CT Supreme Court Grants Gay Marriage Rights

[TX-Beau]

But gay marriage advocates can still take the state constitutional amendments to the federal constitutional court where they can be struck down.

That's correct, and it's why there is the push for amendments in the first place. Anti-Gay marriage laws seem to fall like ripe fruit when before an actual court. The Fundies don't want to test that in the SCOTUS, because if the decision goes against them, that invalidates anti gay marriage laws and amendments everywhere with the stroke of a pen, since no state constitution is allowed to contradict the federal one.

OK then, can the federal constitution be amended by referendum or only through congress. And if by some miracle congress were to pass a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage, either for it or against it, would the president still have the right to veto it?

Depends on the State, some states use referendum, some require super-majorities in thier legislature. The President doesn't have veto power over a federal amendment, IIRC and it would require ratification by the states to amend the ferderal constitution. It's not easy to amend that.

^That argument was already made and lost.

Depends on where you are at. Courts have shown a resonable reluctance to buy into it, because it has no basis in reality, but Judges do not review constitutional amendments, and that argument has a lot of traction with people. It would be/has been the justification for constitutional amendments that have passed/are attempting to pass.

 

[NickCole]

OK, I think I get it. These propositions are in effect changing the constitution and because in democracy the people are the final arbiters, there decision, no matter how repugnant has to be implemented. But gay marriage advocates can still take the state constitutional amendments to the federal constitutional court where they can be struck down.

I don't think this is what you're asking but in case you or anybody else is interested, in the case of this Connecticut decision, it cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court because the USSC doesn't have jurisdiction over the CT State Constitution. This is the end of the line: it's law in CT.

And it's very unlikely there'll be any change made to the CT State Constitution to outlaw same sex marriage. That would be a complicated and slow process, and we can fight them all along the way. Some of us have been working towards this in CT for several years, while others did the same in MA and CA, and achieving this through the court system has been a winning strategy. After Bill Clinton made promises he couldn't keep, a lot of us became, and remain, convinced that the way to make this happen nationwide is step by step at the state level.

 

[TX-Beau]

If I'm reading this correctly there is no amendment on the table in CT. and the Fed can assert jurisdiction in state matters if it so chooses, the same way the SCOTUS asserted jurisdiction in FL back in the 2000 election.

Plus a legitimate argument can be made that this isn't solely a state issue since it inherently involves FF&C and therefore ultimate jurisdiction remains at the federal level.(One state allows gay marriage one state doesn’t, which state’s constitution is legally precedent since both states are required to honor marriages made in the other under the federal constitution.)

Any decision rendered at the federal level settles this unilaterally one way or another.

I do agree however that it would be best to leave this at a state level.

 

[NickCole]

If I'm reading this correctly there is no amendment on the table in CT. and the Fed can assert jurisdiction in state matters if it so chooses, the same way the SCOTUS asserted jurisdiction in FL back in the 2000 election.

There is a question on the current CT ballot that asks voters yes or no to a Constitutional Convention, which is the opportunity to rewrite the CT Constitution. This question comes up every couple of decades in CT and is usually voted down. This question was not added to the ballot because of the same sex marriage decision, it's a coincidence. And, considering what it would entail, it's very unlikely to happen.

And you are wrong, this decision cannot be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

 

[TX-Beau]

Yes you can.

Griswold v, CT.The conviction was upheld by the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, and by the Connecticut Supreme Court. Griswold then appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States. All in all, due to the fact that Griswold argued that the Connecticut statute against the use of contraceptives by citing the 14th Amendment, which states "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws" (Amendment 14 Section 1), Griswold was able to reverse the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Connecticut Statute was unconstitutional and having it removed from legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

[TX-Beau]

I'll give you this, if the issue is an amendment to the state constitution you have to sue the state, then technically this isn't an appeal, but for all intents and purposes it amounts to the same thing.

 

[NickCole]

Yes you can.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

No this ruling cannot be appealed.

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html

The ruling cannot be appealed to federal courts because it deals with state constitutional issues, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icO-Xd9Mq4OlFVbLsg9-JGqaWUegD93O0PV00

 

[noah617]

The terrorists ate my homework.

 

[TX-Beau]

Which is why I added the second post.

Or did you not read that one.

Anyway, and anyhow, if the fed wants jusridiction over this there is nothing your attorney general can do about it. His opinion is his, and is informed just until some other lawyer makes an argument whereby there is a federal issue, then sayonara. Lawyers argue jusridiction all the time.

FWIW, I googled griswold because it's actual law whereby a litigant appealed a CT Supreme Court decision to the SCOTUS. Which would seem to be possible since it's still law in these here United States.

There is no state court, jusrisdiction, or ruling that is binding on the fed. None. There is no state constitution that is binding on the fed, none.

The only issue is getting the fed to hear you.

Sue the state of CT, bam, immediately federal, no not an appeal technically, but effectively the same thing.

It seems Googling won't make you informed either.

 

[NickCole]

Which is why I added the second post.

Or did you not read that one.

The second post had nothing to do with whether or not this ruling can be appealed. I read your second post and thought what the hell is he trying to say. Now I see. You're trying to weasel out. Your first post cites case law in an attempt to show that this same sex ruling can be appealed; that's what I said cannot be done. Has nothing to do with attempts to rewrite, or amend, the State Constitution. That's a totally separate issue. (And that's not going to happen either.)

Anyway, and anyhow, if the fed wants jusridiction over this there is nothing your attorney general can do about it. His opinion is his, and is informed just until some other lawyer makes an argument whereby there is a federal issue, then sayonara. Lawyers argue jusridiction all the time.

FWIW, I googled griswold because it's actual law whereby a litigant appealed a CT Supreme Court decision to the SCOTUS. Which would seem to be possible since it's still law in these here United States.

There is no state court, jusrisdiction, or ruling that is binding on the fed. None. There is no state constitution that is binding on the fed, none.

The only issue is getting the fed to hear you.

Sue the state of CT, bam, immediately federal, no not an appeal technically, but effectively the same thing.

It seems Googling won't make you informed either.

If you understood law and Griswald you'd understand why that case is different from the same-sex marriage ruling. Citing precedent is not as simple as you apparently want it to be so you can prove me wrong.

This is exactly the same pattern I've seen from Obama supporters on this forum and elsewhere that leads me to know we're in trouble when this crowd gains power. It's "truthiness" over supportable facts. You believe something is true because you think it's true, you dismiss the knowlege and understanding of people with a lot more experience than you simply because they say something that doesn't fit with what you need to be true - in this case just so you can be right and "prove" me wrong. And this is a perfect example of why I say we're in trouble with this crowd when Obama's in the WH and there's an even bigger Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress -- why is it a perfect example? Because the information I've tried to give to you is GOOD for us. It means same sex marriage in CT is a real thing that won't be appealed. But being right against me (a gay Democrat who helped fight for this victory, but someone you view as an adversary because I refuse to drink Obama Kool Aid) is more important to you than this good news for gay Americans.

Believe what you want. Despite many same sex opponents in CT being infuriated at this ruling, it will not be appealed to the US Supreme Court because it cannot be.

 

[TX-Beau]

I'll speak slowly and use small words. A court case is not an amendment. An amendment is not a court case. There is no amendment here, just a court case. Court cases lower than the SCOTUS can be overturned. Call that by any name you'd like.

the rest, blah blah blah blah

ALL SUPPORTERS OF OBABA ARE EVIL MINIONS OF THE ANTI-CHRIST

Honestly what does this have to do with Obama, and people who do, or do not support him.

Obessed much?

LOL


/argument concluded

 

[noah617]

I think what TX-Beau is missing is that Griswold could be appealed to the Supreme Court because it involved an argument that CT was granting fewer rights than the US Constitution allows. That's why they reference the 14th amendment.

When a State Constitution infringes on the rights granted by the Federal Constitution then the Federal Constitution trumps the state one.

The current CT case is different because it is interpreting the State Constitution as granting more rights than the Federal one.

When a State Constitution grants more rights than the Federal one then the State one rules.

Of course if the federal government had some kind of law that explicitly banned gay marriage then it would become one big mess.

PS: If I had managed to post my "The terrorist ate my homework" line in the right thread. It would have been funny.

PPS: Nick, is there any issue you can't manage to twist into a means of attacking people who support Obama?

 

[TX-Beau]

Actually what you're saying is probably why the SCOTUS decided to hear the case, but the issue of fewer or more rights isn't the point. A state for example could choose to grant more rights to white people than to black people. That would be just as unconstitutional as laws in the states taking away rights.

What I was getting at is that an argument to appeal to the SC could be made because the Fed requires that one state recognize as legal marriages made in another state, that is a federal constitutional issue. If it’s illegal in one state and legal in another, and somebody sued that would go right into the federal courts and whatever the findings of the Sate SCs, the SCOTUS would have precedence and it’s ruling becomes law.

The rest was just wrangling over nothing pretty much.

 

[Glafna]

Congratulations to those of you in Connecticut, hopefully the other 47 will fall in line.

 

[opinterph]

… an argument to appeal to the SC could be made because the Fed requires that one state recognize as legal marriages made in another state …

In cases involving same sex marriage, “the Fed” operates under provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

 

[pmpinla]

The current CT case is different because it is interpreting the State Constitution as granting more rights than the Federal one.

When a State Constitution grants more rights than the Federal one then the State one rules.
_________________________________________________________________
Noah, you're generally right. While a case involving an interpretation of a state's constitution can be appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS generally defers to that state's supreme court in its interpretation of its own constitution, although SCOTUS is not bound to do so, and usually leaves the interpretation of a state's constitution to that state's supreme court. The only time historically that SCOTUS has overruled a state supreme court in its interpretation of a state constitution is where a state's constitution is in some way contradicted by or in conflict with the federal constitution. The Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in this matter is certainly in conflict with DOMA, but DOMA was an Act of Congress and not part of the US Constitution. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I'm sure we'll see an attempt to bring this matter to SCOTUS sooner rather than later.

 

[Glafna]

The main thing is, at least from what I can tell, the Democrats, as well as many Republicans, are against forcing the states to decide either way, due to the fact that they largely have to govern themselves when the POTUS staff is busy with matters that are key to the entire nation, and/or foreign affairs matters, which would most likely be cleaning up a political mess.

Yes, the "lesser" politicians such as those involved with education and health care do look towards the individual states, but usually only when the states are showing either a large degradation of the needs, or a booming success, often attributed fully or majorly to the policies of the current government.

I support that the states themselves have a right to decide. No country should leap into a decision that can be so controversial without knowing what the areas within the nation first believe. I have the feeling, that even with a Republican government, if the majority of the states vote to legalize gay marriage, the POTUS will have no choice but to institute a bill to support the majority.

 

[NickCole]

I'll speak slowly and use small words. A court case is not an amendment. An amendment is not a court case. There is no amendment here, just a court case. Court cases lower than the SCOTUS can be overturned. Call that by any name you'd like.

I never said a court case is an amendment; you brought in amendment to the Constitution to try to weasel out of being wrong and not having the character to own up to it.

the rest, blah blah blah blah

Wow. Cogent arguement.

ALL SUPPORTERS OF OBABA ARE EVIL MINIONS OF THE ANTI-CHRIST

Yes Obama Supporters love to pretend opponents have said something they haven't so you can ridicule and be outraged over victimhood of something that never happened.

Honestly what does this have to do with Obama, and people who do, or do not support him.

As I said, it's a pattern I've noticed.

/argument concluded

Another Obamian thing I've noticed.

Declaring the end of your participation in a conversation before listening to the opponent's response.

 

[NickCole]

PPS: Nick, is there any issue you can't manage to twist into a means of attacking people who support Obama?

Haven't attacked anybody.

I've pointed out patterns of response.

 

[NickCole]

What I was getting at is that an argument to appeal to the SC could be made because the Fed requires that one state recognize as legal marriages made in another state, that is a federal constitutional issue.

No the Fed does not require that with same sex marriage.

There is no argument to appeal in this ruling to the US Supreme Court.

There is a difference, in knowlege and understanding, and perceptiveness, between those who've been on the front lines doing the actual work of change and those who talk about change but aren't involved in the action of it.