*** Marriage Ruling in Federal Court

[sth]

[quote name="R K"]



BA in Political Science, Specializing in Constitutional Law, BA in Journalism and an MPA in Public Administration.[/quote]

I have another year and then I will have an MPA in PA. I'm sure you become an VIP when you tell people you have a masters in public administration. :lol:

 

[mikita's helmet]

Link to the decision for anyone with lots of free time on their hands (136 pp).



https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv ... -ORDER.pdf

 

[Guest]

[quote name="noon"]I cited Loving v Virginia on page 1 and now winos5 has a couple of times, too. Marriage is most assuredly constitutionally protected under our constitutional jurisprudence. Back to my question when I opened the topic -- has anyone actually READ the fucking decision? If not, and you want to argue about it, I suggest you do so before spouting off. It's very empirical, methodical in its approach, and well-written. And I do have a doctorate of jurisprudence.[/quote]



Did you just use the "F" word? oh my!

 

[noon]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



I have a J.D., too.



There's a link to Perry in my prior post.[/quote]



Sorry -- actually you were the one who also cited Loving -- credit where credit is due.

 

[noon]

[quote name="R K"]



Did you just use the "F" word? oh my![/quote]



I know -- what has the world become! :lol:

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="noon"]



Sorry -- actually you were the one who also cited Loving -- credit where credit is due.[/quote]



"No problemo!" as the reluctant defendant in Perry would say. :lol:

 

[E Runs]

[quote name="noon"]I cited Loving v Virginia on page 1 and now winos5 has a couple of times, too. Marriage is most assuredly constitutionally protected under our constitutional jurisprudence. Back to my question when I opened the topic -- has anyone actually READ the fucking decision? If not, and you want to argue about it, I suggest you do so before spouting off. It's very empirical, methodical in its approach, and well-written. And I do have a doctorate of jurisprudence.[/quote]

Admittedly I have not, (can't open the .pdf here at work) but I'm guessing it was written in such a way that challenging it will be difficult?

 

[noon]

[quote name="E Runs"]

Admittedly I have not, (can't open the .pdf here at work) but I'm guessing it was written in such a way that challenging it will be difficult?[/quote]



In my opinion, yes. It is very compelling.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="E Runs"]

Admittedly I have not, (can't open the .pdf here at work) but I'm guessing it was written in such a way that challenging it will be difficult?[/quote]

The attorneys for Prop 8 only put on two witnesses, whom the court found NOT to be expert witnesses, and very little, if any, supportive evidence. That is the record the 9th Circuit - where I live - and the Supreme Court, if they grant certioriari (hear the case) will review.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]

The attorneys for Prop 8 only put on two witnesses, whom the court found NOT to be expert witnesses, and very little, if any, supportive evidence. That is the record the 9th Circuit - where I live - and the Supreme Court, if they grant certioriari (hear the case) will review.[/quote]





I think that works in general with the 9th. Just as "Chicago's" gun law was just struck down. Now it will go back to the 9th and THEN all these new laws from Daley will be challenged all over again.



I'm torn on whether they will hear this case or not. They might just hear it. Either way I'm not against *** Marriage, just don't feel it's a constitutional right. I do believe the States can do what they want and then it will be twisted some how into the Constitution. There is no way to interpret something that isn't there or was never intended. If you asked any of the Framers if it would be legal I'd love to see the expression on their face. Romans, no doubt would be for it.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="sth"]

I have another year and then I will have an MPA in PA. I'm sure you become an VIP when you tell people you have a masters in public administration. :lol:[/quote]



You say you have an MPA and most people look at you with intense confusion. You have a what.



Where as if you say MBA, ah, yes, understand.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="R K"]





I think that works in general with the 9th. Just as "Chicago's" gun law was just struck down. Now it will go back to the 9th and THEN all these new laws from Daley will be challenged all over again.



I'm torn on whether they will hear this case or not. They might just hear it. Either way I'm not against *** Marriage, just don't feel it's a constitutional right. I do believe the States can do what they want and then it will be twisted some how into the Constitution. There is no way to interpret something that isn't there or was never intended. If you asked any of the Framers if it would be legal I'd love to see the expression on their face. Romans, no doubt would be for it.[/quote]



Most Courts of Appeals are limited to the record on review in the District Court.



Unfortunately, because of slavery, Jim Crow laws, states refusing to integrate schools, Brown v. Board, or allow interracial marriage, Loving v. Virginia, the Federal Government felt obligated to step in, IMHO, and this has effected States rights.

 

[Guest]

And I was more arguing it is in a States Right.



Is that the only single case where Marriage has been adjudicated through the SC?

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="R K"]And I was more arguing it is in a States Right.



Is that the only single case where Marriage has been adjudicated through the SC?[/quote]



I believe it's the only case where the Court has decided the issue of a "right to marry."



Marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving.

 

[TSD]

Maybe I am idealist, but why is there even an argument here and why are people in a state even voting against it.



If 2 men or 2 women want to get married, let them. Its not hurting anybody.

 

[noon]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



I believe it's the only case where the Court has decided the issue of a "right to marry."



Marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving.[/quote]



It's definitely the most analogous, but certainly not the sole source of U.S. Supreme Court jursiprudence concerning marriage. See Griswold v. Connecticut; Skinner v. Oklahoma. See also Maynard v. Hill.

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="noon"]



It's definitely the most analogous, but certainly not the sole source of federal jursiprudence concerning marriage. See Griswold v. Connecticut; Skinner v. Oklahoma. See also Maynard v. Hill.[/quote]



Griswold is the contraception case, right?



what are the other two about?

 

[mikita's helmet]

[quote name="TSD"]Maybe I am idealist, but why is there even an argument here and why are people in a state even voting against it.



If 2 men or 2 women want to get married, let them. Its not hurting anybody.[/quote]



On of the arguments by the Prop 8 people, which I disagree with, is that it does "hurt" or "lessen" their marriage and the institution of marriage.



Anyway, get your head out of the clouds, Mr. Idealist.

 

[Guest]

[quote name="noon"]



It's definitely the most analogous, but certainly not the sole source of U.S. Supreme Court jursiprudence concerning marriage. See Griswold v. Connecticut; Skinner v. Oklahoma. See also Maynard v. Hill.[/quote]





I love you Joe. Lets get married.

 

[sth]

[quote name="Mikita's Helmet"]



On of the arguments by the Prop 8 people, which I disagree with, is that it does "hurt" or "lessen" their marriage and the institution of marriage.



Anyway, get your head out of the clouds, Mr. Idealist. [/quote]

All I have to say to those people is look at marriage now. With all the divorces and loveless marriages how could it get lessened?