Dear Minnesota,

Passing this bill into law will undoubtedly annoy the religious right to no end. I thank you for this.

Sincerely,
SilentStrider

SilentStrider: Dear Minnesota,

Passing this bill into law will undoubtedly annoy the religious right to no end. I thank you for this.

Sincerely,
SilentStrider

You're welcome.

/My congressman is Muslim.
//Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Even local news is saying this has a less than zero chance of passing...

Although we here in MN like to think we're all equal rights advocates - good, bad, or otherwise - this one is just barely above the "publicity stunt" range of likelihood.

Nice try guys. Next time, try not to pick an election year to start roughing things up.

Yeah, if by "might" you mean "absolutely positively will not, despite an attention-whoring bill being introduced that's bound to fail."

If it did pass, however, it would be nice to see such a law passed by actually having a law passed, instead of judges legislating from the bench. Using an equal-protection clause to radically modify the legal definition of marriage is a big stretch. I'm pretty sure it's not what the authors of California's constitution had in mind.

LordPistachio: Yeah, if by "might" you mean "absolutely positively will not, despite an attention-whoring bill being introduced that's bound to fail."

If it did pass, however, it would be nice to see such a law passed by actually having a law passed, instead of judges legislating from the bench. Using an equal-protection clause to radically modify the legal definition of marriage is a big stretch. I'm pretty sure it's not what the authors of California's constitution had in mind.

You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

The Onanist: ...My congressman is Muslim...

I'm still shocked by that alone. I'll give credit to your state for being far more blue than I'd have guessed.

/Somewhere, TrueBluBaptist is having an epileptic fit.

Go Minnesota! :D

TheCid: LordPistachio: Yeah, if by "might" you mean "absolutely positively will not, despite an attention-whoring bill being introduced that's bound to fail."

If it did pass, however, it would be nice to see such a law passed by actually having a law passed, instead of judges legislating from the bench. Using an equal-protection clause to radically modify the legal definition of marriage is a big stretch. I'm pretty sure it's not what the authors of California's constitution had in mind.

You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

Sometimes I think that certain folks would rather do away with our judicial branch entirely. This law didn't jive with the state's constitution and it was recognized as such. (THE HORROR)

LordPistachio: Using an equal-protection clause to radically modify the legal definition of marriage is a big stretch.

How so?

Premeses:
1) Let action X be defined as marrying person A, who is male.
2) Person B, a female, is permitted to peform action X.
3) Person C, a male, is not permitted to perform action X.
4) The only relevant distinction between B and C is gender.
5) Any law which prohibits a person from doing something based on his or her gender is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

Conclusion:
The law prohibiting C from performing X should be deemed unconsitutional.

QED

TheCid:
You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

Pretty sure that was done properly by modification of the relevant laws from the legislative end. Most of the judicial radicalism was in the other direction, i.e. declaring interracial marriages illegal on flimsy pretexts to annoy the yankees.

I guess there may have been one or two in the other direction, but frankly that kind of thing is one of the major reasons jury nullification and judicial activism have a bad rep.

Jim_Callahan: TheCid:
You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

Pretty sure that was done properly by modification of the relevant laws from the legislative end. Most of the judicial radicalism was in the other direction, i.e. declaring interracial marriages illegal on flimsy pretexts to annoy the yankees.

I guess there may have been one or two in the other direction, but frankly that kind of thing is one of the major reasons jury nullification and judicial activism have a bad rep.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/05/AR2008050502439 . html (new window)

Mildred Jeter Loving kindly asks you to shut the fark up about things you have no idea about.

Jim_Callahan: TheCid:
You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

Pretty sure that was done properly by modification of the relevant laws from the legislative end. Most of the judicial radicalism was in the other direction, i.e. declaring interracial marriages illegal on flimsy pretexts to annoy the yankees.

I guess there may have been one or two in the other direction, but frankly that kind of thing is one of the major reasons jury nullification and judicial activism have a bad rep.

True, the courts were rather strongly pro-slavery and pro-racism before they finally got off their asses in the 1950s. Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. The big problem is that if you look at the various eras of the court, you can pretty easily tell which eras were more politicized- where the court was aligning with a particular party of the era- and where the court actually stood up for peoples' rights.

We're on the verge (and possibly already over) the edge of having a super-conservative Supreme Court that twists the words of the Constitution to deny people their rights.

"[Would you] cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide.., the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast..., and if you cut them down... do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

These people are doing it wrong.

If you want to make sure that the courts do not enable gay marriage, you need to convert your state from English common law to Romano-Germanic civil law, such as the State of Louisiana uses. That way, you can keep the "activist judges" under control because they cannot create "new law".


/Louisiana Territory was purchased from France one year before the enactment of Napoleonic Code
//Louisiana still uses Romano-Germanic civil law as opposed to English common law to this day

Jenniferwillow thank you for that. It made me sniffle. Beautiful. Thank you so much.

FABULOUS

/not gay

Makes me proud to be a Minnesotan, even if it doesn't pass.

/though it most definitely SHOULD be passed
//it's OKAY to be GAY! :D

Jim_Callahan: TheCid:
You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

Pretty sure that was done properly by modification of the relevant laws from the legislative end. Most of the judicial radicalism was in the other direction, i.e. declaring interracial marriages illegal on flimsy pretexts to annoy the yankees.

I guess there may have been one or two in the other direction, but frankly that kind of thing is one of the major reasons jury nullification and judicial activism have a bad rep.

You realize the Supreme Court of the United States decided, in roughly 1963, to overturn the bans on interracial marriage, correct? The bans enacted by legislatures.

Dinjiin: Romano-Germanic civil law

Tell us more! Very interesting.

LordPistachio:

Using an equal-protection clause to radically modify the legal definition of marriage is a big stretch.

How dare they do their jobs! Don't they know that there are bigots who want to feel happy and appeased?

The Crack Kid:

Mildred Jeter Loving kindly asks you to shut the fark up about things you have no idea about.

Where's the German volkswagon guy when you need him?

ZangTT: Tell us more! Very interesting.

Common Law (used throughout the [current and former] British Empire)
Civil Law, aka Romano-Germanic law (predominant system of law in the world)
Roman Law
Napoleonic Code

jenniferwillow, that was lovely - thank you for posting and I hope you don't mind if I pass it along

Dinjiin:

Common Law (used throughout the [current and former] British Empire)

For all the headaches it can generate, I tend to like English common law a lot more than a rigid and immutable legal code that effectively renders the judiciary powerless as a check on the legislative and executive branches.

The Onanist:

/My congressman is Muslim.
//Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

/My congressperson is a nitwit (4th district Minnesota).
//miss Vento
///RWDB myself

Murkanen: Dinjiin:

Common Law (used throughout the [current and former] British Empire)

For all the headaches it can generate, I tend to like English common law a lot more than a rigid and immutable legal code that effectively renders the judiciary powerless as a check on the legislative and executive branches.

Well, common law systems typically have a different representative structure. It's not as necessary to have a check on the legislature and executive when the PM can be no-confidence'd out by the parliament, parliamentary elections can be held earlier than scheduled, and there are more than 2 parties.

So that wasn't just huddling for warmth?

TheCid:

Well, common law systems typically have a different representative structure. It's not as necessary to have a check on the legislature and executive when the PM can be no-confidence'd out by the parliament, parliamentary elections can be held earlier than scheduled, and there are more than 2 parties.

You can have all of that without neutering the judiciary. It isn't our fault that you decided to choose an election system that guarantees you'll forever be stuck with Turd McSammich vs Sandy Doucheins.

With gay marriage comes gay divorce, and now Rhode Island and Connecticut are finding themselves faced with the prospect of how to or whether to grant divorces to gay couples married in Massachusetts. Interesting legal ground there. How do you dissolve a contract made in another state when said type of contract isn't legal in your own?

Yes you can has freedom and liberty.

/yours

The end of civilization as we know it.

What's next? Inter-racial marriage?!?!

Yay! More things to energize the fundies to get out and vote in November.

Let's make sure we do something like this in every state over the next few months so we can get ourselves another republican resident over stupid fringe issues that impact a very small number of Americans. Because that whole war thing and the $4/gallon gas and crappy schools and crumbling infrastructure and crashing dollar really aren't all that important. As long as the gays are kept down and the kooks can keep their private armories everything will be OK!

Lee_Sharpe: LordPistachio: Using an equal-protection clause to radically modify the legal definition of marriage is a big stretch.

How so?

Premeses:
1) Let action X be defined as marrying person A, who is male.
2) Person B, a female, is permitted to peform action X.
3) Person C, a male, is not permitted to perform action X.
4) The only relevant distinction between B and C is gender.
5) Any law which prohibits a person from doing something based on his or her gender is a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

Conclusion:
The law prohibiting C from performing X should be deemed unconsitutional.

QED

I'm sure that's exactly what they had in mind when they enacted the Fourteenth Amendment.

BatardAmericain: WHow do you dissolve a contract made in another state when said type of contract isn't legal in your own?

You remove all gender-specific language from the law and carry on like normal?

New Hampshire did this last year. I think they might call them "civil unions," but it was passed by the legislature.

Go Minnesota. (b^_^)b

/Lives in the only state where marriage is defined by the statutes, not the state constitution
//LOL, domestic partnerships

BatardAmericain: With gay marriage comes gay divorce, and now Rhode Island and Connecticut are finding themselves faced with the prospect of how to or whether to grant divorces to gay couples married in Massachusetts. Interesting legal ground there. How do you dissolve a contract made in another state when said type of contract isn't legal in your own?

In an attempt to make gay-marriage legal in every state their stategy is to get married in one state and then move to another state and get divorced. I have nothing against gay-marriage but I am against the idea of having some other state's law enforced on us. It should be up to the people not the courts. If gays in Minnesota want to get marrried, that's fine with me. Just don't come to TX seeking a divorce.

Vashanesh: Even local news is saying this has a less than zero chance of passing...

Although we here in MN like to think we're all equal rights advocates - good, bad, or otherwise - this one is just barely above the "publicity stunt" range of likelihood.

Nice try guys. Next time, try not to pick an election year to start roughing things up.

Yeah! Only Republicans can pull that shiat!

Vashanesh: Nice try guys. Next time, try not to pick an election year to start roughing things up.

F*ck that, you know who suffers most when the Republicans are in power? The poor and the stupid.

Hey Military guys, Don't want to fight with the Gays? Have fun in Iraq. Oh yeah, and the guys you voted for will be cutting your benefits for my tax breaks.
Hey Hillbillies in the middle of nowhere, afraid Adam & Steve will be ruining your third marriage? Enjoy $5.00 a gallon gas.

They get what they deserve.

Let The Queers Marry
Why Should The Rest of Us Suffer Alone?

or

Let The Queers Marry
That'll Teach 'Em

/err...happily married...

FAB-U-LOUS!

LordPistachio: I'm pretty sure it's not what the authors of California's constitution had in mind.



Which author of any American Constitution ever said that mattered? What's incredulous are 'constructionists' that invent intentions to documents that were never intended to be static -- while dismissing things like equal protection and other substantial evidence that among the Framers, none of them were 'constructionists'

Legislating from the bench has been an American Institution since 1803 (new window)

It's called Judicial Review, and it's nearly as old as the Republic. (new window)


But here's the nugget of truth: Segregation never would have ended without the courts. And that's what still haunts a certain segment of the population.

clifton: The end of civilization as we know it.

What's next? Inter-racial marriage?!?!

Frederick Douglass did that over 120 years ago. Get with the times.

Ooh ho hooo!! This is REALLY going to piss Michelle Bachmann off.
Well done, Minnesota.

Tor_Eckman: Yay! More things to energize the fundies to get out and vote in November.

More than a few fundies have come to the terrible conclusion that they were used to give a few rich people a tax break and start a war with no purpose but to steal oil.

I think they'll go back to church and pray for the country, which is historically what they've done rather than vote.

I'd love to know what people like Karl Rove really say about Christians in private -- it probably isn't too far off the mark of the stuff Abramoff was saying in emails.

And smart Fundamentalists know this. Hell even the stupid ones like Pat Roberson have stated their experiment into politics has made them tools for evil.

atomsmoosher: Let The Queers Marry
Why Should The Rest of Us Suffer Alone?

or

Let The Queers Marry
That'll Teach 'Em

/err...happily married...



That's The HMS Queer Marry to you buddy.

The Onanist: SilentStrider: Dear Minnesota,

Passing this bill into law will undoubtedly annoy the religious right to no end. I thank you for this.

Sincerely,
SilentStrider

You're welcome.

/My congressman is Muslim.
//Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

If you are in Minnesota, you won't be smoking it in bars and restaurants.

/ be interesting to see on how votes on this since homosexuality is a sin in Islam, find out if he's a fundie or not

Jim_Callahan: TheCid:
You're right. Those activist judges should never have allowed black men to marry white women. How dare they tamper with the sanctity of marriage!

Pretty sure that was done properly by modification of the relevant laws from the legislative end. Most of the judicial radicalism was in the other direction, i.e. declaring interracial marriages illegal on flimsy pretexts to annoy the yankees.

I guess there may have been one or two in the other direction, but frankly that kind of thing is one of the major reasons jury nullification and judicial activism have a bad rep.

Wrong

Loving v. Virginia 388 US 1 (1963)

You may want to read the whole case, and btw the last legislature to remove it miscegenation statutes was Alabama, and that was in 2000- 37 YEARS after they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The truly sad thing is, several ballot initiatives to repeal the law FAILED in the 1990's.

But you just keep prattling on about how majoritarian institutions are the proper venue for ensuring the rights of minorities..

atlanta_ufo: The Onanist: SilentStrider: Dear Minnesota,

Passing this bill into law will undoubtedly annoy the religious right to no end. I thank you for this.

Sincerely,
SilentStrider

You're welcome.

/My congressman is Muslim.
//Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

If you are in Minnesota, you won't be smoking it in bars and restaurants.

/ be interesting to see on how votes on this since homosexuality is a sin in Islam, find out if he's a fundie or not

He won't vote on it. He is in the US congress not the state.

BatardAmericain: With gay marriage comes gay divorce, and now Rhode Island and Connecticut are finding themselves faced with the prospect of how to or whether to grant divorces to gay couples married in Massachusetts. Interesting legal ground there. How do you dissolve a contract made in another state when said type of contract isn't legal in your own?

not that hard really. There is precedent in "choice of Law" clauses in contracts. You can (and probably have if you own a cell phone) sign a contract that says "in the event of dispute, the law of state X shall be applied" now if you Live in State Y you are probably going to sue there, but your local court is bound to look up, and apply the law of state X


Alternative you could argue Full Faith and Credit Clause, and say that the non-gay marriage state is obligated to recognize a valid marriage from another state whether or not it would be acceptable in their own (precedent here is someone who is married in another state at an age that would be illegal in your own). Thereupon you simply apply the regular divorce rules of your local state.