XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution
XPost: alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv.news.oreilly-factor
From: hrubin@skew.stat.purdue.edu

On 2015-07-11, Jeff Strickland  wrote:

> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message
> news:mnmf84$q87$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/9/2015 12:03 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

>>> "Josh Rosenbluth"  wrote in message
>>> news:mnk357$gck$3@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 7/8/2015 1:46 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:

>>>>> When a majority vote that marriage shall be between one man and one
>>>>> woman, and do so as an amendment to the constitution, then that vote is
>>>>> supreme to any law.

>>>> It isn't supreme to the federal Constitution.


>>> Now you are changing the subject.

>>> Assume for a moment that there was an amendment to the US Constitution
>>> that defined marriage as one man and one woman, that amendment would be
>>> supreme to the court.

>>> A state supreme court cannot, should not be able to, overturn a state
>>> constitutional amendment. The amendment is the constitution. Marriage is
>>> a states right issue, not a federal one.

>> Under your assumption, that the federal constitution defined marriage to
>> exclude gay couples, then there would be no need for any state
>> constitutional amendments doing likewise.


> Be that as it may be, we have state courts that overturned state
> constitutional amendments, and at least one state that did not even bother
> to defend its amendment in a state court. This is wrong. That is, it should
> not happen this way.

> The historical record is that homosexuality was unacceptable to pretty much
> everyone, therefore no body thought to exclude define marriage as only
> between one man and one woman. Actually, several states had the forethought
> to do precisely that, but most did not. Homosexuality is a deviant behavior
> that does not warrant marriage consideration, as a historical matter. Only
> recently has it come to a head, no pun intended. You tend to look at, or I
> hear you speaking as though, something is new that merits renewed
> consideration. Nothing is new, no new consideration need be made.
> Homosexuality is an abhorent and wholly unnatural behavior, it is in no way
> mainstream.

Even more in the historical record is that there were peoples, I can name
the ancient Greeks and Persians as examples, who did consider homosexuality
to be appropriate behavior.  Yet none of them had the idea of same-sex
marriage.

			.....................

>> If on the other hand, the federal constitution has no such amendment,
>> state courts are still bound by the federal constitution as the supreme
>> law of the land when judging state constitutional amendments.  Thus, a
>> state court must rule against such an amendment.


> Oddly, the 10th amendment specifically states that if the federal
> constitution does not address a topic, then that topic is the sole purview
> of the states to address. The recent ruling is one where the federal
> constitution does not stake a claim, therefore the ruling rendered is a
> precedent to stifle all claims of states rights going forward.

The argument is from the 14th Amendment, that citizens of one state
shall be considered citizens in all others.  What does that mean?
Whatever the Supreme Court thinks it means, and alas, they are not
very logical.

> The unintended consequences will be huge, and will be unknown for years. Or,
> they might be apparent tomorrow.



--
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)