marriage equality in alabama

[Oasis]

the courts don't have the power to legislate, but for some reason after 200 years gay marriage is suddenly constitutionally protected

lol

[Ad Bot]

[Kearn]

the constitution specifically bans slavery. it doesn't say that the federal government (let alone the courts) has the right to legislate and define the definition of marriage

the tenth amendment specifically delegates unmentioned and unprohibited rights to the states themselves

[otto-san]

the issue isn't being specifically scoped as marriage. the scope is more the fact that people are being treated unequally, which we have in the past created legislation and rulings to defeat.

[Kearn]

gay people are not being denied any more rights than straight people are being denied and are not being discriminated against solely on the basis of orientation

[Eden]

This thread is technically wrong. The overturning of the ban has been stayed until Febuary 9.

[Oasis]

the constitution specifically bans slavery. it doesn't say that the federal government (let alone the courts) has the right to legislate and define the definition of marriage

the tenth amendment specifically delegates unmentioned and unprohibited rights to the states themselves

The constitution does not ban slavery. However, you are right, the 10th Amendment does subject marriage equality to the legislators at a state level. And a lot of states are dealing with that in their own ways. However, I don't think that inequality at any level of government should be tolerated for longer than it needs to be, and the fact that if same-love marriage was legalized at a federal not a single person in this country would be realistically harmed by that, means it probably just should be legal in the first place.

Only things that can cause harm should be illegal, don't you agree?

[Headcrab Zombie]

the courts don't have the power to legislate, but for some reason after 200 years gay marriage is suddenly constitutionally protected

Deciding whether or not something is constitutional is one of the main purposes of the judicial branch
There's something about equality in the us constitution

gay people are not being denied any more rights than straight people are being denied and are not being discriminated against solely on the basis of orientation

There's one thousand-something seperate privileges granted to married couples that same love couples do not have access to

[otto-san]

This thread is technically wrong. The overturning of the ban has been stayed until Febuary 9.

right, i failed to make that more clear. i'll add this to the OP


the first ruling can be found here:
http://media.al.com/news_mobile_impact/other/Searcy%20ruling.pdf

the ruling was on the basis of the fourteenth amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
(see due process clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause)

take from that what you wish.

[Oasis]

right, i failed to make that more clear. i'll add this to the OP


the first ruling can be found here:
http://media.al.com/news_mobile_impact/other/Searcy%20ruling.pdf

the ruling was on the basis of the fourteenth amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

take from that what you wish.

Gotta love the 14th.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Kearn]

Only things that can cause harm should be illegal, don't you agree?

not necessarily. if the people of a state hold a moral position on an issue and are specifically permitted by the 10th amendment to legislate on that position, they should be able to

Gotta love the 14th.

gay people are not being denied equal protection under the law. they use the same courts and government services as any other individual

Deciding whether or not something is constitutional is one of the main purposes of the judicial branch
There's something about equality in the us constitution

but why is it suddenly unconstitutional after hundreds of years for a state to use its tenth amendment powers to define marriage between a man and a woman if it so desires? what changed?

[Tayasaurus]

isn't kearn the capitalist/conservative who hates government or smth

Gotta problem with capitalism commie pig?

[carolcat]

and are not being discriminated against solely on the basis of orientation

boy i wish i lived in your world

[XR-7]

I wonder which states are left?

My state still holds a ban, but the mayor of St Louis let marriages take place in his home iirc. I don't support lifting the ban, but if it happens I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[otto-san]

i believe this is also very relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process

[Kearn]

boy i wish i lived in your world

ah yes. i forgot the part where people can legally throw gay people off bridges and where they're being imprisoned for 20 years for being gay

The 14th Amendment. If the state were to pass a law saying you could only marry heteroloveually, you're denying equal protection under the law to people who are not heteroloveual.

straight dudes are prohibited from marrying men too. the only basis for your argument is that one law unequally affects one group over another, an argument which could be used to prohibit the government from having a progressive income tax as it disproportionally affects the rich