Supreme Court Case: USA1st (R) Requests a review of the potential conflict between the Marriage Equality Act of 2014 and the Doopy Marriage Act.
Patience young grasshopper. I had to go find them. I couldn't find one of them for a few minutes, haha.
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America does Congress have the power to define marriage in any sense. The Marriage Equality Act of 2014 creates an unacceptably high interference by the federal government in marriage. The tenth
*Slowly waves hand*
Don't worry, wv, you weren't one of the people that I was talking about!
So it appears already that both the Doopy Marriage Law and the Equal Marriage Law have been found unconstitutional by a majority of the court.
I am prepared to rule the Marriage Equality Act of 2014. Furthermore the Doopy Marriage Act also provides some conflicts. When you examine the wording of the bill it becomes self evident that this act violates legal precedent regarding legal
That's all I have to say about that.
I don't feel like writing a long opinion as my fellow justices did. Lol
personality. "The federal government shall grant no special recognition, nor rights, nor privileges, nor powers, to any union, contract, or commitment between any two or more persons." This text implies that the federal government may not recognize
any legal personality from cooperatives to states. So while the intent is constitutional the language of the Doopy Marriage Act goes against centuries of judicial precedent. Which is why I rule both laws unconstitutional.
I revise one portion of the ruling (sorry justin) I rule the wording for the Doopy Law is just too broad and is unconstitutional. I rule that both laws must be struck down. I still keep my ruling about marriage being a right though. PS, sorry Shazam
Dammit, I'm overly verbose today for some reason.
Hmm. Correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe the collective decision here is:
Overturn DMA: 4-1
Overturn EMA: 3-2
So I guess both laws are overturned?
"The federal government shall grant no special recognition, nor rights, nor privileges, nor powers, to any union, contract, or commitment between any two or more persons."
I have abridged to only include the text that concerns me.
Wait, there's more!
As wv said, marriage is indeed a right that cannot be denied. A state does not have the authority to outlaw same sex marriage, due to it being an individual liberty for all citizens.
True, I am pretty awesome!
A lot of people probably just voted against you because they don't understand what you are saying. You gotta keep in mind who your audience is. Lol
Bethany already wrote enough for both! haha
You're fine lol
Good point USA. You're correct they both cannot stand. The question is which law should be the one to be invalidated. Should legal tenure be the deciding factor or should something else? Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe the
Constitution does not address this complication.
zman, are you suggesting I come across as condescending???
(That means I talk down to people)
going mad with power...
Alright I shall cross you off my list lol
I want the power!!!!! Haha we are ruling whether the two laws contradict, and whether they are constitutional in the first place.
Lol no, I agree with much of what you said. Deep down, I'm just mad that you are making me look mad.
amendment to the Constitution guarantees that all powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the individual states. States are the only governments which may pass legislation legalizing gay marriage or making it illegal. Which is why
There there lol
Thank you zman. I'm truly flattered by your assessment.
I didn't see it at first, skinner had to show me what you were talking about.
What's the point of the marriage equality law if we already have the Doopy Marriage Act?
WV, doesn't the current language of the DMA strip all corporations, Non-profit and other groups of all legal rights?
Well I think that's enough of this hippie stuff for me, this poll has become far too relaxed.
Time to go find some conservatives to battle!
Wow. That's very impressive Beth. I feel rather stupid.
I agree with that.
It would seem my esteemed colleagues have decided that this case turns not only on the question presented to the Court, but also on the underlying constitutionality of each law. As to the initial question, as to the conflict between the two laws and
Official Minority Opinion representing WV and myself: Doppy's Marriage Act is indeed constitutional. The government has the right to essentially privatize marriage. While I do see Justice Skinner's point that a contract could be interpreted as a
Marriage Equality Act of 2014: sdrv.ms/1kyCp6g
Conflict with business contracts, I believe and interpret the wording to refer specifically to marriages/civil unions. For these reasons I think the government can disassociate itself with marriage, but it comes down interpretation of the bill on
Joking aside, I wasn't calling people stupid as much as I was just complimenting bethany. When it comes to matters of the law she is bound to have a little bit of knowledge.
I even had to use Wikipedia to know what the hell she was talking about! Lol
Finally, because of the 1st amendment we can't force anyone to marry same sex couples so in summary.
-Same Sex Marriage-Constitutional Right
-Can't force anyone to marry someone.
By my understanding, the Doopy Marriage Law means we cannot grant special privileges to any couples regardless of sexual orientation, race, etc. the Marriage Equality Act doesn't grant special privileges...just grants equality.
Lol no, you are far from condescending. If anything you're the opposite. I've noticed on quite a few occasions where it's clear that you have more knowledge of the subject at hand, yet you truly treat the other individual as having an equal say.
Lol zman -- don't feel too bad. Don't forget, I'm the least popular justice and you're the most popular. So you've got that at least ;-)
Mr. Chief Justice, you are most definitely not dumb :)
Beth: Oh. So you're saying we went through this whole debate for nothing?
See, I'm so upset I can't even type correctly.
be taken lightly. This instant and total revocation of federal marriage rights appears to be a violation of the fifth amendment's prohibition against the government's taking of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The legislature