Gay Marriage in TN
The AP: A federal judge says that Tennessee must recognize the marriages of three same-sex couples while their lawsuit against the state works its way through the court system.
They got married in other states and the ruling is preliminary.
March 16th, 2014 at 3:42 pm
It’s a direct slap in the face to DOMA, which basically says that marriage contracts, uniquely of all contracts, do not need to be recognized by states other than those where they were made. Given the current state of both Federal policy and Federal Court case law, I can’t really see this ending well for opponents of gay marriage.
March 16th, 2014 at 5:04 pm
What the hell good is it to have state legislatures and voter initiatives if any federal judge can stomp all over whatever laws they disagree with. It was my understanding that the federal courts could only have a say in matters of federal law. I think states need to give an extra-large middle finger to these activist judges in particular and the .gov in general.
March 16th, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Considering the tactics of this administration, I look at this as a distraction while they pull some other form of fuckery.
The administration knows that people will get more bent out of shape over this than almost anything else .gov can do.
March 16th, 2014 at 9:26 pm
Brilliant! I always wonder about the wisdom of people who think that involving the Federal government in non-rights related affairs.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Its inevitable.
March 17th, 2014 at 3:49 am
Giacomo, it’s not like DOMA was already gutted or anything, in relation to specifically same-sex marriage.
Last I’ve seen, the Federal courts have been doing everything they can to stay the hell out of it aside from that initial ruling, even turning away a case directly after reaching the decision. This seems like a first, and pretty focused (being only three couples), though I don’t know if it will go any higher than District court. Hell, maybe the lawsuit will, probably not the preliminary decision. I foresee THAT lasting till the lawsuit process completes (however ridiculously long time that is) and then it goes off whatever the resolution is.
March 17th, 2014 at 7:35 am
The question is how the fed courts can go after a state law (or DOMA): The federal courts have perfect jurisdiction over issues arising from states interpretations, denials, protections and ruminations (OK, not those) of federal constitutional issues. We may be a “two system” republic, but the federal constitution reigns overall others. Likewise, the federal law cannot trump the constitutional rights of the people, and those are also federal questions.
Those advocating for gay marriage recognition do so using the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment as their pointy stick. The argument in a few words: the constitution protects all people equally, and our marriages are as legit as any other. States are not allowed to restrict our constitutional rights; ergo their laws against gay marriage are bupkus.
Dropping any philosophical argument (meaning: what people in these states want), the simple fact is gay marriage is going to be held a protected right. The same arguments (traditions, culture, “for the children”) have all been tested and shot down almost 70 years ago in Loving v Virginia – when they said states could not stop interracial marriage.
So there’s your answer as to why the state laws do not matter: if it’s protected under the US Constitution, then it’s something the federal courts and/or the Congress can regulate (within the confines of that same document).
I imagine the customary gnashing of teeth in some out there. But to keep everything in perspective (on a blog mostly about guns), the same saw cuts both ways. Just about every gun case out there filed by SAF, NRA, etc have used a variation on the same argument. Once we win, we win for good. It applies everywhere, and opens the door to Congress implementing the ultimate in gun-law supremacy forcing all states to respect a certain ground-floor (no state licenses, no registration, everywhere-in-the-US carry, etc). Of course, that can also wash both ways…
Gay marriage and modern extensions of gun rights are essentially the same legal argument (I am painting with a broad brush, for sure). I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS take up both “big questions” at the same time and rule them both in similar ways. That might be a perfect wash in the eyes of many on the left and right.
Don’t kill the messenger. You ask questions, I suggested the answer.
March 17th, 2014 at 7:57 am
So to paraphrase Patrick, concerning gun rights:
“The argument in a few words: the constitution protects all people equally, and our 2nd Amendment Rights are as legit as any other. States are not allowed to restrict our constitutional rights; ergo their laws against 2nd Amendment Rights are bupkus.”
Once something is determined to be a Constitutional right, the states can’t limit it.
Have NY, CO, NJ, CA, IL and MD heard this argument? Because I don’t think they’re listening.
March 17th, 2014 at 2:00 pm
((the constitution protects all people equally, and our marriages are as legit as any other(If marriage is a Federal Institution). States are not allowed to restrict our constitutional rights; ergo their laws against gay marriage are bupkus.))
Marriage is not a constitutional right last I checked. Not even for straight people. In several states it is illegal to get married if you have been divorced a certain number of times, and the feds look the other way. Think you can marry that illegal alien you met while shopping? Think again.
If you think gay bashing is bad now just wait and see what happens when everyone is forced to ask the Federal government for a marriage license and use a Federally approved minister for the wedding.(You separation of church and state guys should love that!)
March 17th, 2014 at 4:07 pm
Last I checked, a minister isn’t needed for a marriage for ANYBODY. All you need to get married is get a marriage license. Straight, gay, christian, muslim, atheist, a minister (or religious equivalent) is NOT needed, and never will be, to be married. The ceremony is entirely voluntary and done on the own volition and whims of the couple being married. If I want to get married using Shinto rites instead of a traditional Christian ceremony, they really don’t give half a shit as long as I have my marriage license from the courthouse.
March 17th, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Last I checked it was the STATE not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT who provided that license..
While we are looking at your statement lets take a look at everything you have said from a Socially Liberal NYC Law point of view…
Clergy members or ministers of any religion;
Leaders of the Society of Ethical Culture;
The Mayor or any former Mayor of the City of New York;
Federal, state, or local judges or justices, elected or appointed in the State of New York, who are currently serving or retired;
The Clerk of the Appellate Division of the First or Second Department; and
The County Clerk of any of the five counties in the City of New York.
If you are a member of the above stated list and have NOT PREVIOUSLY REGISTERED to perform Marriage Ceremonies in the City of New York, please continue reading to learn how to REGISTER.
Oh dear…. And some people want this to become a Federally approved matter… Just wow!
Yes its like this in Most states…