Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I just read today that the only Issue to be voted on in Lousiana for the upcoming Election will be a State Constitutional Ammendment defining Marriage as only between a Man and a Woman. Also would not recognize any same sex marraiges from other States.
I don't know the figures but there is a large Gay percentage population here especially around the New Orleans City area.
This thing passes, Doctors that do Gender changes are going to be awfully busy. :shocked:
Dave, the 'Full faith and credit' clause forces the various states to recognize the laws of the various states as they may apply to individuals happening in their state. Lousiana may enact law but, I rather suspect it will be held to be unconstitutional.
Btw, good to see that you've found a place that has internet capability.. I thought you were gonna go to some remote place that has yet to enter the age of enlightenment..
Actually it doesn't and it won't be deemed unconstitutional either. The FF&C clause isn't limitless and can not be bent to suit the needs of whatever the Feds or such want.
The DoMA specifically enacted law that prevented such forceful acceptance on this very issue.
But hey - depends on how you see and read things I guess. Individual State sovereignty was put in place for a reason by the framers...too bad our elected officials seem to have skipped that portion...
Well.. yes, the Congress did pass that law. But, as you know, the thinking is that it won't pass the USSC because they will hold that Homosexual marriage is a "protected right" hehehehe, I think.
I'm all for State sovereignty. I'd want each State to decide this and ALL the 14th Amendment decisions that the Court has handed down. If the people of Iowa want a Pink Angelic Figure on their Court House patios then they should be able to have that. If they don't want Abortion they should be able to enact law prohibiting that too. But, that ain't the way it is and the USSC has deemed just about every issue that can occur to fall under the umbrella of the 14th.
Also as you your other post regarding what I said - you don't seem to have grasped what I was saying. That other discussion was about "rights" and what is regulated and put in place by the gov't. Sure the courts are part of our gov't but remember that most of our courts aren't part of the Constituion and can be disolved
Congress may dissolve the lesser courts. But, not the Supreme Court. The courts below are simply 'helper' courts and there would be no point in doing that.
The issue you seem to want to hide behind is that the courts can "interpret",
I said the executive 'interprets' the law. The courts are suppose to only interpret the Constitution as it applies to the law itself as being within the Constitution.
but what I have said is correct - they can't make or write law. So IF the court found the DoMA unconstituional(which hasn't been done) it doesn't mean that gay marriage is suddenly the "law".
It means that the Marriage Act law is unconstitutional if they hear it and decide that way. But, then that decision can be read (if the language is there) that the reason it is unconstitutional is because the Marriage Act allows the States to NOT recognize Homosexual marriage. So it would depend.
Many people seem to think that the courts are make something legal but they can't. They can only judge that individual law against the Constituion and it doesn't necessarily mean the whole concept of the law is wrong if it is deemed unconstituional. But again, as I've pointed out - the guidlines, laws and regulation of marriage is firmly in the hands of the legislature since they are the only ones who can write and pass law. They have made law that recognizes a marriage in the eyes of the gov't if conditions are met. The Exec signs and the courts rule on and use law. Keeping the legislation in check is both the Exec and the Court but both have set instructions on how they can keep Congress in check. Also, Congress can keep a runaway court in check using the instructions provided for.
So no, I don't buy this "rights" BS, because it's not a "rights" issue. They have just as many rights to become married as the next person but they want the rules relaxed because they don't like them or claim they are unduly excluded. Now again, if they think they are unduly excluded then I suggest they work on getting the legislation passed that will give them the legal standing they desire but IMO using the courts as an end run around the legislative process is apalling and bastardizes our system.
The Executive is the body that uses the law to effect what the law pertains to. Like any law, the legislative makes it and the executive interprets that and effects it... then when something occurs to challenge it, the courts determine the law's constitutionality.
CKG