Louisiana proudly reaffirms its status as a fundie shithole

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-19 08:28pm

Bugsby wrote:D'oh! How did I forget the supremacy clause?

But still, there are issues. For example, it doesnt explicitly say that gay marriages are legal anywhere in the consitution, so Louisiana has that going for it.

The LA constitution now prohibits gays from marrying, and seems to refute the rights of gay couples married elsewhere from having the rights and benefits they earn in marriage respected by LA courts. This prevents state courts from ruling in favor of gays in similar circumstances, and prevents the legislature from passing (if it for some reason wanted to) laws allowing for such things. However, it also conflicts with the US Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause, as well as potentially the anti-discrimination clauses within the US Constitution. If the US Supreme Court agrees that the LA constitution violates the US' constitution, then the constitution of LA would have to change back to its original status to reflect the ruling.

Also, considering the 5-4 conservative bias in SCOTUS right now, would the ruling be what we want to see?

Not real clear. When similar issues have come before Federal courts in the past, the courts have generally demured or used a legal issue to dodge the crux of the big one. It's not clear how conservative the court is, right now.

They might not go so far as to say "this is a good ammendment," but even sending it back down to a lower court because its still a battleground issue could be devastating.

Potentially, yes. The danger is that the courts could view the coming rash of amendments placed before voters in a dozen states as being representative of the public's will and be influenced by that. Alternatively, new appointees could tip the court clearly in favor of one direction or the other, and the court seems to be waiting on the issue to get some degree of unanimity.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2004-09-19 08:29pm

Bugsby wrote:It raises interesting issues, though. Can the Constitution be unconsitutional? What about SCOTUS? Whose Constituion is more valid? And before everyone yells "US constitution, dummy," remeber that we do live under a federal system of partial sovereignty between states and national government. I personally believe that SCOTUS would have the power to strike it down, but the state's rights shitstorm that would follow would NOT be a pretty sight. Does anyone know if a US Consititution vs State Constituion case has come before SCOTUS ever? That would be interesting....

The North won the Civil war....which means we aren't a Confederacy (no matter how much the south wishes we were

)...which means national>state. That's how i see it anyway

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-19 08:30pm

I guess I should also say, if the US were to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages, then gays would be in a world of hurt since they would have no legal recourse in the courts and would ONLY have the ability to try and pass through another amendment striking the first one--a process that would take an ungodly amount of time and resources, particularly since if it got to there then most of the legislatures would seem to be against them.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-19 08:43pm

Yeah. The SCOTUS does have the power to strike down the LA ammendment going off what they are given. The question is, will they? And if so, to what extent? And what will be the results on both sides of the movement. This is all cause for speculation, and I just hope it comes out the right way.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-09-19 08:46pm

Bugsby wrote:Yeah. The SCOTUS does have the power to strike down the LA ammendment going off what they are given. The question is, will they? And if so, to what extent? And what will be the results on both sides of the movement. This is all cause for speculation, and I just hope it comes out the right way.

I hope they just don't side step the damn issue while (if) ruling on such a case. Just rule on the issue and be done with it.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-09-19 09:40pm

frigidmagi wrote:For those of you saying you're going to run. They will follow you. These people are never happy with what they have. Once their house is in "proper order" they look to their neighbors and beyond.

You can fight here or your children or maybe grandchildren can fight there.

And this is a fight, we're using words instead of rifles and votes instead of regiments, but that is a minor change.

This is why we must fight the bastards at every turn. No surrender, no retreat, no prisoners taken. GFTT.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-19 09:45pm

So mike got any extra room?

I think there are a few that might be needing some temp space...

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-09-19 11:59pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:So mike got any extra room?

I think there are a few that might be needing some temp space...

Possibly if it gets that bad. I'm gonna hafta read up on Anne Frank soon, in order to analyze her mistakes in her attempts to hide from the Gestapo. I know it sounds like a Slippery Slope Fallacy, but history shows that slippery-slopes prove themselves true with appalling regularity in politics and war.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-20 12:08am

I know a few isolated farm steads we can hide you in Ein same for Aly. Her biggest mistake was hiding in a crowded city I think, not that she had a choice. In a nation like this you got more options.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-09-20 12:22am

frigidmagi wrote:I know a few isolated farm steads we can hide you in Ein same for Aly. Her biggest mistake was hiding in a crowded city I think, not that she had a choice. In a nation like this you got more options.

That will be unneeded. The scientific community is rather... accepting of my preferences. I can find a lab to hide in and still continue my studies/work.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2004-09-20 12:36am

I always find it interesting that the scientific minded/intelligent people are the most accepting of anyone out there...too bad a lot of people don't catch on. Oh well

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2004-09-20 01:14am

I live in Texas, I live in the metroplex, and I've heard that we are supposed to have the biggest gay pop. in the nation(we beat San Fran a little while ago). I'm bi myself, and I'm scared of what the future holds. Those who are okay with other than straight orientations can be few and far between.

What happens if Bush gets this amendment through?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-09-20 01:19am

Y'know, if stupid Lawrence v. Texas would have just outright said "homosexual behavior is a fundamental right" instead of just blatently implying it, a lot of this could be dealt with easily.

Loner · Post by **Loner** » 2004-09-20 01:26am

FaxModem1 wrote:I live in Texas, I live in the metroplex, and I've heard that we are supposed to have the biggest gay pop. in the nation(we beat San Fran a little while ago). I'm bi myself, and I'm scared of what the future holds. Those who are okay with other than straight orientations can be few and far between.

What happens if Bush gets this amendment through?

You'll essentially become a second-class citizen.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-09-20 10:37am

Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality? I mean, there must be some republicans in the congress and SCOTUS that know what they are doing when they vote in favor of an anti-gay amendment.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-20 10:47am

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality? I mean, there must be some republicans in the congress and SCOTUS that know what they are doing when they vote in favor of an anti-gay amendment.

I don't know about congress and the Supreme Court, but I'm a Republican against measures like this one.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-20 10:49am

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality? I mean, there must be some republicans in the congress and SCOTUS that know what they are doing when they vote in favor of an anti-gay amendment.

Of course there are, but they (and all secular Republicans) have been essentially told to fuck off this round, since the 2004 Republican platform is loaded with social conservatism.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-20 01:24pm

However, it also conflicts with the US Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause, as well as potentially the anti-discrimination clauses within the US Constitution.

If that's what you're depending on to overturn the amendment, you're mistaken.

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Congress has a say, and they've already spoken on the issue by passing the DOMA during the Clinton administration.

A better bet would be to rely on the 14th amendment and its equal protection of the laws clause.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-09-20 02:15pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality? I mean, there must be some republicans in the congress and SCOTUS that know what they are doing when they vote in favor of an anti-gay amendment.

Most assuredly not. Right now it's just that the national party is in the hands of the social conservatives, or at least the moderates have ceded this issue in the interest of preserving the Republican coalition in an election year. It's worth noting that some Senate republicans voted against the Marriage Amendment in a procedure vote earlier this year, and there are high profile Republicans openly in favor of at least civil unions (the Guvernator being the highest profile one I can think of).

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-09-20 03:54pm

FaxModem1 wrote:I live in Texas, I live in the metroplex, and I've heard that we are supposed to have the biggest gay pop. in the nation(we beat San Fran a little while ago). I'm bi myself, and I'm scared of what the future holds. Those who are okay with other than straight orientations can be few and far between.

What happens if Bush gets this amendment through?

Hey there I'm in the Metroplex too

,were you at the parade yesterday?
I know how upsetting the vote in LA was. But I think some of us are overreacting. As gay people we have FAR more protection now than we did even 10 years ago..let alone 20 or 30. We are undergoing a temporary backlash, similar in many ways to that little bruhah we had with Anita back in the 70's. But the pendelum swings back and forth in American politics. Most people today seem far more tolerant of Gay people today than I remember them being when I was just coming out 10 years ago. And the Fundies were just as loud then as they are now. But think about it, we are no longer fighting for the repeal of sodomy laws, but over marriage. Did you really think we would have gotton so far in such a short period of time? I know I never believed I would be able to marry in my life time...now it seems possible.

Aeolus · Post by **Aeolus** » 2004-09-20 03:56pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
GySgt. Hartman wrote:Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality? I mean, there must be some republicans in the congress and SCOTUS that know what they are doing when they vote in favor of an anti-gay amendment.
I don't know about congress and the Supreme Court, but I'm a Republican against measures like this one.

Not all rebulicans are fundies, they are an add on to the party. The base was always fiscal conservatives, and strict constructionists. The fundies are the loudest and most aggressive members of the party unfortunatly

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-09-20 04:00pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality? I mean, there must be some republicans in the congress and SCOTUS that know what they are doing when they vote in favor of an anti-gay amendment.

There are sane Republicans, but the problem is that these days politics has become rediculously "us-or-them." Therefore, if the Republican platform says gay marriage is bad, you can't be a Republican who thinks gay marriage is okay. Because that's not a Republican. You have to be in for every plank of the party platform or else you are with THEM, and God knows what would happen if the liberal hippie commie heathens got control of the government! The terrorists would win! Gasp!

I know it's all bullshit and it hurts the political process, but this is the reality of the current political climate. And it sucks.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2004-09-20 08:57pm

GySgt. Hartman wrote:Does being republican imply being anti-gay, or are there some republicans in favor of equality?

My landlord is a die-hard Republican and spits if you say "democrat" in his present but probably 1/3 of his tenants are gay or lesbian. He genuinely doesn't give a damn as long as they pay the rent on time. Has stated that the "defense of marriage" argument is bullshit since HIS marriage wouldn't suddenly dissolve if gays could marry. He's Republican because of economic beliefs, not religious or social ones (which, although he'd be loathe to admit it, are closer to the Democrats 'than the neocon assholes' view)

By the way - he hates Bush with a passion and is seriously considering voting democrat for the first time in his life in November.

FaxModem1 · Post by **FaxModem1** » 2004-09-21 12:10am

I wouldn't know what things were like 10 years ago, since I was still in the 3rd grade at the time. What parade?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-21 12:49am

RedImperator wrote:Most assuredly not. Right now it's just that the national party is in the hands of the social conservatives, or at least the moderates have ceded this issue in the interest of preserving the Republican coalition in an election year. It's worth noting that some Senate republicans voted against the Marriage Amendment in a procedure vote earlier this year, and there are high profile Republicans openly in favor of at least civil unions (the Guvernator being the highest profile one I can think of).

Though you should probably note that of the lot of the Republicans that voted against it (I think six or seven of them in the Senate), only John McCain actually came out and said that it was wrong. The rest thought the language was too vague. It should also be noted that even alot of Republican moderates voted for it, like Arlen Spectre (suprised the hell out of me).