Gay marriage remains a tough sell in Illinois

Jan 5, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Northern Michigan News

The stalling of Illinois' gay-marriage push - at least for now - shows the difficulty of approving legislation to legalize it, even with a nudge from the home-state president, steadily rising support in the polls and national momentum from the November elections.

Comments
21 - 34 of 34 Comments Last updated Jan 7, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
radiofreeamerica

Tarpon Springs, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jan 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No. they in no way discriminate against religions or interfere with religious freedom. To think they in any way could is asinine and shows your lack of knowledge on this issue.
Dont show your lack of history.In 1896 the SCOTUS declared segregated schools in the South to be constitutional.In 1954 that was reversed.Before the Miranda decision suspects arrested did not have their rights read to them on the spot by the cops.It was OK for the police to question you as much as they wanted until they finally allowed you to contact a lawyer.Now of course that is illegal.It is only your opinion that you state-not law.The law will be determined by the SCOTUS-not by you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jan 7, 2013
 
radiofreeamerica wrote:
<quoted text>Dont assume SCOTUS will strike down laws against gay marriage as discriminatory.
Do laws in favor of gay marriage discriminate against religious freedom?If not why not?Do such laws discriminate against straights?Dont assume the SCOTUS only thinks the way you think.Those guy can fool you at times-such as upholding obamacare.
No, laws in favor of same-sex couples marrying does not discriminate against religious freedom. People are free to believe whatever they want; they just aren't free to discriminate against same-sex couples. In fact, laws AGAINST same-sex couples marrying infringes on THEIR religious freedoms, since many religious groups approve of marriage for same-sex couples.

No, laws in favor of same-sex couples marrying in no way discriminates against straight people. Straight people can marry someone of the same sex or opposite sex if they so choose.

I never assume anything; I look to the history of the court and see they have eventually overturned laws which discriminate against a particular minority group. I also look to society as an indicator of where the courts are going on a particular issue.

Btw, I wasn't suprised at all when the SCOTUS upheld the healthcare act, and predicted numerous times on this very forum they would do exactly that. The ONLY people who were suprised were the "conservatives" who were blinded to the reality of the court by their absolute hatred of Obama.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

radiofreeamerica wrote:
<quoted text>Dont show your lack of history.In 1896 the SCOTUS declared segregated schools in the South to be constitutional.In 1954 that was reversed.Before the Miranda decision suspects arrested did not have their rights read to them on the spot by the cops.It was OK for the police to question you as much as they wanted until they finally allowed you to contact a lawyer.Now of course that is illegal.It is only your opinion that you state-not law.The law will be determined by the SCOTUS-not by you.
As you note, as society changes, so does the SCOTUS and how they view constitutional rights.

Nothing changed in the constitution between the 1896 Plessy decision & the 1954 Brown decision. The ONLY things that changed were the individual justices sitting on the court and the society in which they lived.

Same thing applies to other SCOTUS precedents which were subsequently overturned by a latter SCOTUS- i.e. 1883 Pace & 1967 Loving (inter-racial marriage bans); 1986 Bowers & 2003 Lawrence (sodomy bans), etc.

Again, in all those cases nothing changed in the US Constitution; the ONLY thing which changed was the individual justices on the court and the society in which they lived.

Eventually all marriage bans will be overturned as society continues to change how we view same-sex couples; it's only a matter of time.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

radiofreeamerica wrote:
Dont show your lack of history.In 1896 the SCOTUS declared segregated schools in the South to be constitutional.In 1954 that was reversed.Before the Miranda decision suspects arrested did not have their rights read to them on the spot by the cops.It was OK for the police to question you as much as they wanted until they finally allowed you to contact a lawyer.Now of course that is illegal.It is only your opinion that you state-not law.The law will be determined by the SCOTUS-not by you.
The Supremes have often gotten it horribly wrong before they eventually got it right. The Loving decision overturned an 1883 decision of theirs which had ruled that preventing the mixing of the races was a perfectly legitimate exercise of governmental authority. The Supremes have already had their shot to get it horribly wrong on this issue with their unfortunate acceptance of the Minnesota Supreme's ruling in Baker v Nelson in 1972. This is going to be their first real opportunity since to get it better if not completely right. Anyone who expects the Court to rule that same sex couples have no right whatsoever to marry are likely to be seriously disappointed. I think we're each about to be handed half a loaf in the spirit of forced comity. Same sex marriage is about to end up like marriage to your first cousin, permitted in some states, prohibited in the rest, but recognized nationally regardless of local laws. Provisions in the state amendments which prevent the recognition of another state's same sex marriages are goners, but removing the bans that prevent them from happening in state are strictly a local question, except in California where their amendment is toast.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Supremes have often gotten it horribly wrong before they eventually got it right. The Loving decision overturned an 1883 decision of theirs which had ruled that preventing the mixing of the races was a perfectly legitimate exercise of governmental authority. The Supremes have already had their shot to get it horribly wrong on this issue with their unfortunate acceptance of the Minnesota Supreme's ruling in Baker v Nelson in 1972. This is going to be their first real opportunity since to get it better if not completely right. Anyone who expects the Court to rule that same sex couples have no right whatsoever to marry are likely to be seriously disappointed. I think we're each about to be handed half a loaf in the spirit of forced comity. Same sex marriage is about to end up like marriage to your first cousin, permitted in some states, prohibited in the rest, but recognized nationally regardless of local laws. Provisions in the state amendments which prevent the recognition of another state's same sex marriages are goners, but removing the bans that prevent them from happening in state are strictly a local question, except in California where their amendment is toast.
That would be an interesting compromise step to full equality, but I'm not sure the SCOTUS will force states to recognize married same-sex couples from other states just yet. I also don't think they'll overturn all bans just yet either.

I've always believed it will be a 3 step process over about a decade:
1- overturn the federal DOMA and require the federal govt to recognize any marriage legally contracted.
2- require states to recognize any marriage legally contracted in another state; including 1st cousin marriages & same-sex marriages.
3- overturn all remaining state bans.

Btw, currently some states don't recognize the 1st cousin marriages from other states; Kentucky is one of them, and their policy has been upheld by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
radiofreeamerica

Tarpon Springs, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jan 7, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No, laws in favor of same-sex couples marrying does not discriminate against religious freedom. People are free to believe whatever they want; they just aren't free to discriminate against same-sex couples. In fact, laws AGAINST same-sex couples marrying infringes on THEIR religious freedoms, since many religious groups approve of marriage for same-sex couples.
No, laws in favor of same-sex couples marrying in no way discriminates against straight people. Straight people can marry someone of the same sex or opposite sex if they so choose.
I never assume anything; I look to the history of the court and see they have eventually overturned laws which discriminate against a particular minority group. I also look to society as an indicator of where the courts are going on a particular issue.
Btw, I wasn't suprised at all when the SCOTUS upheld the healthcare act, and predicted numerous times on this very forum they would do exactly that. The ONLY people who were suprised were the "conservatives" who were blinded to the reality of the court by their absolute hatred of Obama.
Perhaps you belong on the Supreme Court.A lot of legal experts were surprised by upholding obamacare.
radiofreeamerica

Tarpon Springs, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jan 7, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Supremes have often gotten it horribly wrong before they eventually got it right. The Loving decision overturned an 1883 decision of theirs which had ruled that preventing the mixing of the races was a perfectly legitimate exercise of governmental authority. The Supremes have already had their shot to get it horribly wrong on this issue with their unfortunate acceptance of the Minnesota Supreme's ruling in Baker v Nelson in 1972. This is going to be their first real opportunity since to get it better if not completely right. Anyone who expects the Court to rule that same sex couples have no right whatsoever to marry are likely to be seriously disappointed. I think we're each about to be handed half a loaf in the spirit of forced comity. Same sex marriage is about to end up like marriage to your first cousin, permitted in some states, prohibited in the rest, but recognized nationally regardless of local laws. Provisions in the state amendments which prevent the recognition of another state's same sex marriages are goners, but removing the bans that prevent them from happening in state are strictly a local question, except in California where their amendment is toast.
As I have said I accept this as a matter of states rights.Remember the 10th Amendment about powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jan 7, 2013
 
radiofreeamerica wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps you belong on the Supreme Court.A lot of legal experts were surprised by upholding obamacare.
A lot of "legal experts" don't spent too much time in law school and not enough time in the real world.

But yes, I'd gladly accept an appointment to the SCOTUS.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jan 7, 2013
 
radiofreeamerica wrote:
<quoted text>As I have said I accept this as a matter of states rights.Remember the 10th Amendment about powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
True, but state's rights aren't absolute either. What they do can't violate the US Constitution. That is the current debate.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be an interesting compromise step to full equality, but I'm not sure the SCOTUS will force states to recognize married same-sex couples from other states just yet. I also don't think they'll overturn all bans just yet either.
I've always believed it will be a 3 step process over about a decade:
1- overturn the federal DOMA and require the federal govt to recognize any marriage legally contracted.
2- require states to recognize any marriage legally contracted in another state; including 1st cousin marriages & same-sex marriages.
3- overturn all remaining state bans.
Btw, currently some states don't recognize the 1st cousin marriages from other states; Kentucky is one of them, and their policy has been upheld by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
The reason I believe they are going to enforce comity for out of state marriages is because it would head off at the pass the next round of lawsuits that would come from offing DOMA but leaving every amendment but California's in place.

As to the recognition of out of state marriages, while there has been no common law federal protection under full faith and credit as has been the case in divorces, the principle of comity for marriages recognized at the time and place of their celebration carrying across state lines based on the New York case, In Re Estate of Mays, pretty much holds true. The general exception is when one or both of you cross state lines in order to avoid the laws back home. Such is what happened in the Kentucky kissing cousins case and Nebraska's marrying a 14 year-old in Kansas case. Kentucky's law prohibiting marriages of 1st Cousins who were legally married elsewhere and not from Kentucky, has never been challenged that I am aware of, never even came up, I imagine.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

radiofreeamerica wrote:
As I have said I accept this as a matter of states rights.Remember the 10th Amendment about powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
Not entirely, while the states will likely be left with their in state bans in place, they are going to pretty much lose the 'right' to deny recognition to same sex couples who were legally married someplace else.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jan 7, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The reason I believe they are going to enforce comity for out of state marriages is because it would head off at the pass the next round of lawsuits that would come from offing DOMA but leaving every amendment but California's in place.
As to the recognition of out of state marriages, while there has been no common law federal protection under full faith and credit as has been the case in divorces, the principle of comity for marriages recognized at the time and place of their celebration carrying across state lines based on the New York case, In Re Estate of Mays, pretty much holds true. The general exception is when one or both of you cross state lines in order to avoid the laws back home. Such is what happened in the Kentucky kissing cousins case and Nebraska's marrying a 14 year-old in Kansas case. Kentucky's law prohibiting marriages of 1st Cousins who were legally married elsewhere and not from Kentucky, has never been challenged that I am aware of, never even came up, I imagine.
Actually Kentucky's law did come up, it was challenged, and the defendents lost. I can't remember the specific case anymore, but it involved a 1st cousin couple from another state that got legally married and then moved to Kentucky. When one spouse died it came out they were 1st cousins and Kentucky refused to give the surviving spouse the normal estate tax breaks.

It's eerily similar to the Windsor case.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jan 7, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Actually Kentucky's law did come up, it was challenged, and the defendents lost. I can't remember the specific case anymore, but it involved a 1st cousin couple from another state that got legally married and then moved to Kentucky. When one spouse died it came out they were 1st cousins and Kentucky refused to give the surviving spouse the normal estate tax breaks.
It's eerily similar to the Windsor case.
Kentucky's law was only challenged on the state level, they never made a federal case of it. Unless they snag one or more of their own residents crossing state lines to avoid the laws back home (if that is in fact illegal, not all states have laws against it), the question rarely comes up otherwise and when it does, most state courts will just kind of hold their nose, cite the Mays case and give them recognition.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jan 7, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Kentucky's law was only challenged on the state level, they never made a federal case of it. Unless they snag one or more of their own residents crossing state lines to avoid the laws back home (if that is in fact illegal, not all states have laws against it), the question rarely comes up otherwise and when it does, most state courts will just kind of hold their nose, cite the Mays case and give them recognition.
True, it was only challenged on the state level because it only involved state law. But that's the correlation to state laws against recognizing married same-sex couples. It would have to be challenged in federal court because the existing precedent favors allowing states to determine which marriages they recognize.

It would just be another step we'll likely have to take, because I don't see the SCOTUS going as far as forcing states to recognize all marriages regardless of their own laws- not yet anyways.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
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.

•••