Show of HandsShow of Hands

VirtualCongress February 5th, 2014 9:16pm

Supreme Court Case: USA1st (R) Requests a review of the potential conflict between the Marriage Equality Act of 2014 and the Doopy Marriage Act.

7 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
02/05/14 2:24 pm

Patience young grasshopper. I had to go find them. I couldn't find one of them for a few minutes, haha.

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 5:22 pm

OO-----Zman
___

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 2:00 pm

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

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 5:28 pm

*Slowly waves hand*

Don't worry, wv, you weren't one of the people that I was talking about!

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 4:29 pm

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.

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:58 pm

Screw zman!

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 2:27 pm

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

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:39 pm

That's all I have to say about that.
I don't feel like writing a long opinion as my fellow justices did. Lol

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 2:29 pm

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

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 2:31 pm

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.

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 1:46 pm

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

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 5:15 pm

Dammit, I'm overly verbose today for some reason.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 4:46 pm

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?

Reply
Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/06/14 12:20 am

"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.

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:47 pm

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.

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 5:21 pm

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

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:49 pm

Bethany already wrote enough for both! haha

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 5:24 pm

You're fine lol

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/05/14 4:33 pm

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

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/05/14 4:34 pm

Constitution does not address this complication.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 5:32 pm

zman, are you suggesting I come across as condescending???

(That means I talk down to people)

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 3:46 pm

going mad with power...

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 5:33 pm

Alright I shall cross you off my list lol

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 3:49 pm

I want the power!!!!! Haha we are ruling whether the two laws contradict, and whether they are constitutional in the first place.

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:34 pm

Lol no, I agree with much of what you said. Deep down, I'm just mad that you are making me look mad.

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 2:24 pm

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

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 4:38 pm

There there lol

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 5:46 pm

Thank you zman. I'm truly flattered by your assessment.

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 1:47 pm

I didn't see it at first, skinner had to show me what you were talking about.

Reply
keembar
02/05/14 3:27 pm

What's the point of the marriage equality law if we already have the Doopy Marriage Act?

Reply
Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/06/14 12:19 am

WV, doesn't the current language of the DMA strip all corporations, Non-profit and other groups of all legal rights?

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 5:52 pm

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!

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 4:49 pm

Wow. That's very impressive Beth. I feel rather stupid.

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/06/14 4:49 pm

I agree with that.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 3:49 pm

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

Reply
UWHuskyFan2 Woodinville, WA
02/07/14 7:18 pm

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

Reply
UWHuskyFan2 Woodinville, WA
02/07/14 7:20 pm

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

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 5:37 pm

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

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/05/14 7:46 pm

Finally, because of the 1st amendment we can't force anyone to marry same sex couples so in summary.
-Doopy-Constitutional
-Equal Marriage-Unconstitutional
-Same Sex Marriage-Constitutional Right
-Can't force anyone to marry someone.

Reply
BillieJoeCobain Earth turns from sanity
02/05/14 4:54 pm

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.

Reply
NDAmerican Florida
02/07/14 11:20 pm

DMA=4-1 unconstitutional
EMA=3-2 unconstitutional

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 5:40 pm

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.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 5:10 pm

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 :)

Reply
skinner Jersey City
02/06/14 4:41 pm

Beth: Oh. So you're saying we went through this whole debate for nothing?

Reply
zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:41 pm

*bad

See, I'm so upset I can't even type correctly.

Reply
bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 4:04 pm

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