North Dakota seeks dismissal of gay m...

North Dakota seeks dismissal of gay marriage suit

There are 88 comments on the WVEC-TV Norfolk story from Jul 2, 2014, titled North Dakota seeks dismissal of gay marriage suit. In it, WVEC-TV Norfolk reports that:

State officials are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging North Dakota's constitutional prohibition on same-sex marriage, despite a wave of court decisions in other states striking down such bans.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WVEC-TV Norfolk.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Marcavage s Emission

Philadelphia, PA

#1 Jul 2, 2014
"'Nothing in the United States Constitution prevents the people of North Dakota from defining marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman,' Bahr wrote in his 50-page response."

So the argument is "Windsor was wrong," and, "N. Dakota may do what it wishes."

Not even an attempt to provide a rationale for barring marriage equality is headlined. Simply, "we may do this."

Bahr must have aspirations for higher political office in tee baggrz-land.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Jul 2, 2014
Nobody is threatening the legal unions of straight people after gay people start Marrying in Love
.
Straighties will continue to marry and divorce; marry and divorce; and marry and divorce just as they always do
Paul

Farmington, MI

#3 Jul 2, 2014
Well, let's look at the facts. The bans that have fallen have done so because of interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Technically, it could be interpreted both ways: States have the right to define marriage, BUT they also must recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions outside of their state.

However, given Windsor, there is hope that all 50 states will have marriage defined for them since they appear unable to treat everyone equally under US constitutional law.
Selfish

Huntington, MA

#4 Jul 2, 2014
Paul wrote:
Well, let's look at the facts. The bans that have fallen have done so because of interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Technically, it could be interpreted both ways: States have the right to define marriage, BUT they also must recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions outside of their state.
However, given Windsor, there is hope that all 50 states will have marriage defined for them since they appear unable to treat everyone equally under US constitutional law.
Yes, so long as the nation continues on into bankruptcy, more wars, less rights, police state, corruption, homelessness, shrinking labor force, heroin use, failed marriages, soaring veteran suicide rates, and a President who has all but burned the constitution etc. etc. etc.
This issue is all that matters in America.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5 Jul 2, 2014
Good luck with that.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#7 Jul 2, 2014
Selfish wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, so long as the nation continues on into bankruptcy, more wars, less rights, police state, corruption, homelessness, shrinking labor force, heroin use, failed marriages, soaring veteran suicide rates, and a President who has all but burned the constitution etc. etc. etc.
This issue is all that matters in America.
That's certainly what the panic-stricken, right-wing religious hate-mongers seem to think, isn't it?

And you forgot to mention, "We need to put the WHITE back in the White House." That's a biggie for them.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Jul 2, 2014
Marcavage s Emission wrote:
"'Nothing in the United States Constitution prevents the people of North Dakota from defining marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman,' Bahr wrote in his 50-page response."
So the argument is "Windsor was wrong," and, "N. Dakota may do what it wishes."
Not even an attempt to provide a rationale for barring marriage equality is headlined. Simply, "we may do this."
Bahr must have aspirations for higher political office in tee baggrz-land.
There could be a clip-law site for DOMA defenses. They all follow the same playbook: Request dismissal (usually mumbling something about the now clearly moot Baker decision). Pretend to defend with the same clearly prejudiced arguments that have been rejected by court after court for years now.(The latest and most-laughable is the idea that homosexuals don't need to marry because they can't get pregnant by accident. This ignores the fact that many heterosexual couples--including those on birth control--do not procreate by accident and that heterosexual couples can accidentally procreate almost as easily they can accidentally marry. Both frequently occur after a whirlwind weekend/evening in Las Vegas and many other locations.)

After presenting the same arguments that have lost at SCOTUS (see Windsor) and, now, circuit courts in half the states, the AG will ask for a summary judgement, which will probably be granted because the plaintiffs have also asked for summary judgment.(Attorneys general have now seen the results of DOMA trials twice and have no desire to repeat the embarrassment. Nor have judges any desire to preside over such a lopsided fiasco. They generally do not enjoy delivering a drubbing to fellow officers of the court.)

Upon losing in circuit court, the AG will proclaim indignantly that activist judges should not substitute their judgment for that of the electorate (notwithstanding the AG's knowledge that the "activist judge" is merely carrying out his constitutional duty). They will further promise to appeal and vigorously defend the law. They promise that their citizens' choice will ultimately prevail upon appeal--to SCOTUS if necessary.

Other than the occasional brain-farts that escape through the mouths of attorneys general or governors, there is nothing new or interesting as this process repeats across 33 states. Nevertheless, the process is necessary to preserve DOMA while awaiting its final demise at the hands of SCOTUS. And should SCOTUS uphold state DOMA's, states like Oregon and Pennsylvania that have dropped their appeals will have no way to re-instate their bans. Re-instating the barriers would be taking away a right formerly granted without evidence that would withstand scrutiny.

It is interesting to me, though, that state after state trudges through this process with nothing new to add. Indeed, North Dakota's solicitor is probably the brightest, having merely taken the proforma steps and omitting all the failed boiler-plate arguments.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Jul 2, 2014
The only question is whether the judge overturns N.Dakota's ban before the SCOTUS does.
Selfish

Florence, MA

#11 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>

And you forgot to mention, "We need to put the WHITE back in the White House." That's a biggie for them.
How racist of you. Isn't Ted Cruz Hispanic?
This President is an abject failure and you are just to ignorant to even see it. I envision you as being one of those bozo's that Jesse Watters interviews while he asked the simplest and seemingly harmless questions of Obama maniacs, only to stand there with your asinine half stupor s**t eating grin of a reply.
rotflmao!
Hey Dogboy

Florence, MA

#13 Jul 2, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's certainly what the panic-stricken, right-wing religious hate-mongers seem to think, isn't it?
.
Please provide some statistics proving otherwise.
Take....your time.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#14 Jul 2, 2014
This must be TeaTard rhetoric. The case will never be dismissed.

Same-Sex Marriage is coming to N. Dakota next. lol
Belle Sexton

San Francisco, CA

#16 Jul 3, 2014
Selfish wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, so long as the nation continues on into bankruptcy, more wars, less rights, police state, corruption, homelessness, shrinking labor force, heroin use, failed marriages, soaring veteran suicide rates, and a President who has all but burned the constitution etc. etc. etc.
This issue is all that matters in America.
It matters to 9+ millions of US.

Which, by the way, is greater than the entire population of the State you appear to be posting from. In fact, it's greater than the populations of 39 of the States.

Would you like us all to come to discuss "matters in America" ? I'm sure the local economy would enjoy the boost.

I'm just curious. How many homeless people have YOU taken into that spare room, basement or garage? When was the last time you took some magazines and some jokes over to visit some hospitalized vet? Organized some BBQs for returning Vets, or Volunteered with The Wounded Warriors?

Labor Force? What daily-useful thing, made entirely from relatively local materials, do YOU know HOW to make, loudmouth? Can you make a damn pair of shoes? Where do the labels on YOUR clothes say they were made? Electronics? Tools? What percentage of every dollar you spend leaves your town never to return in any form whatsoever .... because nobody in your burg knows how to sustain themselves with their own hands?



(I listened, and remember and miss him, too)
Belle Sexton

San Francisco, CA

#17 Jul 3, 2014

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#18 Jul 3, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, he's ethically obligated to go thru the motions (no pun intended).
So do you believe that Oregon, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey should have pursued appeals?
Shirvel s Shrivel

Philadelphia, PA

#20 Jul 3, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you believe that Oregon, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey should have pursued appeals?
Do you find it productive to request information from that source?

Is he a trusted correspondent of yours?

What you get with him is deranged, racist crap. I can't believe anyone would inquire of that pedo what his uninformed thinking is. He said that Uncle Thomas Clarence and Scaliar would find in favor of marriage equality, after all.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21 Jul 3, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You betcha !:)
Yah Yah Yah......
Ivan the Terrific

Florence, MA

#23 Jul 3, 2014
Belle Sexton wrote:
<quoted text>
It matters to 9+ millions of US.
Which, by the way, is greater than the entire population of the State you appear to be posting from. In fact, it's greater than the populations of 39 of the States.
Would you like us all to come to discuss "matters in America" ? I'm sure the local economy would enjoy the boost.
I'm just curious. How many homeless people have YOU taken into that spare room, basement or garage? When was the last time you took some magazines and some jokes over to visit some hospitalized vet? Organized some BBQs for returning Vets, or Volunteered with The Wounded Warriors?
Labor Force? What daily-useful thing, made entirely from relatively local materials, do YOU know HOW to make, loudmouth? Can you make a damn pair of shoes? Where do the labels on YOUR clothes say they were made? Electronics? Tools? What percentage of every dollar you spend leaves your town never to return in any form whatsoever .... because nobody in your burg knows how to sustain themselves with their own hands?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rOsH_pbfOV8XX
(I listened, and remember and miss him, too)
This President has no plan.
This President had no plan.
An empty suit serving Zionists.
Who owns our congress there butt boy?
Not us.
:o)

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#24 Jul 3, 2014
Hey Dogboy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide some statistics proving otherwise.
Take....your time.
LOL!!! You're SO convincing when you throw out crazy statements and then challenge anyone who dares to prove you wrong!

Here! Watch me do it!!

"President Obama is the BEST president we've ever had. In fact, he's clearly the Messiah. Jesus incarnate. If I'm wrong, prove it!!!"

HA ha!!! I win!! I made the bigger, more ridiculous, totally unsupportable claim than you did!!
Hey Dogboy

Plainfield, MA

#25 Jul 3, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! You're SO convincing when you throw out crazy statements and then challenge anyone who dares to prove you wrong!
Here! Watch me do it!!
"President Obama is the BEST president we've ever had. In fact, he's clearly the Messiah. Jesus incarnate. If I'm wrong, prove it!!!"
HA ha!!! I win!! I made the bigger, more ridiculous, totally unsupportable claim than you did!!
The polls are unanimously against you Dogboy. The burden of proof is on you. I say he sucks. Therefore, show me some statistics proving otherwise..
Again. Take....your time.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26 Jul 3, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you missed the reference.:(
"I'm not gonna debate, Jerry !"
Yah sure. You betcha.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Fargo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News FAA scolds Allegiant for having to make emergen... Apr 28 dick 3
Do mexican girls like whites (May '12) Apr 17 Assfacehole Queer... 8
Review: Giant Panda Fetus Milk (Sep '15) Apr 17 Assfacehole Queer... 3
News Flying High Apr 17 Assfacehole Queer... 2
are there any women that like crossdressers (Apr '13) Apr 12 Brynn44 2
do white girls like mexicans (Jul '10) Mar '16 erikoevering 42
2016 Democrats Silent on Recent Police Shooting... Feb '16 Culture Auditor 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fargo Mortgages