Homosexual Discussion ForumInterracial marriage, the Supreme Court, and civil unionsArticle III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
When the Supreme Court overturned the Texas Sodomy Law, they went beyond their Constitutional authority. Since this is a state law governing citizens of that one state the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction. So the wedge used was violation of “liberty” since the men charged were imprisoned based on a false and improper search of one of the men’s home.
Now, since the 14th Amendment deals with due process, which has absolutely nothing to do with marriage, how can you even presume to think this applies? 14th Amendment
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Now, marriage is not a matter of life, liberty or property and since states don’t prohibit sexual practices outside of marriage your right to sexual intimacy is not threatened or prohibited by the lack of a civil union statute. “Congress has the authority to enforce by legislation the provisions of this article.” There is no law that approves unions between same-sex couples, however, some states have passed defense of marriage laws limiting marriage to male/female couples. The Supreme Court will need such a law to make a decision but only if it involves a dispute between States, or one State and the citizen of another state or if you are falsely accused of a crime and jailed without due process. BTW, Texas repealed their sodomy law in 1999.
What you are asking is that the Supreme Court redefine marriage, and extend legislated advantages to gay couples that some states extend to married couples or in other words make a law. Now, I believe advantages extended to married couples discriminate against singles. If I choose to remain unwed why should I pay higher insurance premiums, be taxed at a higher rate, or suffer any other disadvantage like paying property tax to support public education? Because Congress and governing authorities legislated the tax laws, it is that simple. If I refuse to pay my taxes the governing authorities have the right to file leans and auction off my personal property to satisfy those leans. Why, because it is the law.
The Supreme Court of the United States is under the sovereignty of the U.S. Congress and does not have the authority to make law they can only interpret laws that are on the books and settle disputes between States, and citizens of one State vs. another State and matters that involve citizens of two or more States in matters of property.
Now, why not get civil unions on a ballot and let the general public decide if gay unions should be legalized? This year marks the 30th anniversary of the most aptly titled case in the history of the United States Supreme Court -- Loving v. Virginia. Loving was the name of a couple that was prosecuted for marrying. Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving committed a felony under state law because, after exchanging wedding vows in the District of Columbia, they lived together as husband and wife in Caroline County, Virginia. Doing so violated the state's antimiscegenation law, The Racial Integrity Act, which prohibited any white person ... to marry any save a[nother] white person." Richard was white and his bride Mildred was black. For their transgression, a Virginia judge sentenced Loving to a year in prison, suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for twenty-five years. The judge also lectured them on the importance and justifiabilty of the state's policy, asserting that the fact that "Almighty God" had initially placed the races on different continents "shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." One is tempted to laugh at the judge. The sentiments he voiced, however, decisively shaped peoples lives and were by no means idiosyncratic. A Gallup Poll indicated in 1965 that 42 percent of Northern whites supported bans on inter-racial marriage, as did 72 percent of southern whites.
A background of Loving
The way that the Supreme Court approached the ban on interracial marriage is a revealing reminder of the cautious manner that the tribunal typically deals with volatile social controversies. It encouraged other lawgivers to lead the way. In 1948 the Supreme Court of California ruled that that state's ban on interracial marriage violated the federal constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Yet, even after having invalidated de jure segregation in public schooling in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court was afraid to touch the emotional issue of interracial familial intimacy. In 1955 the Court considered reviewing a conviction under Virginia's ban, but ultimately decided to duck the issue. During the following decade, a dozen states repealed laws prohibiting interracial marriage and the Civil Rights Movement challenged the white supremacist notions from which these prohibitions stemmed. Only near the end of that remarkable era of struggle against racism was the Supreme Court willing to rule on the (un) constitutionality of anti miscegenation laws. In Loving, the Court struck down Virginia's statute on the grounds that it represented merely an "invidious racial discrimination" and that it unjustifiably deprived the defendants of one of the "basic civil rights of man."
What should Loving mean for us today? At a time when many observers question whether America has made any real progress, on the racial front, it is worth recalling that as late as 1967, sixteen states prohibited people from marrying across racial frontiers. Now no such prohibitions exist. This change in legal formalities both reflects and encourages changes for the good in the hearts and minds of Americans.
http://speakout.com/activism/opinions/3208-1.html
This case went before the Supreme Court because an interracial couple were deprived of their liberty in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Now unless you are deprived of liberty by being imprisoned for getting married to a member of the same sex the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |