From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 22-May-14 13:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >>>On 22-May-14 01:39, Adam H. Kerman wrote:   
   >>>>Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
      
   >>>>>Federal courts require a "federal controversy" to have   
   >>>>>jurisdiction; such frequently arise even in matters of state   
   >>>>>law due to incorporation.   
      
   >>>>>For instance, many states passed bans on same-sex marriage;   
   >>>>>there is no federal law preempting that, but federal courts are   
   >>>>>now overturning such laws due to incorporation of the federal   
   >>>>>equal protection clause, which introduces a federal controversy   
   >>>>>to those cases.   
      
   >>>>That's bizarre. Yesterday, changing the fundamental definition   
   >>>>of marriage wasn't a matter of equal protection, but today it   
   >>>>is,   
      
   >>>It wasn't "yesterday"; they're using the same justification to do   
   >>>so that they used to overturn state bans on interracial marriage,   
   >>>going back to Loving v Virginia (1967).   
      
   >>No, they're not. If marriage means between a man and woman, then   
   >>there's an equal protection argument versus anti-miscegenation laws.   
      
   >If a man can marry a woman but a woman can't,   
      
   I'm not a judge, so my brain will explode if I take the rest of this seriously.   
      
   >>On the other hand, if marriage means only what we want it to mean,   
      
   >All words mean only what we want them to mean.   
      
   Lewis Carroll was writing farce, you twit.   
      
   >>then how is it that polygamy lacks equal protection?   
      
   >Good question; a court may find it is indeed protected, but AFAIK there   
   >haven't been any recent, well-funded test cases.  Even the LDS church   
   >backed away from that cause long ago--despite it being the "traditional   
   >definition of marriage" in their faith.   
      
   >>What about marriage between children? What about marriage to   
   >>animals or dead people   
      
   >Such entities lack the ability to consent, so it's moot.   
      
   What does marriage have to do with consent? Even in this country, people   
   could marry as shockingly (by modern convention) low ages. In parts of   
   the world, pre-pubescent girls can marry, which doesn't even make it an   
   argument that "marriage is about procreation.   
      
   Don't screw around with definitions.   
      
   >>>Also, gay rights have been a equal protection issue since at least   
   >>>as far back as Lawrence v Texas (2003), though I suppose you might   
   >>>consider that to be "yesterday".  Notably, that case overturned   
   >>>Bowers v Hardwick (1986), where SCOTUS found that having sex was   
   >>>_not_ a constitutionally protected activity.   
      
   >>Lawrence was about privacy and follows rather from Griswold; Bowers   
   >>was an abberhation. Nothing to do with changing the meaning of a   
   >>word whose meaning has been clear for centuries.   
      
   >Lawrence was about equal protection: Texas law allowed women to have   
   >anal and oral sex but not men, which was found to be discriminatory.   
      
   >After losing Lawrence, Texas made anal and oral sex illegal for women   
   >too, and the new law was found to be constitutional because it oppresses   
   >everyone equally, based on the Bowers ruling that there is no   
   >constitutional right to have sex.   
      
   You're so civilized. When are you creeps going to stay out of the bedrooms   
   of consenting adults?   
      
   >>Various federal trial court judges have moved well beyond DOMA,   
   >>and they don't have the power to do that, I thought.   
      
   >Courts can rule however they want if there isn't a precedent from a   
   >higher court.   
      
   That's not what they're doing. What they're doing at trial court is guessing   
   that appellate courts will not overturn them on equal protection. The   
   precedent, of course, is not changing the legal definition of marriage.   
      
   >Higher courts generally only take cases to resolve a disagreement in lower   
   >courts.   
      
   Dude, that's true of the US Supreme Court, only. There's always an appeal   
   to the federal circuit court. As far as I know, every state's highest   
   appellate court takes appeals, with few exceptions.   
      
   >>>>The other blatantly unconstitutional part of DOMA, that states   
   >>>>don't have to give full faith and credit to marriage laws of   
   >>>>other state they don't like, wasn't addressed in that decision.   
      
   >>>Indeed; I would have preferred they resolve that case that way, but   
   >>>IIRC they haven't had a good "full faith and credit" case in a long   
   >>>time.   
      
   >>They damn well better not rule on a matter not being litigated.   
      
   >They actually did, in a limited way: they said that the federal govt has   
   >to give full faith and credit to gay marriages recognized by the states.   
      
   I know of no interpretation of that clause making it applicable to the   
   federal government. Rather, the power to define and register marriages is   
   a reserved power of the states under the 10th Amendment. C'mon, Stephen.   
      
   >They just didn't say that _other_ states had to.   
      
   I just wrote that, twice now. The matter before the court was not one of   
   one state refusing to recognize a foreign marriage in another state.   
      
   >>>I suspect we'll see that come up first in a follow-on to   
   >>>McDonald/Heller regarding carry permits, given the leanings of the   
   >>>current court.   
      
   >>That's NOT what the "full faith and credit" clause means. A state   
   >>license NEVER gives one privileges in a foreign state; that's beyond   
   >>the state's jurisdiction. If licenses are valid in foreign states,   
   >>it's due to a voluntary compact between the two states, which is the   
   >>only reason why one's driver's license and vehicle registration is   
   >>valid in a foreign state and Canadian provinces.   
      
   >States are required to give full faith and credit to each others' legal   
   >instruments, whether drivers licenses or warrants.   
      
   You're completely and utterly wrong, dude. And warrants are under a   
   different provision, the "judicial proceedings" provision of that sentence.   
   Licenses are not included. Marriage CERTIFICATES (and birth and death vital   
   records) fall under the "records" provision. A business or professional   
   license isn't accepted in a foreign state unless accepted by the foreign   
   state voluntarily, not under the constitution.   
      
   >There is an interstate compact on handling _citations_, but not the   
   >licenses themselves.   
      
   Fair enough. I looked at the Driver's Licensing Law in my state's Vehicle   
   Code. Acceptance of valid foreign licenses is found there. It's voluntary.   
      
   >That has not (yet) been applied to firearms licenses, but there have   
   >been test cases working their way through the courts ever since Heller   
   >and McDonald.   
      
   You have yet to give us an involuntary example of any kind.   
      
   >>Schenck, the decision you quoted from, got it terribly wrong because   
   >>the case itself wasn't about deliberately false speech intending to   
   >>cause panic and possible injury resulting from panic. The poor   
   >>schnook was leafletting with quotes from the 13th Amendment,   
   >>informing men of their right to object to the draft.   
      
   >I wasn't deliberately quoting Schenck;   
      
   How fortunate, as it was mis-quoted.   
      
   >it's a common saying, to the point courts don't even bother citing a   
   >source for it when using it as justification for creating exceptions in   
   >_other_ rights.   
      
   It kind of absurd to say courts would say such a thing when citing   
   a precedence.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)