Prop 8 Oral Arguments and Predictions

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.
  1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
  2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
  3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
  4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
  5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
  6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
  7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
  8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
  9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
 
Howey said:
Thanks. Regardless, we're headed to his folks in NY this summer to make it official.

hmm....who should I invite to be best man?

ILA?

007?

Damn Yankee?

Bravo?
Click to expand...

Here I am, trying to be nice and you go and damn near make me choke to death. I suppose that is what I get for drinking and scrolling...
 
gay-choice-who-cares.jpg
 
I don't know how it will go, and I personally have always thought it was fair to allow gay marriage, however there is a subtlety to consider: Marriage has taken on the look of a fundamental right because procreation is undeniably a fundamental right--the right to life. Marrying for other reasons may be perfectly reasonable, but it doesn't have the same meaning, and could therefore reasonably be less well protected. Should everyone be forced to consider gay marriage a right? I also have reservations about gay parents raising kids. Just kind of uncomfortable with the strange biology of it.

But in the end, why can't anyone marry anyone or anything they like? It's not like we're breaking new ground on stupid marriages, or anything.
 
Jarod said:
DOMA = unconstitutional
Prop 8 = Fails because marriage is a Fundamental right w no compelling State interest in prohibiting.
Click to expand...


Well, you're our resident expert, counselor.....and your opinion has to be taken as such.

I think you're right for the most part....
 
Howey said:
Thanks. Regardless, we're headed to his folks in NY this summer to make it official.

hmm....who should I invite to be best man?

ILA?

007?

Damn Yankee?

Bravo?
Click to expand...


NY ?....I can make it.

Are you the he-she or the hee-hee ?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Yeah, but, ummm... you are wrong.

Chief Just Warren's opinion for the UNANIMOUS ruling on Loving v Virginia

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights#United_States

The Bill of Rights lists specifically enumerated rights. The Supreme Court has extended fundamental rights by recognizing several fundamental rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, including but not limited to:
  • The right to interstate travel
  • The right to intrastate travel
  • The right to privacy[SUP][10][/SUP] (which includes within it a set of rights) including:
a. The right to marriage[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] b. The right to procreation [SUP][13][/SUP] c. The right for a woman to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability [SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] d. The right to contraception (the right to use contraceptive devices) [SUP][16][/SUP] e. The right of family relations (the right of related persons to live together) Any restrictions on these rights are evaluated with strict scrutiny. If a right is denied to everyone, it is an issue of substantive due process. If a right is denied to some individuals but not others, it is also an issue of equal protection. However, any action abridging a right deemed to be fundamental, when also violating equal protection, will still be held to the overriding standard of strict scrutiny, instead of just simply a rational basis test.

...

The court cannot change it's tune on this without upsetting precedent. The chance that the California court is overruled is very slim.
Click to expand...

So why didn't they include the queers in this ruling?
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

Here is a list of the fourteen cases, with links to the opinions and citations to the Court’s discussion of the right to marry.
  1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
  2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
  3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
  4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
  5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
  6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
  7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
  8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
  9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
    [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
    [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
    [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
    [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
    [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”
Click to expand...


So why did the queers wait until now?
 
Look it doesn't matter what the court decides everyone knows queers are abnormal

As I said before nobody and I mean nobody hopes thier child grows up to be a stinking AIDS infested queer

NOBODY
 
I Love America said:
Why did the queers wait until now to want to get married? What took the so long to figger it out? I know they are deviant and infested with STDsbut are they stupid too?
Click to expand...

Are you really ignorant or are you trying to make a point? There have been other cases. But Lawrence v Texas changed things and this is a ruling that went against those opposed. The plaintiffs in this case would not have asked the Supreme Court to hear it as it puts in jeopardy rights they have already secured.
 
Sir Digby Chicken Caesar said:
Are you really ignorant or are you trying to make a point? There have been other cases. But Lawrence v Texas changed things and this is a ruling that went against those opposed. The plaintiffs in this case would not have asked the Supreme Court to hear it as it puts in jeopardy rights they have already secured.
Click to expand...

So queers have always wanted to be married? My guess is no. I know plenty that don't and don't get the hubbub


Question is why do they want to do it so badly? Why do the queers want to be married?
 
I predict one of those unsatisfying kiss your sister type of rulings on this one where they avoid taking any controversial stance or ruling on whether marriage itself is a fundamental right.
 
Damocles said:
I predict one of those unsatisfying kiss your sister type of rulings on this one where they avoid taking any controversial stance or ruling on whether marriage itself is a fundamental right.
Click to expand...

They have already called marriage a fundamental right like 10,000 times... Why would doing it again be contraversal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top