Bush backs Gay Marraige Ban Amendment

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, what's your take on my suggestion that the proposed amendment violates the 14th and 1st amendments?

Didn't I already said that was a dumb argument? Since it is a Constitutional Amendment which comes later, it superceeds the 1st and 14th Amendment and cannot be ruled unconstitution under any grounds. Even if you follow Templar's argument, this amendment, once passed is unassailable, except by another amendment.

But it does cause a problem I brought up earlier on. Say FMA passes. When read together with the equal protection section in the 14th a court could hold that:

(1) marriage is confined to a man and a woman
(2) this violates equal protection
(3) therefore no one can get married.

That scenario reads the 14th Amendment and the FMA together. The thing I think that recommends this argument is that equal protection is all or nothing - there can be no exception (then it would not be equal protection under law).

Granted, the current court would likely not buy this argument (but you really never know). Then again, the Dred Scott court didn't buy that blacks were citizens so its not as if the Supreme Court is always right.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And this is inconsistent with what I said how? If this passes, then equal protection as it relates to gay marriages will not apply. It applies for every other context.

oh okay... so even though we have an amendment saying there is equal protectino under law, we can still have laws that go against that... I see.

(We so need to start teaching more civics in school )

yes... because I'm not a legal constitutional expert versed in the procedures and precedents... I'm a moron... actually, I'm a moron for other reasons.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Sava
*SNIP* I'm a moron... actually, I'm a moron for other reasons.

And we have a quote of the week nominee

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the 14th says equal protection under law banning gay marriage is unequal protection under law...

And this is inconsistent with what I said how? If this passes, then equal protection as it relates to gay marriages will not apply. It applies for every other context.

(We so need to start teaching more civics in school )

Some laws are more equal than others?

(Teach the kids logic first )

[Ramo]

but weddings are in churches... and performed by priests...

They don't have to be.

and conservatives are using the bible and christianity for the basis of their opposition saying marriage is an institution defined by god. That sounds like a religious law to me.

Some conservatives outlaw killing because its inconsistent with their religion. That doesn't mean murder laws promote the establishment of religion.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ramo
They don't have to be.

I guess... but there's no denying marriage and religion are very much intertwined.

Some conservatives outlaw killing because its inconsistent with their religion. That doesn't mean murder laws promote the establishment of religion.

yeah, but outlawing killing is part of every other moral code in existance (pretty much)

[Imran Siddiqui]

so even though we have an amendment saying there is equal protectino under law, we can still have laws that go against that... I see.

Now simply LAWS, but Amendments.

Some laws are more equal than others?

If an amendment is passed enshrining those laws in the Constitution, then yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When read together with the equal protection section in the 14th a court could hold that:

(1) marriage is confined to a man and a woman
(2) this violates equal protection
(3) therefore no one can get married.

Only a silly court . The FMA clearly indicates that Congress and the States wanted the institution of marriage to exist and only between a man and a woman. Therefore, the equal protection clause would be deemed to not apply to marriages based on the later amendment.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

When read together with the equal protection section in the 14th a court could hold that:

(1) marriage is confined to a man and a woman
(2) this violates equal protection
(3) therefore no one can get married.

Only a silly court . The FMA clearly indicates that Congress and the States wanted the institution of marriage to exist and only between a man and a woman. Therefore, the equal protection clause would be deemed to not apply to marriages based on the later amendment.

I assume that marriage is to be read as a package of benefits. Gays would have to go against their sexuality to get the benefits while heterosexuals would not. Thus the law does not provide equal protection vis a vis obtaining the benefit.

So if defining marriage as solely between man and woman runs afoul of equal protection and states are forbidden from defining marriage otherwise, no one can be married.

I would guess that the Court would give one of those lame "gays can marry straights" arguments to fudge equal protection.

[Ned]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Bork?

I think the author of the US amendment is a congresswoman.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Some laws are more equal than others?

If an amendment is passed enshrining those laws in the Constitution, then yes.

Allow me to rephrase : Some groups are protected more equally by the law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I assume that marriage is to be read as a package of benefits. Gays would have to go against their sexuality to get the benefits while heterosexuals would not. Thus the law does not provide equal protection vis a vis obtaining the benefit.

So if defining marriage as solely between man and woman runs afoul of equal protection and states are forbidden from defining marriage otherwise, no one can be married.

No, because the FMA indicates a desire to include marriage with all its benefits, but to shield it from Equal Protection Challenges.

The Court would only have to go to the obvious reading of the text, and if that doesn't float your boat, then Congressional Intent.

I mean, there is no way a court would say the FMA means marriage is now not allowed. None.

[Ned]

As I said earlier, we are going to get to the constitutional issue very soon. As soon as one of these married folk try to file a federal return, we are going to the Supreme Court pronto.

The need or absence of need for a constitutional amendment will soon become apparent.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The need or absence of need for a constitutional amendment will soon become apparent.

There will never be any need for an amendment, no matter what the Courts decide. Equal Protection should mean it.

[Ramo]

I guess... but there's no denying marriage and religion are very much intertwined.

But it's a secular institution nowadays.

yeah, but outlawing killing is part of every other moral code in existance (pretty much)

Likewise, people of most other religions, even some atheists believe that it's ok to treat gay people unequally. Point is, a law being consistent with a religion's morality doesn't violate the establishment clause.