XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/11/2015 3:19 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:   
   >   
   > "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   One more time.  That wasn't the argument.  The argument that won (from   
   your link) was it was unlawful sex discrimination.  Stop making up shit   
   without citations.   
      
   > but a state constitution is supreme to the state court   
      
   No.  One more time, the Supremacy Clause from our Constitution (Article   
   6, Clause2; emphasis added):   
      
   "This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme law of the land; and the   
   judges in *every state* shall be bound thereby, anything in the   
   constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."   
      
   Got it now?  State judges must put the federal constitution above state   
   constitutions when they hear state cases.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)