Judge Grants Hawaii Lesbian Couple The Right To Get Married

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Judge Kay has still not been overruled and his decision still stands until and if he is overruled by a higher court. Regardless of how he arrived at his decision, it still takes precedence over a lower court ruling. Actually, the Baker precedent was the antithesis of judicial restraint, judicial restraint being the principle Judge Kay apparently relied on. You had better master Constitutional Law 101 before moving on to the next level.

Judged:

1

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Judge Kay has still not been overruled and his decision still stands until and if he is overruled by a higher court. Regardless of how he arrived at his decision, it still takes precedence over a lower court ruling. Actually, the Baker precedent was the antithesis of judicial restraint, judicial restraint being the principle Judge Kay apparently relied on. You had better master Constitutional Law 101 before moving on to the next level.

Jerald wrote:

Ahh. That makes even more sense. Thanks.

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Btw, Judge Mollway is acutally the Chief Judge for the District of Hawaii, while Judge Kay is merely a district judge. So if anything, the ruling from the Chief Judge has precedence over her subordinate.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Chief judge does not carry anything more than just being in charge of certain court procedures much like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and has no authority to overrule another district judge's decision.
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/FCGA9

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm away of that you moron, which is why I said "if anything".
YOU were the idiot making the claim that Judge Kay was somehow superior to Judge Mollway and therefor his ruling had some kind of precedent.
Judge Mollway is in no way bound by the ruling of her subordinate.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I was simply under the impression that they had ruled on the same application by the same couple I now stand corrected and unlike you, I will refrain from juvenile name calling. Two judges of the same rank have opposite views of whether or not Hawaii has the right ro ban same sex marriage. Judge Kay is technically not a subordinate. Chief judgeships are little more than a title of certain responsibilities given to the senior with the most seniority who is under the age of 64 and has nothing to do with merit or political favor.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
I appreciate your statement, and I'll admit the two judges are essentially equals.
That was my point from the start; these are 2 district judges who have made essentially opposite rulings on marriage equality in Hawaii. That sets up yet another conflict to be settled by the 9th circuit, and I think we both know how that's going to turn out.
The only question is whether the Hawaii legislature passes a marrige equality bill before these cases get to the 9th circuit and renders them moot.
Remember, the constitutional amendment passed by the people in Hawaii simply AUTHORIZED the legislature to define marriage as between a man & a woman; it didn't REQUIRE the legislature to do so, and doesn't prevent the legislture from changing the current definition in Hawaii.
One way or another marriage equality is coming to Hawaii, along with many other states over the next couple of years.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I have read your response and I do appreciate your informing me on the issues surrounding the referendum. We just have to wait and see what happens. Depending on what judges in the 9th circuit court hear and decide the case if appealed, we could perhaps end up with an opionion opposite of Prop 8. That would just about force the Supreme Court to get involved IF it does happen.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Unlikely, since the 2 cases are so dissimilar. The Prop 8 case was decided on the premise of a right previously granted which was subsequently taken away. This case is a fairly straightforward challenge to Hawaii's legislative ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
Not to mention the fact that the SCOTUS will decide whether or not to take the Prop 8 case on Sep 24th; these cases are unlikely to even get to the 9th circuit by then.

Judged:

1

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>So what you are saying is that Prop 8 was not decided on Amendment XIV. If I have that wrong, let me know.

Judged:

1

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>There is nothing in the Constitution if interpreted according to the intent of its authors that ever was intended to allow gay marriage. What this Hawaiian judge did was defy a higher court decision. That is a big difference.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
The one judge has no authority over the other judge.
There are often conflicting rulings by different judges; that's what the appeals courts are there for.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Again you want to bring up original intent. How can we possibly know what their original intent was? We were not alive then. All we can do is guess.
To me the best thing to do is look at what it says in the law AS WRITTEN and go from there.
The U.S. Constitution states that no State can pass a law that infringes on my right as a U.S. Citizen. It also says all laws are to be enforced equally. Since there is no mention of sexuality in the document, I'd say the law is neutral in that respect (or should be). It also states that one religion should not be given preference over others. Laws denying SSM do just that.
Cat I know you are basically a good person but I'm very disappointed that you are trying to find ways that support institutionalized discrimination.
I remind you of the story that came out of Nazi Germany "And then they came for me"

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I had to laugh when I saw the "clueless" "nuts" and "spam" icon to this post.
No further proof is needed to illustrate how badly educated most of the people on here really are.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>We do know that Amendment XIV did not end up with women lining up to register to vote. If it was all that inclusive to the point of allowing gays to marry, why did it not immediately grant women the right to vote? All it meant is that all existing laws be applied in a consistent manner and did not create any additional new rights. It essentially said in different words that ethnicity could not be used to discriminate and that all rights at the federal level could not be infringed upon by the states.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Again you want to bring up original intent. How can we possibly know what their original intent was? We were not alive then. All we can do is guess.
To me the best thing to do is look at what it says in the law AS WRITTEN and go from there.
The U.S. Constitution states that no State can pass a law that infringes on my right as a U.S. Citizen. It also says all laws are to be enforced equally. Since there is no mention of sexuality in the document, I'd say the law is neutral in that respect (or should be). It also states that one religion should not be given preference over others. Laws denying SSM do just that.
Cat I know you are basically a good person but I'm very disappointed that you are trying to find ways that support institutionalized discrimination.
I remind you of the story that came out of Nazi Germany "And then they came for me"

Judged:

1

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>We do know that Amendment XIV did not end up with women lining up to register to vote. If it was all that inclusive to the point of allowing gays to marry, why did it not immediately grant women the right to vote? All it meant is that all existing laws be applied in a consistent manner and did not create any additional new rights. It essentially said in different words that ethnicity could not be used to discriminate and that all rights at the federal level could not be infringed upon by the states.

Judged:

1

1

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Geez. OK here we go again.
The reason women didn't get the right to vote under 14 is because females were excluded from the original ideas of "Constitutional Law".
It doesn't change the relevance of being treated equally especially since you bring up sex discrimination in our history.
The 14th applies to those MALES who qualified at that time. HOWEVER, it doesn't specifically spell out what some would claim is 'original intent'.
Thus we can only rely on the exact wording of the law.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
(Google it)
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "
(again)
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, 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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
(need I say more?)