is right here if you want to read it. I’m working my way through it right now and will update in a while with my thoughts on it, but if you want to dive in, go for it. Start on page 33 if you want to get right to the point.
Buffy says: He's just full of Christ's love, isn't he?...
narrowly written…will apply to CA only (not the whole 9th)…avoids the “grand question” on some levels. Is so narrowly written that it a) may not even make it to the supremes (but they will likely take it) b.) the majority reasoning of the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling on the right of individuals to live as they wish free from rules made only based on bigotry (paraphrase of Justice Kennedys’ language) would seem to mean that this may hold up…although the final question about Gay Marriage nationwide would not be ruled on in said case, but CA, the largest state would have it, and a staggering precident sent.
Evan, your thoughts?
PS (nice listening to Christian (sic) radio right now. Wingnuts are having kittens over this. ;)
UNRELATED, but JOY!! I bring my husband home from hospital in THREE DAYS!!!
To everyone here, be happy for me, and thanks for all the support, kind words from the athiests, prayers from the religious, and friendship.
THANK YOU ALL! (especially Evan and Wayne and others who provide this excellent site for us!)
Good Luck Gene to you and your hubby!
I’m so happy to hear you’re bringing your husband home, Gene! Good luck to you both.
My take on what will happen before the SCOTUS is that, as with many “controversial” cases, they may reach a narrow (5-4) ruling upholding the California court under the specific facts of that case, being that a right that all California citizens had (to marry) was stripped away from a minority without sufficient cause. This would still leave in place all the bans enacted under the constitutions of various states, and leave for another day whether same sex marriage is to be protected under the U.S. Constitution. The right to marriage has been recognized several times by the court, and in the past the SCOTUS has invoked a high level of scrutiny concerning any restrictions thereon. Gonna take some dancing, eventually, to get around precedent IMO.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but back in 2005 or 2006, didn’t Congress pass a law that barred the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing cases involving same-sex marriage? Was that law repealed in a later Congress? If that is the case, then wouldn’t this ruling by the 9th Circuit (or a later one by the full panel) be the final say in the matter?
Any legal scholars out there who can shed some light on this?
Thanks.
Nick, I’m pretty sure there was no such law.
Nick, there was a decision last year by the Obama administration that they would no longer defend DOMA but that’s the opposite of what you said and isn’t a law. If congress did try to make that a law it would certainly be struck down as unconstitutional.
Congress cannot make a law blocking the SCOTUS from reviewing Constitutional issues. Separation of powers and all….
Thanks guys. However, according to my attorney sister, there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress limiting the scope of the Supreme Court. She told me that it has been done in the past.
This only sticks in my mind because I remember then-Congressman Emanuel standing up on the floor of Congress and giving a blistering speech against this new law stating how now “some are more equal than others.”
Nick, If you have an attorney sister why are you asking these questions of strangers?
Gene, I’m very happy for you! I wish all the best to you and your husband.
Daniel-I ask because 1)although my sister is a very intelligent and knowledgeable attorney, she does not know every law passed by Congress and 2) she’s busy with a sick child today and cannot answer my question. Also, there are fairly intelligent and well-informed people who post on this site and I thought maybe someone might have remembered this or heard something. That’s all.
Nick, a google search doesn’t show any such law.