Potential concerns for CA Prop 8 supporters

[EagleKeeper]

Link

US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal of DC same sex marriage laws.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.

The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Bishop Harry Jackson led a lawsuit against the district's Board of Elections and Ethics after it refused to put that initiative on the ballot. The board ruled that the ballot question would in effect authorize discrimination.

Last year, Washington began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples and in 2009, it began recognizing gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Key issues seem to be that
1) They did not comment but flatly rejected any review
2) The original election board had stated that the initiative in effect authorizes discrimination.

My view is that the USSC is fully agreeing with the Board of Elections that anti-same sex is discrimination.

Therefore any challenges to such that come through the court systems will be held that same-sex is legal (if properly framed)

Now all we have to get is someone pushing against the Defense of Marriage Act at the Federal level and get those CA and other lawsuits moving up through the system.

Having the USSC on record may actually shut down many of the discrimination appeals coming from the homophobic groups - Federal Judges have the backing to shut them off at the tap:thumbsup:

 

[Red Dawn]

The Fundies are going to shit!!

 

[Patranus]

Link

US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal of DC same sex marriage laws.



Key issues seem to be that
1) They did not comment but flatly rejected any review
2) The original election board had stated that the initiative in effect authorizes discrimination.

My view is that the USSC is fully agreeing with the Board of Elections that anti-same sex is discrimination.

Therefore any challenges to such that come through the court systems will be held that same-sex is legal (if properly framed)

Now all we have to get is someone pushing against the Defense of Marriage Act at the Federal level and get those CA and other lawsuits moving up through the system.

Having the USSC on record may actually shut down many of the discrimination appeals coming from the homophobic groups - Federal Judges have the backing to shut them off at the tap:thumbsup:

Huh?

This is a state issue and has nothing to do with federal law. Why would the USSC involve itself in this matter?

Now throwing out an existing law because it may conflict with federal law is a federal issue and will makes its way to the USSC.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Huh?

This is a state issue and has nothing to do with federal law. Why would the USSC involve itself in this matter?

Now throwing out an existing law because it may conflict with federal law is a federal issue and will makes its way to the USSC.

Washington DC is going through the Federal Appeals court.

The USSC refused to hear or comment.
Therefore they are validating the lower court ruling.

The lower court rules against the suit brought against the Board of Elections.
That suit challenged the decision to deny the issue on the ballet.

It is not that the lawsuit may make it to the USSC. It already went up and was tossed out.

 

[Craig234]

This does not sound like the same issue - the court in one case saying a state has the right to ban discrimination, and in the other being asked to say the federal constitution bans discrimination. The former isn't a big surprise - who argues the constitution requires discrimination against gay marriage?

The latter is the important issue that should legalize gay marriage in ever state, it seems to me, as a constitutional right.

I saw an article by one of the attorneys for equal rights pointing out that in recent decades, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional laws by states that prohibited re-marriage for people who did not pay child support, and for marriage by prisoners (hardly a 'marriage' fitting the 'traditional' definition.

The court said these people's right to marry is more important.

 

[ElFenix]

Huh?

This is a state issue and has nothing to do with federal law. Why would the USSC involve itself in this matter?

Now throwing out an existing law because it may conflict with federal law is a federal issue and will makes its way to the USSC.

it's washington DC, which is a federal issue.

i'm wondering how a maryland pastor has standing to question a washington, dc law.

 

[Patranus]

it's washington DC, which is a federal issue.

i'm wondering how a maryland pastor has standing to question a washington, dc law.

My bad.

I saw Washington and the D.C. part didn't register.

 

[Linflas]

Washington DC is going through the Federal Appeals court.

The USSC refused to hear or comment.
Therefore they are validating the lower court ruling.

The lower court rules against the suit brought against the Board of Elections.
That suit challenged the decision to deny the issue on the ballet.

It is not that the lawsuit may make it to the USSC. It already went up and was tossed out.

The difference is that the DC law was passed by the city council, there was no requirement that it be submitted to the voters. The folks bringing the appeal were trying to get the courts to set aside the council's decision and force it to a ballot initiative.