Supreme Court Case: USA1st (R) Requests a review of the potential conflict between the Marriage Equality Act of 2014 and the Doopy Marriage Act.
Part of my ruling on the DMA might be able to serve as the majority opinion, if my fellow justices agree with the reasoning -- however, I think mine or theirs may be a concurrence in result only, as my finding of unconstitutionality was premised on
the revocation of rights for existing marriages as a violation of the Fifth Amendment. I did find it constitutional (if terrible) as to future marriages, except to the extent that the MEA overturns it -- but then I'm in the minority in finding the
identified no compelling state interest served by this revocation of rights under the law, and therefore, the law is unconstitutional insofar as it purports to invalidate federal recognition of marriages existing at the time of its enactment. Finally
MEA itself constitutional. If it's unconstitutional it can't have any effect on the constitutional provisions of the DMA. BUT, that technicality seems to affect reasoning only and not result, since I believe three other justices held the DMA
by virtue of the fact that the DMA's effect is to prohibit the recognition by the federal government of future marriages, the MEA now appears to grant special rights to same-sex couples that are not granted to opposite-sex couples, i.e., the right to
unconstitutional in its entirety.
Shazams doopy's bills only addresses the federal gov, not private industries. The constitution does not grant congress the right to regulate marriage not recognize it so the equal marriage act is unconstitutional. The 10th amendment gives all powers
Not vested into Congress to the states. This is a civil rights issues that must be protected as a right to the court which is why I ruled in that way.
federal recognition of their marriages. However, the legislative history of this law is likewise clear: the intent was not to grant special rights to same-sex couples, but rather to extend traditional marriage rights to them in addition. Again,
invoking statutory interpretation principles against absurdity, I hold that the MEA provides that future marriages may be *recognized* by the federal government, although the federal government may not, under the DMA, create *rights* flowing from any
marriages taking place after the MEA's enactment. This, of course, leaves federal agencies and the courts with quite the conundrum: do existing privileges to married couples under federal law create "rights," or are they merely consequences of the
"recognition" of those marriage? Unfortunately, this seems to be a case-by-case analysis. To the extent that a federal action would clearly create a *right* in an individual that would exist only by virtue of that individual's status as a married
If everyone agrees with the tally then I think we should have a majority opinion and perhaps even a dissenting opinion for the official record. Do I have any volunteers to write the majority opinion?
Question: does the DMA refer to Doppy's marriage Act? If so am I seriously the only no vote? Haha
person, as to marriages not already in place by the time of the DMA, this would appear to be a clear violation of the statute. If, on the other hand, any privileges extended to a married person are a matter of administration (such as, for instance,
Not for nothing! Doesn't everyone find statutory interpretation as much fun as I do? C'mon, it's fun and not nerdy, right? Right?
I also do not find any constitutional basis for transferring the right to determine marriage rules from state to fed gov. On the other hand, I see this as a civil rights issue more than simply benefit/taxation. I would suggest they look at how
the filing of taxes jointly as a married couple), it seems that such privileges are not "rights" so much as consequences of recognition. This creates a very unfortunate situation in which newly-married couples will be faced with the inability to
Previous voter liberties were assured, d model a bill along those lines. In that example, states still created the guidelines, but they needed to be approved by the federal gov to ensure equality.
obtain, e.g., social security benefits owed to a deceased spouse. However, I cannot find any provision of the constitution that would render such a result, unreasonable as it is, automatically unconstitutional. I find myself, therefore, unable to do
anything more than remark upon the ill-advised and short-sighted nature of the DMA.
Finally, I am unpersuaded by the arguments that the constitution does not permit the federal government to recognize marriages. In addition to purporting to
Can the judges give me an update or a final ruling to post on VC social media?
How has this case been ruled?
I voted to uphold Doppy's law btw
I have studied my constitution, and prior cases and I have come to a conclusion. The constitution does not give the power to congress to regulate or recognize marriage, therefore we can not illegalize or legalize marriage. Therefore I must rule to
invalidate the basis for countless decisions before this court both explicitly and implicitly premised on marriage rights and their recognition by the federal government, it is plainly incorrect. Federal recognition of marriage -- which has never
Good question. There is a Supreme Court section on the database but I don't believe it is up to date.
before been challenged as unconstitutional -- is well within the contemplation of both the Full Faith and Credit and Privileges and Immunities clauses of Article IV.
I might add that the federal government may recognize marriages formed under state laws but the federal government may not pass legislation regarding marriages.
Well Bethany has the majority opinion for the DMA, and I guess, Skinner, you, Husky, or I should make the majority opinion for the EMA.
Basic principle of statutory interpretation is that if a law conflicts with a law previously-enacted by the same legislative body, the later law controls. It's basically as though the legislature decided to repeal the former law and pass a new one.
It's a work in progress. They will appear on the docket with everything else once I find the time to program it. They're a little trickier.
Well, let me correct that: they will likely appear on the docket spreadsheet on their own tab.
Good point Shazam
Uphold the Doopy Marriage Law. The power to regulate marriage is that of the states. Now because the Federal Congress does not have the right to regulate marriage, I rule that the Equal Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Now marriage is protected
Wait, are we ruling on constitutionality or on the effect of the conflict of the two laws? Because those are two separate issues. Or are we just deciding that the justices can decide whatever issues they want to for any case? Much as I would enjoy
Yes it does, and you are the only Justice choosing to uphold the DML
Under the 9th amendment, and also do to the freedom of religion in the 1st amendment we can not deny same sex couples the right to marry. I rule that same sex marriage is a constitutional right.
Sorry guys I've been at work, I have to agree these laws contradict. I have to agree with shazam that the Doopy law does violate former Supreme Court cases, however I do not see a congressional power to regulate marriage in the constitution.
Ok, can someone post a link to the two bills or the website?
Doopy Marriage Law:
The federal government shall grant no special recognition, nor rights, nor privileges, nor powers, to any marriage, union, contract, or commitment between any two or more persons, regardless of age, race, sex, sexuality, or national origin.
the effect of such a conflict, I hold that the Marriage Equality Act expresses a clear intention by the legislature to grant federal recognition of marriages. However, the MEA does not expressly create any "rights" except the right of same-sex couple
to convert their civil partnerships into marriages. Thus, to the extent that these recognitions and rights conflict with the Doopy Marriage Act, basic canons of statutory interpretation are clear that the later-enacted law, in this case the MEA,
This matter. It appears that if this bill were to be considered constitutional by a majority of the court it would have to be re-worded to define contracts and disassociate them with business, and then re-passed by a majority of the Congress.
As to the constitutionality of either statute to the extent that it has any effect: the DMA is phrased in overly broad terms, as noted by my colleagues, which terms appear to encompass any and all possible legal relationships between two
Side note how and when do we see the verdict of these Supreme Court battles? Like final summary
I would ask my fellow Justices to consider that as worded, the DMA could be argued to go against previously decided SCOTUS cases. In particular those that grant rights to legal personalities. I would suggest that this act be struck down accordingly
The recently passed bill legalizing gay marriage completely contradicts Doopy's marriage law. Doopy's law says that the government won't grant special recognition to marriage regardless of sexually orientation, age, etc. in my opinion this legalizes