Same Sex Marriage

[+ Gar1eth]

This may need to be answered by the lawyers in our group or any political science/constitutional scholar mavens out there.

 

I got into an argument with a lawyer on Facebook. He said, using Kentucky as the example, that since the Supreme Court doesn't make law-and he had some patently false assertions about SCOTUS making an illegal decision as marriage was reserved to the states and not the federal government--that all SCOTUS did was to invalidate laws that forbade same sex marriage. For Kentucky (and the other states ) to actually legalize same sex marriage they would have to write new law. My contention is that there are already marriage laws on the books. The only thing changed is the fact that they can't be restricted to m/f couples otherwise the same legal standards for marriage have to be met. I also told him that if by this decision of SCOTUS new laws for marriage had to be written then it would seem that they would have to be rewritten for straight couples too.

 

 

Another thing that occurred to me later was that in Lawrence v Texas when SCOTUS overturned gay sodomy laws, the state of Texas didn't have to write a new specific law making it legal for us to have sex.

 

Gman

[+ deej]

I got into an argument with a lawyer on Facebook.

 

FULL FAIL. FULL STOP.

 

Do not argue with lawyers on Facebook. (Or on Daddy's.) They enjoy arguing. You just get dirty.

 

Lawyers who disagree with SCOTUS are free to bring a case, but rarely do because they lose. When SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of an issue, the issue is settled.

 

Done. Deal.

 

People who argue otherwise are, in a word, wrong. For 50 years or so, anyway. They'll still try! But they'll be wrong.

[+ Gar1eth]

FULL FAIL. FULL STOP.

 

Do not argue with lawyers on Facebook. (Or on Daddy's.) They enjoy arguing. You just get dirty.

 

Lawyers who disagree with SCOTUS are free to bring a case, but rarely do because they lose. When SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of an issue, the issue is settled.

 

Done. Deal.

 

People who argue otherwise are, in a word, wrong. For 50 years or so, anyway. They'll still try! But they'll be wrong.

 

It didn't start with me arguing with the lawyer. I was arguing with a 'friend' who posted this.

 

 

I said religious freedom is great long as public officials and public businesses aren't allowed to discriminate.

 

Then the lawyer who must be a friend of my 'friend' horned in on the conversation and attacked the SCOTUS ruling. And I got into it with him.

 

Gman

[Epigonos]

Whatever anybody says or believes the fact is that the United States Constitution says EXACTLY what five justices on the United States Supreme Court decide it says. When there is a conflict between state laws/constitutions the U.S. Constitution preempts when the Supreme Courts says so. One doesn’t have to like this and many may believe that marriage laws should be left to the individual states but five justices didn’t agree and that ends it.

[+ Gar1eth]

Whatever anybody says or believes the fact is that the United States Constitution says EXACTLY what five justices on the United States Supreme Court decide it says. When there is a conflict between state laws/constitutions the U.S. Constitution preempts when the Supreme Courts says so. One doesn’t have to like this and many may believe that marriage laws should be left to the individual states but five justices didn’t agree and that ends it.

 

Yes, but aside from that point, his other point was that since SCOTUS doesn't make law, Kentucky, and I'm assuming the other states, now had to write new law specifically before same sex marriage could take place. I thought that was bull.

 

Gman

[sincitymix]

Yes, but aside from that point, his other point was that since SCOTUS doesn't make law, Kentucky, and I'm assuming the other states, now had to write new law specifically before same sex marriage could take place. I thought that was bull.

 

Gman

Hmm I read somewhere that when the SC makes a ruling on a law then that becomes the definition of that law unless another SC overturns it (which does not happen very often), then that definition trumps even state laws, b/c it is THE interpretation... and that if congress tried to legislate something that would be unconstitutional according to the SC ruling, then congress can take its ball and go home..

 

Sorry for the long ramble Just cant remember were I read that from... was something in the news recently I think..

[tedbear]

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law

when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

[+ Gar1eth]

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause Two of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law

when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

 

 

Yes but the lawyer was saying that ok, SCOTUS invalidated the laws and state constitutional amendments about marriage restricted to opposite sex couples ( he was arguing also about their authority to do that-but if you accepted that they could and did) he contended that just like with abortion the individual states would have to pass new laws to allow same sex marriage-that using the old laws with the portions restricting it to male/female couples wouldn't work.

 

And that 1) Since those new laws hadn't been passed yet-same sex marriage while legal -shouldn't be started yet in those 13 states that hadn't already had same sex marriage before Obergefell was decided because the states didn't have the proper new laws/mechanisms in place

 

2) Since the new laws weren't in place in Kentucky yet, Kim Davis had not broken any laws as she was following the current codified laws of the state of Kentucky.

 

I told him that was ridiculous. State laws already had age, consanguinity restrictions and etc-for marriage. All that needed to be done was void the male/female restriction. I also noted that when SCOTUS overturned the Texas ( and 13 other states) sodomy law, the Texas legislature hadn't written a new law specifying that gays and lesbians could now practice sodomy. The invalidation of the original law was all that was required (as a side note-only 2 states as far as I know have actually repealed the sodomy statutes. The other 12 still have them on the books although they aren't enforceable except apparently in Louisiana where 2 years ago a sheriff said he didn't know those laws could no longer be enforced and arrested several men) Aside from being political suicide for many Texas legislators, I'm wondering if they hope the Supreme Court will some day be full of judges from Kim Davis' Apostolic Church or some similar church and will re-institute the sodomy laws as legal.

 

I also told him that if the current marriage laws were so invalidated by SCOTUS' ruling to not allow immediate same sex marriage that the laws really must have been so totally abrogated they must not be valid for traditional marriage either.

 

For some reason he didn't agre with any of my points. And while not a lawyer, I thought they were quite good.

 

In summary I wrote that delaying tactics like that were only being employed by homophobe individuals and known homophobic groups like NOM to try to delay same sex marriage anyway they can.

 

Anyway I did some checking on the Internet of this lawyer. He's not famous really but he's an estate planning lawyer. And he give talks on a Biblical based estate planning or something like that. So through that I was able to find his church -it's fairly conservative. It wants to reconcile people who are divorced with their former partners if they haven't remarried at the time they enter this church. And while women can be pastors once they've passed an inspection proving they live a faithful life, women aren't qualified to be the senior pastor of the church or a church elder-and womenhave to take direction from them.

 

And surprise surprise --while the church didn't have a direct proscription against same sex marriage on their website, their church doctrines affirm that marriage is the union of male and female.

 

Gman

[maninsoma]

The lawyer is obviously wrong. When the Supreme Court has made previous rulings that overturned previous acts of discrimination (segregation, interracial marriages, etc), did each State have to pass its own law on the issue? Of course not. The Supreme Court didn't make an order re racial segregation and then give time to each State to decide whether they actually wanted to put into place laws that forbade segregation. The problem is that these twisted people don't think that discriminating against LGBT folks is discrimination. Their hatred has blinded them to logic.

[tedbear]

In 1957, Arkansas believed it could block the Little Rock School Board from adhering to the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. President Eisenhower disagreed, and dispatched troops to show Governor Orval Faubus how wrong he was.

[rvwnsd]

A quick scan of Kentucky statutes, including the one governing marriage licenses, revealed exactly two statutes the mention marriage being between people of opposite sexes. Both were enacted in 1998 and, by virtue of the Supreme Court's ruling, both clauses prohibiting marriage between same-sex couples are void. Interestingly, the statute governing marriage certificates does not mention same-sex or opposit sex couples.

 

Sounds like the attorney needs to read the law.

[+ Gar1eth]

For some reason he hasn't responded back to my accusations of him being a homophobe and linking him to organizations like NOM or AFA. Some people are so touchy!!

 

Gman

[samhexum]

DEAR ABBY: We are all familiar with the rules of who pays for what in a wedding. Usually the bride's family pays for certain portions of the wedding and reception, while the groom's family pays for the rehearsal dinner, among other things.

 

But what are the rules for same-sex marriages? My daughter and her girlfriend are getting married, and I'm confused about the financial etiquette. Is everything split evenly? -- MODERN DAD IN LOUISIANA

 

DEAR MODERN DAD: According to Steven Petrow, the LGBT etiquette author, there are few set rules about gay weddings. Your only "requirement" is to provide them with your love and support.

 

Many couples today, both gay and straight, foot the bill themselves. You might offer a gift to help them pay for the flowers or rehearsal dinner. However, like any responsible couple, your daughter and her intended should plan a wedding that is within their budget.

[LaffingBear]

FULL FAIL. FULL STOP.

 

Do not argue with lawyers on Facebook. (Or on Daddy's.) They enjoy arguing. You just get dirty.

 

Lawyers who disagree with SCOTUS are free to bring a case, but rarely do because they lose. When SCOTUS has ruled on the constitutionality of an issue, the issue is settled..

Lawyers?!?!?! Dont restrict that advice to lawyers!

 

Arguing with anyone via any social media is just plain pointless. Even if you win the argument, the only tangible outcome is that you've wasted your time.