WA United for Marriage (LGBT Group) Tells Atheists...

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'm not sure how recent this is, but I think this is interesting.

Wait, what? Seriously, how is that legal? How does that not violate the separation of church and state? I don't get how those types of statements in the constitution haven't been challenged.

I'm surprised there hasn't been a serious legal challenge to them, but look at the states they're written in and everything is answered.

They have been. Torcaso v. Watkins 1961, Silverman v. Campbell 1997. When something like that is declared unconstitutional it does not get removed from the books. The court just rules they cannot be enforced.

[CaptJodan]

They have been. Torcaso v. Watkins 1961, Silverman v. Campbell 1997. When something like that is declared unconstitutional it does not get removed from the books. The court just rules they cannot be enforced.

That doesn't make much sense to me. "Here is our state constitution, but don't worry, not everything in here is actually true". It continues the discrimination and intimidation of atheists by still being on the books.

That's pretty fucked up.

[Alyrium Denryle]

They have been. Torcaso v. Watkins 1961, Silverman v. Campbell 1997. When something like that is declared unconstitutional it does not get removed from the books. The court just rules they cannot be enforced.

That doesn't make much sense to me. "Here is our state constitution, but don't worry, not everything in here is actually true". It continues the discrimination and intimidation of atheists by still being on the books.

That's pretty fucked up.

Well no. State constitutions can be either very easy or very difficult to amend and there is no "If the US supreme court strikes this down, it gets removed from the books" provision". The state constitution would have to be amended. Depending on the state, that can be very difficult, and there is no point in doing it if the section is not enforceable anyway.

If any state tried to enforce such a provision, the federal district court--or even the state court as was the case in Silverman v. Campbell--would say "the supreme court has already ruled on this. I am ruling summarily". The Torcaso decision was unanimous. There was no dissenting opinion upon which to even argue in front of a lower court.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, it took 40 years after desegregation for Mississippi to decriminalize "miscenegation", but they didn't bring charges under the law after the Supreme Court stamped them down.