Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Endowing marriage on existing gay couples but not new ones - violation of equal protection?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:38 PM
Original message
Endowing marriage on existing gay couples but not new ones - violation of equal protection?
Am I missing something here?

This seems so simple, even to a law novice such as me.

Somebody want to give me a hand here.

We need to try for a proposition next year, and if that fails, this needs to be petitioned to the SCOTUS. I think we will have 4 solid votes there, with Kennedy being the big question mark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Clearly. But don't count on the Puke-dominated SCOTUS to give a shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. How about outlawing divorce.
Marrige is supposed to be for life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Even eviler...much better. What should we call it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The Defense of Marrige Act nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. (Revisited)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Make it retroactive
Everybody, return to your original partner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JamesA1102 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Then Newt and Rush would have to...
go back to their first wives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Hey! Why make them suffer more?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. Fundies would love that! Battered women, eh, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. oooooh, I like that.
1 person 1 marriage - brilliant!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. If you invoke equal protection
Then wouldn't the remedy be to invalidate the marriages done prior to Prop 8 since the law today says gay marriage is illegal?

Not sure what good that would do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I believe last year's 4-3 decision essentially stated that gays were entitled to the rights
of marriage as opposite sex couples.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. But that was because of the California Constitution
And Prop 8 changed the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. No, the Prop 8 ruling simply stated that prospectively that these rights...
... could not be called marriage.

It did not deny that the rights to the benefits of "marriage" could be extended to gay couples. It states that those rights could not be defined under the legal definition known as marriage, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Sexual orientation does not define a federally recognized protected class
I think it should, and then your argument would have a leg to stand on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. No bullshit. Your focus should be on the referendum and convincing people that freedom is not a
privilege but rather something that belongs to all people of all orientations. Sexual orientation is not legally protected so stop leading yourselves to shortcuts that won't get you anywhere. There is nothing remarkable about the court decision. They did what they had to do even though they didn't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Like convincing 1850s Georgia that slavery was wrong
You just have to win the hearts and minds...


:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I don't know about all of that but you have to get some law to base a decision on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I would probably start with the 14th Amendment.
Edited on Wed May-27-09 01:13 AM by PBS Poll-435
Maybe go from there?


:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Well perhaps you can go to the 2nd Amendment too and buy your own nuclear weapon.
Edited on Wed May-27-09 12:59 AM by kwenu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBS Poll-435 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Nah. Just equal protection under the law
A gay couple of 20 years should not have to file "single" on Federal Tax Returns. It is an issue of fairness, and the Constitution overrides any DOMA silliness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwenu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. I think there is more to the desire to get married than tax breaks but
the issue remains the same. The best shot is to get the California Constitution changed. I am certain that lawyers for the GLBT community will strategize to pursue that goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC