XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: crwlrjeff@yahoo.com   
      
   "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   news:mnrmed$dpg$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On 7/11/2015 2:10 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >> news:mnmfb7$q87$2@dont-email.me...   
   >>> On 7/9/2015 12:14 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It's the argument made (one of them) by gay rights advocates --   
   >>>>>> There is   
   >>>>>> no specific ban on gay marriage, therefore it must be allowed. It is   
   >>>>>> precisely the argument made in all states where the state courts   
   >>>>>> imposed   
   >>>>>> gay marriage.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That's nonsense.  Please provide citations to back your claim.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Look up gay marriage in Hawaii. The argument made was that there was no   
   >>>> law forbidding it, therefore it had to be allowed.   
   >>>   
   >>> Citation?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In don't understand why I have to keep doing your homework for you,   
   >   
   > It's your claim.  You need to back it up.   
   >   
   >>    
   >> HISTORY:   
   >> In May 1993, a state supreme court responded seriously to an ad hoc   
   >> marriage lawsuit for the first time ever. Without the backing of any   
   >> organized local or national LGBT group, three same-sex couples sued   
   >> Hawaii for marriage licenses. In Baehr v. Lewin (later Baehr v. Miike),   
   >> the Hawaii Supreme Court suggested the potential validity of the   
   >> lawsuit, arguing that the denial of marriage to same-sex   
   >> couples might be sex discrimination. The Hawaii Supreme Court   
   >> sent the case back to the trial court for a new hearing. Soon   
   >> thereafter, the Hawaii legislature passed the Reciprocal Beneficiaries   
   >> statute, which made it easier for unmarried friends, partners, or family   
   >> members to care for each other.   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>   
   >> The  text means, since there is no legislation to blocks gay   
   >> marriage, then gay marriage must be allowed.   
   >   
   > No. That is not what it says.  It says not allowing gays to marry is   
   > unlawful sex discrimination.  That logic applies independent of, and has   
   > nothing to do with, whether legislation exists that blocks such marriages.   
   >   
      
   It's exactly what it says. The state of Hawaii -- some county clerk   
   somewhere -- would not issue a license because only a man and a woman could   
   get one, although there was no legal prohibition to deny the issuance.   
   Nothing said that gays could not marry, so they wanted the same marriage   
   rights as straights -- nothing said they could not, therefore they should be   
   allowed to. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT. It also won the day.   
      
      
      
      
   >> THAT IS THE ARGUMENT MADE   
   >> BY THE GAYS. When it won, then the same argument was made in other   
   >> jurisdictions, and we now have gay marriage.   
   >   
   > Per above, that is not the argument.  But let's assume it was for the   
   > moment.  That argument could not possibly be used because the states all   
   > passed DOMAs (legislation that specifically does not permit gays to   
   > marry).   
   >   
      
   Yes, and those DOMAs were not constitutionally valid in the states where   
   they were enacted. Legislation has to withstand constitutional challenges in   
   the states where the legislation is enacted. A state supreme court can say,   
   that legislation does not pass muster under out constitution. But what I am   
   saying is that the court cannot overturn an amendement as unconstitutional   
   because the amendment is by definition the constitution. You can take a   
   state constitution to the feds if you want, but a state constitution is   
   supreme to the state court, although perhaps not the US Supreme court.   
      
   A state legislature can pass legislation that is measured against its own   
   state constitution. But an amendment to a state constitution has to be voted   
   on by the populace, and if passed is superior to the legislation, and should   
   be superior to the state court justices, else anything that the judges want,   
   the judges get. That gives us a governing body (court) that has no check or   
   balance, and the voters are the check and balance that the court has to   
   respect. All levels of government have to respect their constitution, and   
   any change to the constitution has to come about through a majority of   
   voters, and the high bar means that an amendment should be superior to all   
   else, and then becomes the yardstick by which the courts measure the   
   legislation.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)