Gay Marriage on the federal level

[spiceman1957]

I heard today that a California gay couple is suing the state to allow them to legally to get married. This trail seems to be headed toward the Supreme Court. If they win, does this mean that gay couples wanting to legally get married have federal rights regardless on local and state laws but based truly on The Constitution? Lets hope justice prevails for anyone who wants to get married and live their lives freely.
John

 

[jeffg]

The short answer is yes.

In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that Virginia's law which banned interracial marriages was unconstitutional. This had the immediate effect of overturning all other state laws which banned interracial marriages.

In the case of same-sex marriage, quite a few states have amended their constitutions to ban them, so we can count on the court not handing down a unanimous opinion this time. Just as Anton Scalia (in Lawrence v. Texas) claimed the state had the right to make sodomy illegal for same-sex couples but not opposite-sex couples, he's certainly going to claim Califonia has the right to selectively ban marriage based on gender. Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas was one of the most bitter, scathing opinions ever written in the court's history. The man is truly a raging homophobe.

 

[andrewinorlando]

I won't count on the Supremes handing down any ruling favorable to us. After all, racial discrimination isn't cool, but discrimination against our kind is perfectly okay.

 

[JerseyMike]

Be careful what you wish for ....

I'm not counting on the Supremes to do the right thing. I hope that I'm wrong but I expect that a Supreme Court decision on the issue of gay marriage will be something akin to the Dred Scott decision. (Which will invalidate the laws and/or court decisions in the few states that allow gay marriage.) (Sigh)

Just my $0.02.

Dred Scott

 

[panthera]

We

(I guess, on this forum, I had better qualify that to those who want equal rights for gays and lesbians), will win this round. We will win the appeal.
Before the Supremes, we will be told to go back to shining shoes and to be thankful they let us do that.
Remind me again why a gay man would want to vote Republican?
Remind me again why a gay man would want to support the hateful churches which deny us even human status?

 

[jeffg]

Well, I'm looking forward to reading the opinions of our Supreme Court. Scalia's should be a real hoot.

But for the long-term, it doesn't matter how our Supreme Court rules. Every year more countries are recognizing same-sex marriages, and sooner or later the U.S. position, or the position of any other particular country, becomes irrelevant. I think the court is perfectly aware of this situation. Even if they vote to uphold the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, it will be a temporary and token protest against the inevitable.

Gay marriage is now a fact of life in Canada. And Massachusetts. And Iowa for chrissakes. Has anyone other than gay people noticed any difference in their lives? So the bottom line is, every day that passes is another nail in the coffin of these "defense of marriage" morons.

If you want to laugh, read the current platform of the Republican Party. These poor people are hunkering down like frightened schoolgirls:

"We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine."

Yeah, fairness is real threat to their existence. LOL

http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

 

[andrewinorlando]

What would be funny is if other countries with whom the US does business pressures it to provide "human rights" to all, just the way the US does to everyone else. The ultimate hypocrites.

 

[petek]

What I'm kind of waiting to see happen is this. When a straight couple is married say in one country perhaps Canada, England, France etc and wish to emigrate or are being transferred to the USA, other than one of them being kept out for criminal type reasons, they are usually allowed in after meeting requirements etc. Marriages are more or less recognized between countries. You don't re-marry when you emigrate to a new country, you're married. So a legally married gay couple from Canada or England etc are being transferred by their company or just wanting to emigrate to the USA and they deny them based on being gay. What then happens. So far I haven't seen any cases like this pop up

 

[panthera]

PeteK

Several hundreds of such cases have 'popped up.' In many instances during the shrub dictatorship, the non-American but legal spouse was barred from entering the US and not permitted any sort of visa. Some were even denied their visa-waver, if they came from countries with such agreements although this was later dropped.

Homeland security currently advises foreigners planing to marry Americans of the same-sex to wait until Paragraph 3 of DOMA is declared invalid or rescinded as it specifically grants authority to bar such same-sex non-American spouses from the US.

America has reciprocal, congressionally ratified agreements with most countries on respecting marriages sealed in other countries. The US is in clear breach on these agreements with Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Canada, Spain, Italy of which I know and, no doubt, several others of which I have not read.

Estimates vary, but it is generally accepted that several hundred thousand ex-pat Americans live abroad because their marriages (by which I also mean Lebenspartnershaften, etc.) are not recognized here.

 

[earthling177]

Pete, as far as I know, that happens all the time, so much so, that it isn't even news, more's the pity.

Not all marriages are recognized. For example, if you are legally married to a bunch of wives in the Middle East and "need" to move to US, (e.g. you are a consul or ambassador) you'll be told to "choose" a wife and that's the one that automatically gets the visa, the others will get a visa based on being your family, but they are not "married" to you here. Talk about sticking one's head in the sand.

Also, US used to routinely deny visas to anyone (tourists, immigrants etc) based on the fact that they were homosexual. I don't know if it's still true. And to make it even better with a cherry on top, not everyone that was homosexual was denied a visa -- in particular, rich and/or famous people were rarely, if ever, denied entry based on that fact, just ask Sir Elton John and a bunch of others. But if they didn't like you and you said you weren't straight, that was one reason they could say no. And if you lied on your application and they found out later, it was one more reason to make your life difficult.

Up until the mid-90's the then INS was still stuck a couple of DSM versions behind, because they still subscribed to the idea that being homosexual was a mental disease.

 

[panthera]

Today,

Homosexuality and gender identity are not supposed to be grounds for denial of visa/entry BUT it is up to the individual at the border and his/her decision is final and can not be appealed.

I suspect the only solution will be either the christianists win and homosexuals are murdered here as the rethuglicans and christianists are very close to doing in Uganda or all the laws against us will be struck down at once by the Supremes.

 

[Unimatic1140]

A interesting article about Judge Vaughn Walker presiding on "round one" of this fascinating federal case...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126334233397826947.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

 

[panthera]

Scheck and Fowler

Must have had quite a time writing that article - it reads like a my view, your view, let's agree to disagree piece.

Whatever Walker's decision, he is obviously committed to the Constitution and that is unusual enough to be worth noting.

The comments are fascinating - Murdoch really has swung the WSJ to the left of ten years ago. I may have to renew my subscription, thanks Robert!

 

[Unimatic1140]

for those who wish to follow the trial there is blogger who is recording what is being said (to the best of his ability) in the trial and posting it.

It sounds just like Law and Order lol! All kidding aside, it is fascinating to read...

Shadowproof: Independent journalism on movements for justice

Shadowproof is a reader-supported press organization devoted to exposing abuses of power in government and business.

firedoglake.com