Gay Marriage Recognition Appears Close

An appeals court in Brooklyn appears poised to allow state officials to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of New York State .

[gemelk]

3 States down - 47 to go. Soon we will challenge on the full faith and credit clause, the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment - even Justice Scalia cannot find justification to deny us ...

EQUALITY

Eric

[CockroachSleeper]

You nailed it right on the head gemelk. I freaking tired of the small talk. We Human Beings are attacking the cockroaches with the constitution because it's the only way to take what is our birth right. Spray the cockroaches (cockroaches = christian) until it sleeps.

[DNF]

gemelk wrote:

3 States down - 47 to go. Soon we will challenge on the full faith and credit clause, the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment - even Justice Scalia cannot find justification to deny us ...
EQUALITY
Eric

are you sure you mean the 5th amendment? I can only see it as far as depriving a citizen of liberty. A case may even be made that anti-gay marriage laws constitute cruel and unusal punishment.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I think that the 1st and 14th apply more directly. But the 9th definitely applies.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[gemelk]

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>are you sure you mean the 5th amendment? I can only see it as far as depriving a citizen of liberty. A case may even be made that anti-gay marriage laws constitute cruel and unusal punishment.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think that the 1st and 14th apply more directly. But the 9th definitely applies.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I forgot the IX which is actually a weaker argument but the Fifth does apply - it's that last bit near the end about DUE PROCESS OF LAW that makes it relevent. Thank you for adding though.

Legal scholars are saying that the main thrust of our Federal battle will fall upon the 'full faith and credit' clause and the 14th Amendment.

As more couples come from out of state into California and are married here, they will inexorably, inevitably force the Federal legal challenge. Personally I hope it gives Justice Scalia apoplexy but I don't see how he can site any precedent for denying CITIZENS their legal rites - still, Scalia and Thomas are on this Court and not likely to depart anytime soon (certainly not soon enough for my taste).

Here's to the battle yet to be fought - and won!

Eric

[Spevman]

Royce wrote:

<quoted text>
Real equality means all Americans have an equal voice in this matter and you lose.
You have no more "right" to undemocratically impose your contrived philosophies on us, than others have to impose theirs.

Hey Will, when are you just gonna hang up your megaphone and go troll somewhere else. And, no, real equality does not mean a minority group's civil rights should be put up for a popular vote. that's why the founding fathers created the judicial branch of our government; to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

[Rick in Kansas]

Royce wrote:

In your delusional world perhaps, but the rest of us live in a place we like to call reality. No one is questioning your first amendment rights to speak what you try to pass off as your mind and make a complete fool of yourself regarding the issue, but equality under this law means that Both opposite sex couples and same sex couples have equal access to the fundamental right of the people to marriage and all of the rights benefits and protections associated with it. Simply because a majority has opposed us in the past does not mean that our rights in any way, shape or form can be denied. If we cannot have our rights recognized legislatively, we have every right to turn to the courts to have tyrannical acts against us over-turned. Crack open a civics text-book sometime and actually learn how wrong you've been on this issue.
By the way, I realize that people such as yourself thing that the anti-gay amendments enacted by the states are the end all and be all of this issue, but the day will come when these too are overturned by either the will of the people or the authority of the courts. They to will end up like yourself, an embarrassing footnote to history...

[gemelk]

Royce wrote:

<quoted text>
Real equality means all Americans have an equal voice in this matter and you lose.
You have no more "right" to undemocratically impose your contrived philosophies on us, than others have to impose theirs.

Clearly you do not understand or comprehend our system of governance. Try reading the Constitution, especially where it concerns the tyranny of the majority will not be allowed upon any minority.

The United States is a Federal Presidential Constitutional Republic. We do not have strict majority rules here. Further, our separation of powers is designed by the Constitution to prevent tyranny of the majority upon any minority.

In every way the LGBT rights movement has used only democratic means to seek equal rights. We have had laws passed (legislative) and sought redress from the Courts for wrongs done to us (judicial). There have been many occasions when the Legislature has passed laws that upon review by the Judiciary, have been found to be unconstitutional.

In short, we've used the tools of democracy as detailed in the Constitution to secure our equal rights which people like you have routinely sought, without justification or reason, to deny us.

Don't cry "Foul!" when we've used the process as it was laid out.

Don't cry "Foul!" when it is YOU who have tyrannized us for too long without cause!

You want to hate someone, go look in the mirror, there you will find real evil.

Eric

[DNF]

gemelk wrote:

<quoted text>
I forgot the IX which is actually a weaker argument but the Fifth does apply - it's that last bit near the end about DUE PROCESS OF LAW that makes it relevent. Thank you for adding though.
Legal scholars are saying that the main thrust of our Federal battle will fall upon the 'full faith and credit' clause and the 14th Amendment.
As more couples come from out of state into California and are married here, they will inexorably, inevitably force the Federal legal challenge. Personally I hope it gives Justice Scalia apoplexy but I don't see how he can site any precedent for denying CITIZENS their legal rites - still, Scalia and Thomas are on this Court and not likely to depart anytime soon (certainly not soon enough for my taste).
Here's to the battle yet to be fought - and won!
Eric

Thanks. I agree tha the full faith and credit doctrine will eventually be the turning point.

As another person said on another thread, when the couples married in CA have to deal with inheiritance issues or property issues in their home states. then full faith and credit will come into play.

I am glad NY has already said they will recognise same sex marriages from other states. But that is based mainly on case law within the state of NY.