Indiana ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[IndyGal65]

Not being a connoisseur of local media, I learned of it here: Judge strikes down Indiana ban on gay marriage | Fox News

This is a great day for Indiana as a whole. Now, we can set aside the wasted time, energy, and money that was flowing into the idiotic amendment and put them to productive work simplifying the tax code, the firearms codes, and the education codes.

Too bad it couldn't happen sooner for IndyGal65's nuptials.

Thanks CIB. I never imagined that this was going to happen this year. Yeah, I would have much preferred to marry in my home state. Oh well, this is a huge step for equality for all couples, IMO.

Ive read every post so far in this thread. I've been pleasantly surprised by many of the responses. For those insinuating that this opens the door for a person to marry "anything", including pets, vegetables,etc...color me guilty. I've had my eye on the bag of carrots in the fridge. Don't tell my wife.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Everyone decrying this judge voiding a law passed by the legislature of representatives elected by the people are the very definition of Democrats.

If the will of the majority is supreme, then what need have we for Constitutions or judges? Whatever the legislature, duly elected by the people, write into law is the final word… until the next legislature, duly elected by the people in another election, changes, adds to, or repeals it. It's representative mob rule.

Thankfully, we're a Republic. In a Republic, the rights of the minority are held beyond the scope of public policy, regardless of how much the majority wants to legislate the rights of the minority away.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You think that federal judges making up law is "small government"?

Did you miss me repeatedly saying that if you want to change the law, you use the legislature to do it? (Hence it being the "legislature")

None of my arguments in this thread would be valid if this change was done by the body of our government whose task it is to make the law.

I love how me wanting the appropriate branch of government to make the law somehow makes me a bigot.

That is especially so when I have posted no opinion on the substance of the matter, my criticism has all been that the procedure is an affront to liberty.

I stand by that position.

A huge forest is being ignored for a pet tree.

Legislatures may only pass laws that are in compliance with the constitutions of their states and the US Constitution. When they pass a law that does not meet this standard they have not made a law since an unconstitutional law is null and void the instant it is passed by the legislature. Whether or not this law is popular and supported by a majority of citizens in the state is completely irrelevant. As I have stated previously, a majority of voters may not nullify the constitutional rights of a minority.

This not an issue of changing a law. There is no law. The law passed by the Indiana legislature stating that gays may not marry is unconstitutional.

The proper procedure for addressing this was followed. We have a national constitution. This document is meaningless paper unless there is a mechanism for ensuring that it is adhered to. Federal courts have that responsibility.

When a federal court rules that a state legislature has passed an unconstitutional law, the powers of that state are NOT interfered with, since no state has the power to pass a law which violates the Constitution.

Indiana passed such a law. It had no authority to do so. A federal court has corrected this. Our system of checks and balances functioned flawlessly in this case.

 

[PistolBob]

I love reading all the thinly disguised hatred for homosexuality posted by people who claim to be pro-freedom.

Disagreement doesn't equal hatred. Jump back in the boat before you go off the deep end.

 

[PistolBob]

Bigot - anyone that disagrees with a liberal, about anything.

 

[PistolBob]

Tomorrow the court may approve the AG's request to stay same sex marriage in Indiana until the Supreme Court rules on it. That'll make for a whole lot of long faces.

 

[Boost Lee]

As I've always said...

I don't mind your business with who YOU marry as long as you don't mind MY business for what I carry.

 

[Fargo]

Legislatures may only pass laws that are in compliance with the constitutions of their states and the US Constitution. When they pass a law that does not meet this standard they have not made a law since an unconstitutional law is null and void the instant it is passed by the legislature. Whether or not this law is popular and supported by a majority of citizens in the state is completely irrelevant. As I have stated previously, a majority of voters may not nullify the constitutional rights of a minority.

This not an issue of changing a law. There is no law. The law passed by the Indiana legislature stating that gays may not marry is unconstitutional.

The proper procedure for addressing this was followed. We have a national constitution. This document is meaningless paper unless there is a mechanism for ensuring that it is adhered to. Federal courts have that responsibility.

When a federal court rules that a state legislature has passed an unconstitutional law, the powers of that state are NOT interfered with, since no state has the power to pass a law which violates the Constitution.

Indiana passed such a law. It had no authority to do so. A federal court has corrected this. Our system of checks and balances functioned flawlessly in this case.

Did you read the written ruling? Did you note the part where there is an existing US Supreme Court precedent in Baker holding that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage? Did you note that the court decided not to follow it because it speculated that the SCOTUS might rule differently today.

You think that a district court ignoring stare decisis is checks and balances?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Did you read the written ruling? Did you note the part where there is an existing Supreme Court precedent in Baker holding that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage but that the court decided not to follow it?

You think that a district court ignoring stare decisis is checks and balances?

​Nor is there a constitutional right to straight marriage. So what?

 

[lj98]

If you are going to cherry-pick quotes, you may wish to use the proper context. Hamilton is, in fact, criticizing the potential power of the legislature in this quote (from Federalist 78). In fact, he even goes so far at the end of the article to state:

"There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges."

Hamilton, like many of the others who participated in the Constitutional and ratifying conventions, were extremely skeptical of a pure legislative system. For precisely the reasons underlying this ruling; namely that a group of elected representatives might ultimately give in to mob rule and ignore the rights of the individual in order to secure public favors.

 

[Fargo]

If you are going to cherry-pick quotes, you may wish to use the proper context. Hamilton is, in fact, criticizing the potential power of the legislature in this quote (from Federalist 78). In fact, he even goes so far at the end of the article to state:
"There is yet a further and a weightier reason for the permanency of the judicial offices, which is deducible from the nature of the qualifications they require. It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges."

Hamilton, like many of the others who participated in the Constitutional and ratifying conventions, were extremely skeptical of a pure legislative system. For precisely the reasons underlying this ruling; namely that a group of elected representatives might ultimately give in to mob rule and ignore the rights of the individual in order to secure public favors.

You do realize that you're above quote is about the necessity of following the rule of precedent when a court applies the law? Do you also realize that Judge Young in this case explicitly declines to follow the US Supreme Court precedent of Baker which holds that there is no fundamental right to gay marriage in U.S. Constitution?

Your quote makes my point for me.
You also seem to have a really curious definition of cherry picking.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You do realize that you're above quote is about the necessity of following the rule of precedent when a court applies the law? Do you also realize that Judge Young in this case explicitly declines to follow the US Supreme Court precedent of Baker which holds that there is no fundamental right to gay marriage in U.S. Constitution?

Your quote makes my point for me.
You also seem to have a really curious definition of cherry picking.

There's no fundamental right to ANY kind of marriage in the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution is silent on a practice doesn't mean it's prohibited.

But since the various states permit and encourage straight marriage, they can't deny the practice to gays. They must comply with the mandate for equal protection under the law.

 

[Henry]

Everyone decrying this judge voiding a law passed by the legislature of representatives elected by the people are the very definition of Democrats.

If the will of the majority is supreme, then what need have we for Constitutions or judges? Whatever the legislature, duly elected by the people, write into law is the final word… until the next legislature, duly elected by the people in another election, changes, adds to, or repeals it. It's representative mob rule.

Thankfully, we're a Republic. In a Republic, the rights of the minority are held beyond the scope of public policy, regardless of how much the majority wants to legislate the rights of the minority away.

In a republic, sovereignty resides with the individual and the state is held accountable to that sovereignty through rule of law.

This decision, along with many others, does nothing to shrink the role of the state in such matters. In fact, it broadens the role of the state in many matters. Some would argue the state has even used circumvention of the law to do so. That may be so, but the state has a long and increasing history of circumventing the law. Few care. In fact, it is often celebrated.

 

[Fargo]

There's no fundamental right to ANY kind of marriage in the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution is silent on a practice doesn't mean it's prohibited.

But since the various states permit and encourage straight marriage, they can't deny the practice to gays. They must comply with the mandate for equal protection under the law.

Please read the written ruling. The court explicitly holds that there is a fundamental right to marriage in the constitution and apply strict scrutiny to Indiana's law so as to hold it unconstitutional.

The court does this in spite of recognizing the Supreme Court has never found there to be such a fundamental right in the Constitution and that there is a Supreme Court decision which holds explicitly that the Constitution does not enshrine gay marriage as a right.

It appears that you and Judge Young do not actually agree on the law on the matter.

 

[lj98]

Only if your point is that it is ok for legislatures to discriminate against individuals. As to the part about Baker v. Nelson being ignored. No, he did not ignore it, he cited it as an example of an incorrect interpretation. Like the Dredd Scott decision or Plessy.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Please read the written opinion. The court explicitly holds that there is a fundamental right to marriage in the constitution and apply strict scrutiny to Indiana's law so as to hold it unconstitutional.

The court does this in spite of recognizing the Supreme Court has never found there to be such a fundamental right in the Constitution and thatthere is a Supreme Court decision which holds explicitly that the Constitution does not enshrine gay marriage as a right.

You can't have it both ways. If there is a fundamental right to marriage in the Constitution it belongs to everyone.

 

[gungirl65]

I think it's great. I think my gay friends should have the same opportunity to be miserable as I have experienced. Marriage is the leading cause of divorce, why do I care if they want to experience it too.

It's none of my business if two consenting adults want to get married. I don't care what they do in the bedroom or the courtroom. Their decisions has no effect on me or anyone else. When we can let other people lead their lives as they see fit I think everyone will all be much happier.

 

[Fargo]

You can't have it both ways. If there is a fundamental right to marriage in the Constitution it belongs to everyone.

You said there wasn't such a fundamental right, Judge Young says there is.

The Supreme Court says there is not.

Do you still think this judge was just upholding the law, are you open to the possibility he is going to little bit beyond that?


Maybe before you get to gung ho about being on board with him you should read what he actually wrote?

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You said there wasn't such a fundamental right, Judge Young says there is.

The Supreme Court says there is not.

Do you still think this judge was just upholding the law, are you open to the possibility he is going to little bit beyond that?

Nope...straight marriage is common and accepted in our society. Gays are entitled to it, whether it's constitutionally protected or not.

 

[Fargo]

Nope...straight marriage is common and accepted in our society. Gays are entitled to it, whether it's constitutionally protected or not.

Under what legal theory is anyone entitled to anything if neither the constitution nor statute demands it? Especially where statute forbids it?

What supreme rule or ruler are you appealing to?