Federal judge rules against Hawaii gay marriage

Judged:

2

1

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
l, but the same does not apply for the purpose of Federal law (read the DOMA cases, and you will see what I mean).

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but there are NOT 44 states that have bans in place against Same-Sex Couples having the right to marry......ONLY 32 states actually have Some sort of ban and they won't stand up if DOMA falls!!!
Again, where has ANY COURT stated that Gays and Lesbians don't have a right to marry?

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
.ONLY 32 states actually have Some sort of ban and they won't stand up if DOMA falls!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
the SAME DOMA cases!
" Baker is precedent binding on us unless repudiated by subsequent Supreme Court precedent. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975). Following Baker, "gay rights" claims prevailed in several well known decisions, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S.620 (1996), but neither mandates that the Constitution requires states to permit same-sex marriages. A Supreme Court summary dismissal "prevent[s] lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)(per curiam). Baker does not resolve our own case but it does limit the arguments to ones that do not presume or rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
very clear, no right to gay marriage...
this is from May 31, 2012 first circuit decision in gill (which I have posted many times and you clearly won't read it when i spoon-feed it to you...must be bliss)...
this is from the very decision you celebrate...
how can you miss that if DOMA fails, the state's definitions control?

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

How do you possibly argue that these cases will overturn the state definitions?
You either didn't read them or don't understand the DOMA cases...which is it?

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
I know......I've read the case rulings as well.....and obviously section 3 of DOMA has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Section 2 of DOMA..........so, your point is irrelevant......and all the 1st District Court of Appeals stated that they felt Baker was binding and that they feel this is a matter for SCOTUS to decide, thus staying their ruling, which was still UNANIMOUS on Section 3 being UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!
Regardless of your feelings or first year law student education.........it is a violation for my marriage to be treated differently than the legal marriage of an opposite-sex couples marriage!!!
And again, Baker was NOT precedent on ALL OF THESE FEDERAL CASES, OTHERWISE......they would not have been allowed to proceed!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly......my state recognizes my marriage license......therefore if Section 3 of DOMA fails, the federal government will also recognize my marriage as well.......and that is what this fight is all about.

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
That just means they're not ready to declare gays & lesbians a suspect class YET. YET. YET.
It's only a matter of time.
The first step is getting federal recognition of our legal marriages.
The 2nd step is getting another liberal justice on the SCOTUS to replace Scalia or Kennedy when they step down.
THEN we'll bring cases to the SCOTUS which will result in granting suspect classification and overturn all remaining marriage bans in the US.
By the end of the decade this is all over.

Judged:

1

1

1

hi hi wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, my thinking as well: The judge has it exactly backwards. In fact, he says (quoting article)
If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment," and not through the courts.
^ This, from the article, summarizes precisely what should *not* be happening (the part about the people). The people should *not* be voting on this issue when they are voting based on lies; look at what it's led to so far: over thirty states banning the rights of a minority.
Failure to present the facts is leading to this anti-American travesty.
It's funny to me that the judge chose the most ILLOGICAL way of pretending he'd meted out justice. He is more incorrect for the reason(s) he stated than for any other(s) he could have come up with.

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
by "read the DOMA cases" do you mean the very case i cited that you replied to?
didn't recognize it did you?
so we agree the DOMA cases would not permit a federal definition of marriage regardless of whether it included ssm or banned it?

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
exactly, but what chance is there to have national law on the subject?
NONE..
44 states and counting....

Judged:

1

1

1

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
it is a violation for my marriage to be treated differently than the legal marriage of an opposite-sex couples marriage!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
pssst...from the decision:
"If the traditional institution of marriage is to be reconstructed, as sought by the plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment," and not through the courts."
this is the definition of NOT being ACTIVIST.(Unless you are using the liberal definition of activism which means any decision with which you disagree...)
let the people vote...
pretend we are like AMERICA!
No one buys that the morality of the majority is irrelevant and law must be based on the morality of the MINORITY...

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
I cited the DOMA cases...
they are decided on states rights explicitly finding no rights to gay marriage...
the states...44 of which ban ssm... have the right to decide...
can you grasp this concept?
I read the DOMA decisions and am cheering them, you did not and are cheering too...
guess who has a better chance he knows what they say?
If you are fine with the outcome, great, I am fine with their finding gays are not a suspect class and have no federal right to marriage...

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
actually no, you'd be wrong...these DOMA cases are as if I wrote them...the states have the power, gays have no right to marriage is the decision..
you do get that the states have OVERWHELMINGLY defined marriage as between a man and woman, right?
I know its been bliss, but maybe you should actually read the DOMA cases:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl...

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
exactly, but what chance is there to have national law on the subject?
NONE..
44 states and counting....

Judged:

1

1

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
Even with Scalia on the bench, the argument that gay couples need not the protections afforded by marriage because they lack procreative viability falls flat on its face; the reason being that couples who cannot have children are still allowed to marry. The issue of rational basis review aside, this one fact pretty much ruins the entire basis upon which the bans are justified. From what Scalia has mentioned in the past, his reasoning that the Fed has no business interfering with state bans on gay marriage traces back to the slaughterhouse cases.