of Utah, the corporation being a religious one, and its property and fund, held for the religious and charitable objects of the society, a prominent object being the promotion and practice of polygamy, which was prohibited by the laws of the United States. Congress, in 1887, passed an act repealing the act of incorporation and abrogating the charter and directing legal proceedings for seizing its property and winding up its affairs.

Held that

(1) The power of Congress over the territories is general and plenary, arising from the right to acquire them, which right arises from the power of the government to declare war and make treaties of peace and also, in part, arising from the power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United States.

(2) This plenary power extends to the acts of the legislatures of the territories, and is usually expressed in the organic act of each by an express reservation of the right to disapprove and annul the acts of the legislature thereof.

Page 136 U. S. 2

(3) Congress had the power to repeal the act of incorporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints not only by virtue of its general power over the territories, but by virtue of an express reservation in the organic act of the Territory of Utah of the power to disapprove and annul the acts of its legislature.

(4) The act of incorporation being repealed and the corporation dissolved, its property, in the absence of any other lawful owner, devolved to the United States, subject to be disposed of according to the principles applicable to property devoted to religious and charitable uses, the real estate, however, being also subject to a certain condition of forfeiture and escheat contained in the act of 1862.

(5) The general system of common law and equity, except as modified by legislation, prevails in the Territory of Utah, including therein the law of charitable uses.

(6) By the law of charitable uses, when the particular use designated is unlawful and contrary to public policy, the charity property is subject to be applied and directed to lawful objects most nearly corresponding to its original destination, and will not be returned to the donors or their heirs or representatives, especially where it is impossible to identify them.

(7) The court of chancery, in the exercise of its ordinary powers over trusts and charities, may appoint new trustees on the failure or discharge of former trustees, and may compel the application of charity funds to their appointed uses, if lawful, and, by authority of the sovereign power of the state, if not by its own inherent power, may reform the uses when illegal or against public policy by directing the property to be applied to legal uses, conformable as near as practicable to those originally declared.

(8) In this country, the legislature has the power of parens patriae in reference to infants, idiots, lunatics, charities, etc., which in England is exercised by the Crown, and may invest the court of chancery with all the powers necessary to the proper superintendence and direction of any gift to charitable uses.

(9) Congress, as the supreme legislature of Utah, had full power and authority to direct the winding up of the affairs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a defunct corporation, with a view to the due appropriation of its property to legitimate religious and charitable uses conformable, as near as practicable, to those to which it was originally dedicated. This power is distinct from that which may arise from the forfeiture and escheat of the property under the act of 1862.

(10) The pretense of religious belief cannot deprive Congress of the power to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind.

On behalf of the Court, MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY stated the case as follows:

[...]

On the 1st of July, 1862, the following act of Congress was approved, to-wit:

"An act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States, and other Places, and disapproving and annulling Certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah."

[...]

That therefore the real estate referred to, owned by the corporation, is subject to escheat to the United States;

That on the 19th day of February, 1887, by the said act of that date, the charter and act of incorporation of the corporation aforesaid was disapproved, repealed, and annulled by Congress, and the corporation was dissolved, and all the real estate owned and occupied by it in excess of $50,000, not held or occupied for the worship of God, etc., was subject to escheat to the United States;

One might ask, if polygamy is an offense against the enlightened sentiment of mankind, is same-sex marriage an affirmative statement of the enlightened sentiment of mankind?

In biblical terms, polygamy was accepted, but homosexuality was abomination, and remans repugnant to many religions.

If SCOTUS holds that same-sex marriage is a protected constitutional right, Congress is powerless to reverse that decision. It would take a SCOTUS reversal, or a constitutional amendment. Whatever the results would be merits careful attention before acting.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   18:54:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: nolu chan (#37)

In biblical terms, polygamy was accepted, but homosexuality was abomination, and remans [sic] repugnant to many religions.

Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   19:59:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: buckeroo (#43)

Care to reason why societal norms have drifted in this respect?

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   21:22:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 45.

#49. To: nolu chan (#45)

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats?

nope.

Way back in the good ol' days of yesteryear, the family unit was held supreme for the purpose of survival; restraints were placed on sexual conduct were imposed to ensure the survival of societies, no matter the size. Homosexuality was abhorred as the act of homosexuality did not contribute to the family or society for and about survival skills as in farm work based on the need to have increasing family members or progeny. On the other hand, having all the wives you wanted (polygamy) was another way to ensure progeny for the farm and required work to perpetuate the family unit.

The reasons of "yesteryear families" doesn't cut it within modern Uber-suburbia families. Perpetuating the family unit today or the farm unit is simply a minor vestige of mankind's history.

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30 21:44:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 45.

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