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

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 3:57 pm

persons. However, to interpret the statute as broadly as it is written would be to read the legislation as creating an absurdity. As Justice Scalia cogently observed in his concurrence in Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504 (1989), where

zman117 Ohio
02/06/14 4:37 pm

I agree with my colleagues that the Doopy Law is unconstitutional in the first place. Considering this there is no contradiction concern, and also agreeing with what bethany said, I too rule that the EMA is indeed constitutional.

UWHuskyFan2 Woodinville, WA
02/05/14 6:24 pm

And de-associates all marriages with the government. If all marriage is legal and not regulated by the government, then legalizing gay marriage has no effect, and based on Doopy's law essential makes hetro-sexual marriage illegal, by only recognizing

NDAmerican Florida
02/07/14 11:20 pm

And 2 votes that Marriage is a right

UWHuskyFan2 Woodinville, WA
02/05/14 6:25 pm

Gay marriage. This is why I find the laws contradictory, and Doppy's law stands, and the Gay Marriage law should be repealed and not accepted as law

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 3:58 pm

a literal reading of legislation would produce an absurdity, but the legislative history of such statute evidences no absurd intent, the court is not to interpret it in an absurd manner. Accordingly, to the extent that the DMA appears to invalidate

political Georgia
02/05/14 4:08 pm

As a former justice, I see a major contradiction in the two laws. For the newer bill to become law, you must repeal Doopy's amendment.

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/05/14 5:38 pm

Skinner as I read the DMA for the first time, what I was immedately stuck by was it's potential implications for how the gov treats persona ficta. While based on its name it appears the authors intended this Act to be applicable only to marriage

bethanyq Ess Eff
02/06/14 4:00 pm

ALL legal relationships, I hold that the legislative intent of the act is sufficiently clear to avoid such a result. That said, however, the Congressional revocation of federal recognition of marriage, in all manners and for all purposes, is not to

Shazam Scaramouche, OH
02/05/14 5:41 pm

the language of the Act could have much farther implications than intended. A discussion on Juridical Persons or Legal Personalities is attached. I would suggest the DMA is ruled unconstitutional as a result: bit.ly/1drlFo1

USA1st
02/05/14 4:58 pm

Thank you. The Doopy Law was in place first, but I don't know if that means much.