Arizona City Passes Civil Unions, May Violate State Constitution

There are 10 comments on the Apr 3, 2013, lezgetreal.com story titled Arizona City Passes Civil Unions, May Violate State Constitution . In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

A small city in Arizona has passed a measure legalizing civil unions within the city limits and limited to city ordinances and services

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#2 Apr 3, 2013
Good..Make Jan reconsider.

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#4 Apr 3, 2013
Wally wrote:
<quoted text>Hi, POS Uve, did you hear that Kansas is gonna start locking up the queers...aint it great?!?!
Poor Kansas...Poor Texarkana AR..I guess I'm not going to be for gun control then....

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Apr 4, 2013
I found this headline a bit confusing and misleading, probably unintentionally so, because the first 2 words in the headline, i.e. "Arizona City" is the actual name of a place here in Pinal County, Arizona, a bit southwest of me, called, natually, "Arizona City, Arizona".

The "Arizona City" the article cites is Bisbee, Arizona, about 80 miles southeast of Tucson.

And while I applaud their intent, what they have done is almost certainly unconstitutional.

We cannot have a crazy-quilt patchwork of laws regarding marriages and other "similar" things which vary according to what city, town, county, census designated place, or state you are in.

STATES have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to write their own marriage laws. But no matter how each state defines a marriage, ALL states MUST legally recognize those marriages according the the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause.

You cannot have a situation where a gay or lesbian couple, married in New York, drives cross country on vacation, and their marriage suddenly becomes null and void, and then springs back into existence again, depending upon which state line they happen to cross on their vacation.

And this can and does have real world effects. Especially if one of teh parties becomes sick or injured and requires hospitalization, or other medical attention, and\or other difficulties one may face.

Wether you agree with their judicial philosophy or not, none of the SCOTUS justices are stupid people, and I don't think that they will rule that the present system is constitutionl, and allow this crazy-quilt system to stand.

Moreover, while state have always had their own laws regarding marriage, especially about age, first-cousin marriage, and the like, states have only once said before: "Because your state law is different, we don't recognize your marriage as legal." The only time it HAS happened, is with regard to interracial marriages, SCOTUS slammed down those states and said: "You can't do that !".

Why should there be a "gay and lesbian exception" invented when no such thing exists in the U.S. Constitution ?

The U.S. Constitution is VERY CLEAR on this point. Amongst the things it says that are applicable here are:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (9th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights).

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights).

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (14th Amendment).

The U.S. Constitution as amendmed does NOT exclude any person from it's protections. There IS NO "gay and lesbian exception".

And a state CANNOT create a "gay and lesbian exception" from the equal protection of the laws, as Colorado ATTEMPTED TO DO, so said SCOTUS in it's 1996 landmark decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#7 Apr 4, 2013
How is creating civil unions--to which the laws of Bisbee apply--unconstitutional? Arizona proposed a constitutional amendment that would have outlawed civil unions and it was rejected by the electorate. Then an marriage-only amendment passed. How could the electorate have made themselves any clearer that they support the ability to create civil unions and other designations?

The AG is a buffoon. But he's an Arizona Republican, so that goes with the territory. Perhaps Governor Brewer will warn him not to waste any more taxpayer resources on this fool's errand.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Apr 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
How is creating civil unions--to which the laws of Bisbee apply--unconstitutional? Arizona proposed a constitutional amendment that would have outlawed civil unions and it was rejected by the electorate. Then an marriage-only amendment passed. How could the electorate have made themselves any clearer that they support the ability to create civil unions and other designations?
The AG is a buffoon. But he's an Arizona Republican, so that goes with the territory. Perhaps Governor Brewer will warn him not to waste any more taxpayer resources on this fool's errand.
So-called "civil unions" are a legal fiction that are meaningless. Why are you so eager for a so-called official designation of second-class citienship ?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Apr 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So-called "civil unions" are a legal fiction that are meaningless. Why are you so eager for a so-called official designation of second-class citienship ?
As I am sure you already know, I do support marriage equality when it can be attained. But I also support civil unions or domestic partnerships in states where that is the best that can be hoped for at this time. I even support community-level registries--which pretty well describes Bisbee's action--when that is the best that can be attained.

Surely you do not think the Arizona legislature is going to enact state-wide civil unions any time soon? Nor refer a repeal of their DOMA amendment to the electorate?

Why do you oppose making incremental progress toward our goal?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Apr 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As I am sure you already know, I do support marriage equality when it can be attained. But I also support civil unions or domestic partnerships in states where that is the best that can be hoped for at this time. I even support community-level registries--which pretty well describes Bisbee's action--when that is the best that can be attained.
Surely you do not think the Arizona legislature is going to enact state-wide civil unions any time soon? Nor refer a repeal of their DOMA amendment to the electorate?
Why do you oppose making incremental progress toward our goal?
Because our Forefathers had courage and said, "Give me Liberty or give me Death !" They did NOT say to King George III, "We'll settle for 3 seats in Parliament, and a 2 cent tax on tea instead of a 4 cent tax on tea". Instead they said "WE'LL F***ING KILL YOU !" and they fought a blood-soaked war for 7 years to prove they meant what they said !

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Apr 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As I am sure you already know, I do support marriage equality when it can be attained. But I also support civil unions or domestic partnerships in states where that is the best that can be hoped for at this time. I even support community-level registries--which pretty well describes Bisbee's action--when that is the best that can be attained.
Surely you do not think the Arizona legislature is going to enact state-wide civil unions any time soon? Nor refer a repeal of their DOMA amendment to the electorate?
Why do you oppose making incremental progress toward our goal?
And I suggest you carefully read my Post #6 here on this thread where I very carefully and explicitly laid out my reasons for opposing this foolishness.

Did you even bother to read it ???

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Apr 4, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
And I suggest you carefully read my Post #6 here on this thread where I very carefully and explicitly laid out my reasons for opposing this foolishness.
Did you even bother to read it ???
Yes, and I just reread it. It doesn't explain why you oppose incremental progress. Your post merely explains how you think the world would work were you king (or queen, as the case may be).

Until such time as Congress or SCOTUS grants us full and equal protection, however, we should still strive for incremental progress. The bigger the increment, the better.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#13 Apr 4, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and I just reread it. It doesn't explain why you oppose incremental progress. Your post merely explains how you think the world would work were you king (or queen, as the case may be).
Until such time as Congress or SCOTUS grants us full and equal protection, however, we should still strive for incremental progress. The bigger the increment, the better.
I disagree.

Patrick Henry, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, Thomas Jefferson, and Richard Henry Lee didn't believe in incremental progress and didn't settle for it. They raised bloody hell for more than 7 years and said "ALL OR NOTHING !"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 5 min Your Ex 69
Are the mods fair and balanced? 6 min PackRat 651
News Gay marriage a difficult issue for GOP White Ho... 6 min And behold a Pale... 85
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 8 min Pietro Armando 2,034
News Chief Justice John Roberts faces another big mo... 9 min Synque 64
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 9 min Belle Sexton 2,749
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 23 min Reverend Alan 19,618
News State warns Boy Scouts about discriminating aga... 33 min Wondering 107
More from around the web