Supreme Court to Decide Whether Gays Nationwide Can Marry

[CrimsonWeltall]

She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second

 

Also the third husband was the step-father of the first husband, and the fourth husband is his own grandpa.

[StrangeSox]

Makes you wonder how much of the religious-based homophobia is really more homophobia-with-religion-as-a-convenient-crutch.

[shysocks]

Makes you wonder how much of the religious-based homophobia is really more homophobia-with-religion-as-a-convenient-crutch.

Most of it. Otherwise there'd be similar outrage against all other forms of sinning. Unless being gay is a worse sin than others, I don't know the degrees of sinning.

[StrangeSox]

Mike Huckabee: really dumb or really cynical?

 

Kim is asking the perfect question: ‘Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?’ That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

 

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Mike Huckabee: really dumb or really cynical?

 

That's a decent point, but she's been ordered by a Fed court to issue those licenses. Unless that order is appealed, she's still in contempt of court.

 

[StrangeSox]

In what way is that a decent point?

[Jenksismyhero]

In what way is that a decent point?

 

I mean it's not a strong point, mind you, i'm just saying it's a very, very technical argument that is at least interesting. Technically there is no law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. The SC said states can't pass laws that deny homosexuals marriage. Not doing so infringes on homosexuals' rights, and provides them with an opportunity for redress in a court, but she's technically not in violation of any law regarding her duties.

 

Probably a distinction without a difference, but there's a distinction there.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

She's in violation of gay couples' constitutional rights. Wouldn't Brown be analogous here? I don't think Mississippi went and passed a bunch of laws mandating desegregation, and yet segregation remained a violation of the Constitution.

 

Obergefell was pretty explicit that the fundamental right of couples of any gender to marry may not be deprived (end of page 4 and beginning of page 5). The parts of state marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples were declared invalid. You don't need a law explicitly allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the existing marriage laws are now applicable to them.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a decent point, but she's been ordered by a Fed court to issue those licenses. Unless that order is appealed, she's still in contempt of court.

 

 

I mean it's not a strong point, mind you, i'm just saying it's a very, very technical argument that is at least interesting. Technically there is no law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. The SC said states can't pass laws that deny homosexuals marriage. Not doing so infringes on homosexuals' rights, and provides them with an opportunity for redress in a court, but she's technically not in violation of any law regarding her duties.

 

Probably a distinction without a difference, but there's a distinction there.

I think the bolded covers it, and it isn't a distinction that would fly in any legal sense. This is just Huckabee twisting and contorting his own mindset to find some way, any way, to ignore what is legally crystal clear.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

She's in violation of gay couples' constitutional rights. Wouldn't Brown be analogous here? I don't think Mississippi went and passed a bunch of laws mandating desegregation, and yet segregation remained a violation of the Constitution.

 

Obergefell was pretty explicit that the fundamental right of couples of any gender to marry may not be deprived (end of page 4 and beginning of page 5). The parts of state marriage laws that exclude same-sex couples were declared invalid. You don't need a law explicitly allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples when the existing marriage laws are now applicable to them.

 

I don't disagree, but we're talking about her actions. Is she technically in violation of a law/the law/her duties by not issuing those licenses? Is there a law mandating what she, as a clerk, does/doesn't do. I'm sure there's some law defining her role and responsibilities, and perhaps it says something like "uphold the laws of this state and/or the constitution" or whatever, but maybe not.

 

Having a right and having that right infringed is different from saying some individual committed an illegal act.

[Iwritecode]

Technically there is no law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

 

Is there a law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples?

[southsider2k5]

I don't disagree, but we're talking about her actions. Is she technically in violation of a law/the law/her duties by not issuing those licenses? Is there a law mandating what she, as a clerk, does/doesn't do. I'm sure there's some law defining her role and responsibilities, and perhaps it says something like "uphold the laws of this state and/or the constitution" or whatever, but maybe not.

 

Having a right and having that right infringed is different from saying some individual committed an illegal act.

 

She violated a court order.

[Jenksismyhero]

Is there a law mandating that she has to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples?

 

I'm sure issuing marriage licenses is in the list of duties under whatever law created her position. But you're right, maybe not with the qualifier of heterosexual couples.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I don't disagree, but we're talking about her actions. Is she technically in violation of a law/the law/her duties by not issuing those licenses? Is there a law mandating what she, as a clerk, does/doesn't do. I'm sure there's some law defining her role and responsibilities, and perhaps it says something like "uphold the laws of this state and/or the constitution" or whatever, but maybe not.

 

Having a right and having that right infringed is different from saying some individual committed an illegal act.

 

I think her oath of office does require her to uphold the Kentucky and US Constitutions.

 

Huckabee's letter wasn't about whether or not she committed an illegal act (I agree that she didn't except contempt of court) but some silly bluster about her not even having the authority to issue homosexual couples a marriage license in the first place.

[Jenksismyhero]

She violated a court order.

 

Right, ultimately that's why the distinction doesn't matter.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure that's in the list of duties under whatever law created her position.

Then, with Obergefell, that duty would require her to issue a marriage license to couples regardless their gender, rendering her/Huckabee's point moot/dumb.

[StrangeSox]

Right, ultimately that's why the distinction doesn't matter.

If you follow Huckabee's 'logic' through to its conclusion, he's saying that unless a state has an explicit same-sex marriage law on the books, nobody in that state has the authority to issue a marriage license to same sex couples in the first place. It's not about whether she has committed an illegal act but how Huckabee seems to have a deep misunderstanding of the basic function and structure of our government.

 

edit: I think what NSS said is pretty accurate

 

This is just Huckabee twisting and contorting his own mindset to find some way, any way, to ignore what is legally crystal clear.

 

Edited September 3, 2015 by StrangeSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

If you follow Huckabee's 'logic' through to its conclusion, he's saying that unless a state has an explicit same-sex marriage law on the books, nobody in that state has the authority to issue a marriage license to same sex couples in the first place. It's not about whether she has committed an illegal act but how Huckabee seems to have a deep misunderstanding of the basic function and structure of our government.

 

Wouldn't Huckabee's position require that the SCOTUS decision did not merely invalidate the "man+woman only" aspect of the KY marriage law, but invalidated the entire law, making all marriages in KY impossible?

[StrangeSox]

I don't think Huckabee's position is actually coherent so it's hard to say.

[southsider2k5]

Granted my law degree consists of me staying at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but doesn't US law have the basis that if it isn't expressly illegal, that it is legal? So in reality if the Supreme Courts states that you can't ban gay marriage, you legally HAVE to allow it.

 

Am I wrong here?

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure about that as a broad principle, but that is essentially what the Obergefell ruling said.

 

The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases

are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from

civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.

[southsider2k5]

I mean as Huckabee is saying it, because there isn't a law saying that I can adopt a cat from a shelter, I can't adopt a cat from a shelter. I think that is 100% backwards.

[StrangeSox]

Off to jail for contempt of court

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/kent...arriage-/nnXdL/

[CrimsonWeltall]

I mean as Huckabee is saying it, because there isn't a law saying that I can adopt a cat from a shelter, I can't adopt a cat from a shelter. I think that is 100% backwards.

 

Civil Marriage is essentially a government action, not something people just do freely without interference from the govt*. The law presumably says something like "Kentucky can marry a man and a woman and then X, Y, Z legally results from that". Huckabee seems to be saying that Kentucky would need to introduce a new law saying "Kentucky can marry two people and then..." for SSM to be okay.

 

In reality, the SCOTUS isn't nullifying the entire marriage law, just the "a man and a woman" conditional.

 

[*people can freely have religious ceremonies and call themselves married but that's not related to county clerk or licenses or any of this]

[CrimsonWeltall]

Off to jail for contempt of court

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/kent...arriage-/nnXdL/

 

Her lawyers argued that she can't be found in contempt because it's literally impossible for her to comply with the order. They actually argued that. It's IMPOSSIBLE.