Arizona demonstrates its worthlessness again ...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-05-26 02:36pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/26/sames ... index.html

Arizona court upholds same-sex marriage ban

PHOENIX, Arizona (AP) -- A gay couple's challenge to Arizona's ban on same-sex marriages has been turned away by the state Supreme Court.

Without comment Tuesday, the state's highest court let stand an appeals court ruling that upheld the 1996 state law.

Phoenix couple Don Standhardt and Tod Keltner in December asked the high court to review the Court of Appeals decision, arguing the statute discriminates against gay couples and their children by violating the state Constitution's privacy and equal treatment clauses.

The Court of Appeals had held in October that there is no fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It found that the state has a rational basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage because of goals related to procreation and child-rearing.

Standhardt and Keltner were denied a marriage license in Maricopa County, according to their original lawsuit, filed July 7.

"With it being a pressing civil rights issue here, we thought they would see the injustice in the law being what it is," Standhardt said after hearing decision.

The Attorney General's Office urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, contending the ban was based on legislative policies and not discrimination.

The court action came amid legal maneuvering on the same-sex marriage issue in Massachusetts and California.

In San Francicso, California Supreme Court justices listened skeptically to arguments that San Francisco's mayor had the right to defy state law when he issued marriage licenses to 4,000 gay couples earlier this year.

A ruling on whether the mayor abused his powers is expected within 90 days.

The justices are not likely to decide the validity of the 4,000 gay and lesbian marriages that were performed before the high court put a stop to the practice in March. And the high court has said it will not use this case to decide the constitutionality of the state's ban on gay weddings.

Across the country, in Massachusetts, two city clerks confirmed they are issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state gay couples, even as three other clerks temporarily stopped the practice under pressure from the governor.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has stated that no gay couples from other states can marry in Massachusetts based on a 1913 statute that prohibits unions that would not be legal in a couple's home state.

Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly ordered clerks on Monday in Provincetown, Somerville, Springfield and Worcester to cease and desist from issuing marriage licenses to out-of-state couples.

All except Provincetown, a gay tourist Mecca on Cape Cod, stopped issuing such licenses while they explore legal options. Provincetown officials met Tuesday night but delayed announcing any decision until Wednesday.

I remember a Toronto cop once saying that it was pretty much common knowledge that Arizona was absolutely crawling with religious fanatics.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-05-26 02:49pm

By the courts' justification, couples with one or more sterile members or one being a post-menapausal woman should not be allowed to marry.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-26 02:52pm

Because, as you know, there's a scarcity of humans on this planet so we must only accept those that can reproduce for the good of the species.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2004-05-26 03:11pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Because, as you know, there's a scarcity of humans on this planet so we must only accept those that can reproduce for the good of the species.

Good point! I mean, there are only like...750,000 people in the country I live in! Oh, but I live in New Jersey, so I must not be able to grasp the massive population crunch which is apparently gripping Arizona.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-05-26 03:28pm

The holding of the court was simple: The Court of Appeals had held in October that there is no fundamental constitutional right to same-sex marriage

In response to the argument from the other side that saw such a fundamental right in the state Constitution's privacy and equal treatment clauses.

Playing devil's advocate here, the court simply accepted the state's rational basis for its legislation citing to an overarching public policy benefit that the state was trying to encourage, (ie. family creation and growth) The court refused to go and initiate new law or over turn a law passed by a state legislature that had a rational basis for passing a law that did not seem to violate state constitutional principles.

In the words of Republicans and Neo cons, these judges were not being "activists"

In this case one could argue that the judges were simply unable to read a fundmental right for same sex marriage in the constitution.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-05-26 03:39pm

Darth Wong wrote: I remember a Toronto cop once saying that it was pretty much common knowledge that Arizona was absolutely crawling with religious fanatics.

i'd imagine no greater a percent of the population than Alberta, Manitoba, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-26 03:45pm

Stravo: But then you'd have to justify having one law for straight people and a different one for gay people, which is unconstitutional.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-05-26 03:50pm

Actually when I was in Tempe I didn't notice any large proportion of fundies.

Of course they're going to be a lot less prevalent on a university campus than in other areas.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-05-26 04:31pm

kojikun wrote:Stravo: But then you'd have to justify having one law for straight people and a different one for gay people, which is unconstitutional.

Correct indeed. The "non-activist" judges are hanging their hats on the fact that they cannot interpret their respective state consitutions on creating a fundamental right where they do not see one that exists. Marriage is a fundamental right *cough for straight people cough* as they view it.

I think that in time the crux of the argument will rightly rest on the equal protection clauses of the various state constitutions. Gays are already considered a protected class so it is only a matter of time until the argument is made that marriage and civil unions is equivalent to black and white drinking fountains. The big question will be how many state courts are going to be willing to go down that road. Many judges are elected and we've all seen the polls on America's views of Gay Marriage.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-26 04:37pm

Gay couples should simly go to Massachusetts to get hitched. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, if you get married in one state, you're married in the others, period. Also, the US government has treaties with other countries in which we honor their marriages and divorces and they honor ours. So an American couple that runs off to Paris to tie the knot is married when they get home.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-05-26 04:41pm

The Attorney General's Office urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, contending the ban was based on legislative policies and not discrimination.

This sets off my weasel detector. What does he mean by "legislative policies", and how is discrimination magically okay if it's based in them?

If nothing else, this guy is confusing the issue by issuing obfuscated statements that sound good to his supporters but which don't really say anything.

Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has stated that no gay couples from other states can marry in Massachusetts based on a 1913 statute that prohibits unions that would not be legal in a couple's home state.

I wonder what the original purpose of that law was. The irony would be delicious if it had something to do with interracial marriages, but it probably is just standard CYA that sat dormant for decades waiting for someone to use it.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-26 04:48pm

Give that man a cigar! Of course it was racially motivated, just like all the other excuses for gay-bashing are the same as for racism.

During Jim Crow, race-mixing (married or otherwise) was illegal and could carry a death sentence at the hands of angry mobs -with the support of the government. Some interracial couples tried to use the method I advocated for gay couples: Get married in a state that allows it and the FF&C Clause will kick in. Since the Constitution takes precedence over state laws, the 1913 provision is null and void, anyway.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-26 04:50pm

Elfdart wrote:Gay couples should simly go to Massachusetts to get hitched. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, if you get married in one state, you're married in the others, period. Also, the US government has treaties with other countries in which we honor their marriages and divorces and they honor ours. So an American couple that runs off to Paris to tie the knot is married when they get home.

The Defense of Marriage Act frees the states from having to honor same-sex marriages from other states, based on Congress's power to determine the "effect" of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The DOMA has never been challenged in court because up until this month no state had gay marriage, so nobody had grounds to bring a case. I don't agree with that interpretation of the FFC clause, but if Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and Kennedy do, then that avenue to nationwide gay marriage is closed.

Second, Massachusetts intends to enforce an old law prohibiting couples from out of state from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be allowable in their home state. There's already a challenge being mounted to this, on the grounds the law is discriminatory (it was passed originally to prevent interracial couples from out of state from coming to Massachusetts to get married), but it will be years before that's sorted out.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-05-26 04:51pm

Gay couples should simly go to Massachusetts to get hitched. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, if you get married in one state, you're married in the others, period. Also, the US government has treaties with other countries in which we honor their marriages and divorces and they honor ours. So an American couple that runs off to Paris to tie the knot is married when they get home.

Why should someone have to drive half way across the nation, which is thousands of miles mind you, to get married? It isn't right. It's not like it's a hop-skip-and a jump away. Its idiot that it is allowed in one state and not the other. If it was deemed legal in one state, why cannot it be legal in others? Did the courts where it's legal magically find something that the others couldn't?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-26 05:19pm

Did the courts where it's legal magically find something that the others couldn't?

Working brains, among other things.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-26 05:19pm

nimetski wrote:
Gay couples should simly go to Massachusetts to get hitched. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, if you get married in one state, you're married in the others, period. Also, the US government has treaties with other countries in which we honor their marriages and divorces and they honor ours. So an American couple that runs off to Paris to tie the knot is married when they get home.
Why should someone have to drive half way across the nation, which is thousands of miles mind you, to get married? It isn't right. It's not like it's a hop-skip-and a jump away. Its idiot that it is allowed in one state and not the other. If it was deemed legal in one state, why cannot it be legal in others? Did the courts where it's legal magically find something that the others couldn't?

The Massachusetts state Supreme Court rules that the state's marriage laws violated the state constitution. The key word there is "state". The power to define legal marriage belongs to the states and always has, which is why the religious right needs a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage nationwide (it also needs one to prevent the judiciary from legalizing gay marriage based on the Equal Protection clause).

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-05-26 05:19pm

Stravo wrote:
kojikun wrote:Stravo: But then you'd have to justify having one law for straight people and a different one for gay people, which is unconstitutional.
Correct indeed. The "non-activist" judges are hanging their hats on the fact that they cannot interpret their respective state consitutions on creating a fundamental right where they do not see one that exists. Marriage is a fundamental right *cough for straight people cough* as they view it.

I think that in time the crux of the argument will rightly rest on the equal protection clauses of the various state constitutions. Gays are already considered a protected class so it is only a matter of time until the argument is made that marriage and civil unions is equivalent to black and white drinking fountains. The big question will be how many state courts are going to be willing to go down that road. Many judges are elected and we've all seen the polls on America's views of Gay Marriage.

The Constitution already guarantees protection from discrimination based on gender, and that's exactly what a ban on same-sex marriage is. If the government told you that you couldn't marry a black woman, wouldn't that be a racist policy?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-26 05:44pm

Yet, these people find Arizona a haven for marriage!

Nothing defines the sanctity of marriage like getting hitched to a couple of 13yo relatives! PRAISE!

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-26 07:11pm

I was offering a practical solution when I suggested gay couples get married in Mass.. What might also work is if gay couples got marrieden masse in Mass.

If enough gay couples tie the knot and return to their home states and DARE the fag-bashers to do something about it, you might be able to generate the kind of support blacks got through mobilizing for civil rights. And keep in mind that homosexuals today aren't nearly as hated as blacks were back then.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-05-26 07:18pm

Frank Hipper wrote:Yet, these people find Arizona a haven for marriage!

Nothing defines the sanctity of marriage like getting hitched to a couple of 13yo relatives! PRAISE!

It wasn't until 1903 that Texas raised its age of consent from 10 to 13.

You bring up a good point. Several states allow first cousins to marry. Many don't. But if cousins from a state that doesn't allow it go get married in Ohio (which does allow it), and go home, they are every bit as married as when they were in the Buckeye State. Gay marriage should work the same way -especially since the DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem is that the Chief Justice is Antonin "quack-quack" Scalia, who only believes a Bizarro-World version of the 14th Ammendment applies when he wants to steal an election.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-26 07:21pm

Elfdart wrote:I was offering a practical solution when I suggested gay couples get married in Mass.. What might also work is if gay couples got marrieden masse in Mass.

If enough gay couples tie the knot and return to their home states and DARE the fag-bashers to do something about it, you might be able to generate the kind of support blacks got through mobilizing for civil rights. And keep in mind that homosexuals today aren't nearly as hated as blacks were back then.

Their home states don't have to DO anything past refuse to recognize same-sex marriages, assuming Massachusetts even issues marriage liscenses to out of state couples.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-05-26 07:24pm

Elfdart wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:Yet, these people find Arizona a haven for marriage!

Nothing defines the sanctity of marriage like getting hitched to a couple of 13yo relatives! PRAISE!
It wasn't until 1903 that Texas raised its age of consent from 10 to 13.

You bring up a good point. Several states allow first cousins to marry. Many don't. But if cousins from a state that doesn't allow it go get married in Ohio (which does allow it), and go home, they are every bit as married as when they were in the Buckeye State. Gay marriage should work the same way -especially since the DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem is that the Chief Justice is Antonin "quack-quack" Scalia, who only believes a Bizarro-World version of the 14th Ammendment applies when he wants to steal an election.

The Chief Justice of the United States is William Rhenquist. And as I said in a previous post, the DOMA has never been challenged in court because nobody has ever had grounds to challenge it.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-05-26 07:26pm

RedImperator wrote:The Chief Justice of the United States is William Rhenquist. And as I said in a previous post, the DOMA has never been challenged in court because nobody has ever had grounds to challenge it.

I've got little doubt that there are going to be couples purposely setting themselves up to have a case against DoMA. And I hope they succeed.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-05-26 07:28pm

This is sort of off-topic, but whenever I heard the name "Scalia" I think of Judge Judy.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-05-26 07:53pm

Elfdart wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:Yet, these people find Arizona a haven for marriage!

Nothing defines the sanctity of marriage like getting hitched to a couple of 13yo relatives! PRAISE!
It wasn't until 1903 that Texas raised its age of consent from 10 to 13.

You bring up a good point. Several states allow first cousins to marry. Many don't. But if cousins from a state that doesn't allow it go get married in Ohio (which does allow it), and go home, they are every bit as married as when they were in the Buckeye State. Gay marriage should work the same way -especially since the DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional.

The problem is that the Chief Justice is Antonin "quack-quack" Scalia, who only believes a Bizarro-World version of the 14th Ammendment applies when he wants to steal an election.

Please note that they're polygamists practicing pedophilia, as well.
I feel blessed by merely living in the same state where such sanctified marriages continue apace.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Arizona demonstrates its worthlessness again ...

Arizona demonstrates its worthlessness again ...

Re: Arizona demonstrates its worthlessness again ...

Re: Arizona demonstrates its worthlessness again ...