Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

Dear god.

I highly doubt this will pass the Senate, but this is a fucking disgrace.

House Votes on Federal Gay Marriage Bill

1 hour, 11 minutes ago

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House voted Thursday to prevent federal courts from ordering states to recognize gay marriages sanctioned by other states.



The Marriage Protection Act was adopted by a 233-194 vote, buoyed by backing from the Bush administration. Last week, the Senate dealt gay marriage opponents a setback by failing to advance a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex unions.

Federal judges, unelected and given lifetime appointments, "must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policy for the states," Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., said.

Democrats said the bill was an election-year distraction, calling it an unconstitutional attack on gays in America and the federal judiciary. They said it would set a precedent that Congress could use to shield any future legislation from federal judicial review.

"They couldn't amend the Constitution last week so they're trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said.

The legislation faces long odds in the closely divided Senate, but were it to become law, gays and lesbians seeking to have their marriages recognized could seek help only from state courts.

It would strip the Supreme Court and other federal courts of their jurisdiction to rule on challenges to state bans on gay marriages under a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act. That law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and says states are not compelled to recognize gay marriages that take place in other states.

"Marriage is under attack," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., referring to the Massachusetts state court decision allowing same-sex marriages. The legislation is needed, Sensenbrenner said, to prevent Massachusetts law from being applied nationwide.

A parade of Republican speakers lamented the unbridled power of federal judges to thwart majority will, although no federal court has yet ruled on the 1996 law.

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., the bill's author, likened the Supreme Court to the Soviet Politburo. "As few as five people in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us that they are speaking as the majority will. They are not," Hostettler said.

Democrats complained the legislation was being pushed to give a victory to gay marriage opponents before Congress leaves town at the end of the week for both parties' political conventions and a monthlong recess.

Republicans are "undermining our Constitution today to get more votes in November," Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said.

The effect of the bill would be to single out gays and lesbians, barring them from going into federal court to seek to have their marriages recognized, several Democrats said.

"We face no less than a sign on the courthouse door: 'You may not defend your constitutional rights in this court. You may not see equal protection here,'" said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the House's lone declared lesbian. "Today, the 'you' is gay and lesbian citizens. But who would be next?"

Democrats said the bill's supporters were trying to change the subject from GOP failures to pass a budget and other major legislation.

Many speakers said they believe the legislation is unconstitutional, but legal scholars said the constitutional issue is unresolved.

While Republicans defended states' rights, Democrats said the phrase recalled Southern opposition to desegregation, which was propelled by a series of federal court rulings.

Some Republicans also cited their desire to avoid setting a precedent that could used by a Congress controlled by Democrats to satisfy their allies or by lawmakers who wanted to shield future unconstitutional legislation from federal court review.

 

[Escape Goat]

"Marriage is under attack."


Ugh, people like this make me so furious.

 

[evil ways]

"Marriage is under attack," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., referring to the Massachusetts state court decision allowing same-sex marriages. The legislation is needed, Sensenbrenner said, to prevent Massachusetts law from being applied nationwide.

Hilarious stuff, especially when a lot of these politicians are either closet gays or are married with one or more mistresses on the side.

 

[SKluck]

What is the problem here? So a state with gay marriage as illegal, should be forced to recognize marriages from another state that has it legal? Fuck that.

 

[videogamer]

What is the problem here? So a state with gay marriage as illegal, should be forced to recognize marriages from another state that has it legal? Fuck that.

IIRC, with this admendment, states that want gay marriages wouldn't even be able to have them.

 

[Father_Brain]

IIRC, with this admendment, states that want gay marriages wouldn't even be able to have them.

You're confusing this with the FMA. This bill would, however, effectively mean that gays are unworthy of the constitutional right of seeking redress from the courts.

 

[Phoenix]

You're confusing this with the FMA. This bill would, however, effectively mean that gays are unworthy of the constitutional right of seeking redress from the courts.

Which would be struck down as being unconstitutional by the SC about 5 minutes after it came before them. They don't even have to meet, they can phone that one in.

 

[Belfast]

I'm really getting sick of this. The religious right needs to just shut the fuck up and so do all the rest of their little governmental boytoys that go along with it. Who cares? Seriously. Marriage is not under attack. There is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO connection between gay people getting married and making bestiality legal. The floodgates will not open, the fires of hell will not consume us all, stop it, get over it, and SHUT UP. This should not be an issue at all and maybe we could all get on with our lives if they'd stop being pricks. Their excuses are lame and there's nothing to back them up aside from their own personal religious beliefs.

 

[videogamer]

Which would be struck down as being unconstitutional by the SC about 5 minutes after it came before them. They don't even have to meet, they can phone that one in.

Yeah so they essentially supreme-court-proof it, preventing any gay marriages in the country

 

[Escape Goat]

I was listening to some church radio the other day and they were discussing how once Rome started codifying/sanctioning homosexual acts, it started the fall of the Roman Empire. These were supposedly educated people. Made me sick to my stomach.

 

[Phoenix]

Yeah so they essentially supreme-court-proof it, preventing any gay marriages in the country

They can't - they lack that ability as the legislative branch. The judicial branch can strike down pretty much anything they come up with if it violates the law or is otherwise unconstitutional.

 

[videogamer]

They can't - they lack that ability as the legislative branch. The judicial branch can strike down pretty much anything they come up with if it violates the law or is otherwise unconstitutional.

Yeah, I meant the constitutional admendment... which would have to also pass through the states. There might be other steps, but I don't remember them all.

 

[kitchenmotors]

Marriage is a disgrace in this country. These people defending marriage should realize that most straight marriages barely stand a chance these days. Divorce, costudy, it's a big fucking mess and it's not our fault, it's the same people that are trying to defend marriage. I feel bad for the men who get married, then end up with a divorce, half their salary taken away, and their children.

Nothing like a religious republican twat from the south to blame gays for everything. I may not want to get married, but from the guys and girls that want to...they seem to for the right reasons. Straight people get married for the wrong reasons, which is why the divorce percentage is so god damned high.

 

[bishoptl]

They said it would set a precedent that Congress could use to shield any future legislation from federal judicial review.

Even if you have a problem with gay marriage, this should concern you. What's to say the next law that targets you and yours won't be subject to judicial review because of the precedent set here?

 

[Phoenix]

Marriage is a disgrace in this country. These people defending marriage should realize that most straight marriages barely stand a chance these days. Divorce, costudy, it's a big fucking mess and it's not our fault, it's the same people that are trying to defend marriage. I feel bad for the men who get married, then end up with a divorce, half their salary taken away, and their children.

Nothing like a religious republican twat from the south to blame gays for everything. I may not want to get married, but from the guys and girls that want to...they seem to for the right reasons. Straight people get married for the wrong reasons, which is why the divorce percentage is so god damned high.

Marriage requires a considerable amount of work, tolerance, and assertiveness to succeed. Most people are unable or unwilling to do that. Some people grow a part. Whole lot of reasons why marriages don't work - don't pick just one. Love is not enough to keep a marriage going any more than it is to keep two people as boyfriend and girlfriend.

 

[Phoenix]

Even if you have a problem with gay marriage, this should concern you. What's to say the next law that targets you and yours won't be subject to judicial review because of the precedent set here?

There is no precedent being set here. Its not a law and if by some twist of fate it becomes a law it is easily struck down. The legislative branch CANNOT set precedent - that's for the judicial branch to do.

 

[videogamer]

I heard these arguments, and I don't have any idea how to respond to it:

1. Our country needs more young people to support us when we are old. Ex: Japan which has a declining population and that can be a problem later on. Gay marriages obviously won't promote having more kids.

2. Having two parents of different genders would be better than having two parents of the same gender. However, I don't think there's really any real study into this. A lot of the research being thrown around are not in context. Ex: one of my school profs complained about the use of his work.

The source of the angst is part of a press release issued by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which says: "Endless studies demonstrate the benefits to children of being raised with both a mother and father. A redefinition of marriage (to include same-sex unions) would permanently deny some children this proven advantage."

The coalition cites several studies, but authors of some of that research say their findings are being taken out of context or that little solid data exists on the impact of gay parenting.

"That is not a legitimate use of our work," said Michael Gottfredson, a criminology professor and associate chancellor at the University of California at Irvine who cowrote a 1990 book on crime trends.

That research says children with a loving parent are less likely to commit crimes, but makes no distinction about the sexual orientation of the parent, he said.

 

[bishoptl]

There is no precedent being set here. Its not a law and if by some twist of fate it becomes a law it is easily struck down. The legislative branch CANNOT set precedent - that's for the judicial branch to do.

Oh, OK. In Canada we have a "not-withstanding" clause that the provinces can use to set aside (generalizing here) laws that they simply don't want to deal with. This sounded similar, just on a larger scale.

Either way, it's an cheesy grandstanding end-run.

 

[Everdredbanned]

Article III Section 2 of the United States Constitution:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

 

[teh_pwn]

What a bunch of homophobes.

"1. Our country needs more young people to support us when we are old. Ex: Japan which has a declining population and that can be a problem later on. Gay marriages obviously won't promote having more kids."

ROFL. Do you honestly believe that gays will magically become straight and have kids if gay marriages are banned.

And wait...declining population is bad for Japan? Huh? They've got like a living space of car for homes. wtf.

If anything, population needs to decrease in the world until we have the recycling technologies to keep things clean.

If anything, gay marriage will just reduce sexual promiscuity. A benefit.

"2. Having two parents of different genders would be better than having two parents of the same gender. However, I don't think there's really any real study into this. A lot of the research being thrown around are not in context. Ex: one of my school profs complained about the use of his work."

Marriage doesn't have to mean having children. Seperate issues. But I agree children shoud have a traditional family.




I can't believe people actually consider this an issue! Who the hell cares what gays do in their bedroom?

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

maybe al-qaeda has disguised their operatives as homosexual partners and plan to rig a massive explosion at the local city halls when they get amrried? is that why all these pols are so worried?

 

[Phoenix]

Oh, OK. In Canada we have a "not-withstanding" clause that the provinces can use to set aside (generalizing here) laws that they simply don't want to deal with. This sounded similar, just on a larger scale.

Either way, it's an cheesy grandstanding end-run.

Here in the states we have 3 branches of government with different sets of powers and they are the legislative (generic politicians), executive (president and his cronies), and judicial (legal folks up to the supreme court). Our system of checks and balances 'generally' prevents any one from acting out of turn. Even when we went to war with Iraq it was something that had to go before the legislative branch and was reviewed by people in the judicial. That's just the way things work.

The legislative branch is free to make any laws that they want and people are within their rights to challenge any of them via the judicial branch (as was evident with the pledge case). The judicial branch contains the high court in the states - the supreme court who's real role is to make sure that there are no major violations of the constitution. You'll rarely find something go to the SC that isn't a core constitutional question. Think of them as 'the wise elders' from your favorite fantasy or sci-fi novel.

The states have certain jurisdiction within their own borders to the extent that it isn't something that is a federal law or something that doesn't go beyond their borders. If it does - the federal courts trump the state courts and the states pretty much have to bend over. This will be a rights and discrimination issue which is not protected nor can be protected by the constitution (though you may end up going to court over it as was the case during the civil rights days). As such, the legislative branch can go and smoke a joint and pump their chest about being able to restrict the rights of folks - however the SC will strike it down.

When it comes to certain things at the state level (like taxes, survivor benefits, etc.), the states are within their rights to be assholes. But generally, these things quickly get elevated to federal status under a constitutional violation of some sort and get struck down. That's the way it works in the states.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Isn't it sickening that something based on love is being deal with words such as Ban, Defense, and War?

 

[Mumbles]

There is no precedent being set here. Its not a law and if by some twist of fate it becomes a law it is easily struck down. The legislative branch CANNOT set precedent - that's for the judicial branch to do.

Well, it doesn't set precedent that would apply to all laws automatically, but it certainly would set a precedent if the courts found that this law was constitutional.

And just to equivocate, this would set a bad precedent for congressional behavior if it were allowed to stand, as well.

Would somebody please kick the people behind this out of office? They don't seem to understand what exactly makes the US government as good as it is, so they really don't belong in any government office.

"Marriage is under attack."

I have yet to see a reason why a few gay people getting married would effect anything significantly, apart from bettering their own lives and those of the children that they're raising. In fact, most of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage are really half-assed versions of arguments in favor of gay marriage.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Did anybody see the Daily Show's Repulican Equation of Gay Marraige?

EDIT: See Link a couple posts down.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I have yet to see a reason why a few gay people getting married would effect anything significantly, apart from bettering their own lives and those of the children that they're raising. In fact, most of the arguments I've heard against gay marriage are really half-assed versions of arguments in favor of gay marriage.

That's because there are no good reasons why they shouldn't get married...Well unless you want to believe Pat Robertson on proof of why it's evil:

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993, ignoring the facts that the Nazis killed homosexuals as ruthlessly as they did Jews and that Satanim emerged with Anton Szandor LaVey"

"If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, August 6, 1998, on the occasion of the Orlando, Florida, Gay Pride Festival 199"

 

[videogamer]

What a bunch of homophobes.

"1. Our country needs more young people to support us when we are old. Ex: Japan which has a declining population and that can be a problem later on. Gay marriages obviously won't promote having more kids."

ROFL. Do you honestly believe that gays will magically become straight and have kids if gay marriages are banned.

And wait...declining population is bad for Japan? Huh? They've got like a living space of car for homes. wtf.

If anything, population needs to decrease in the world until we have the recycling technologies to keep things clean.

If anything, gay marriage will just reduce sexual promiscuity. A benefit.

"2. Having two parents of different genders would be better than having two parents of the same gender. However, I don't think there's really any real study into this. A lot of the research being thrown around are not in context. Ex: one of my school profs complained about the use of his work."

Marriage doesn't have to mean having children. Seperate issues. But I agree children shoud have a traditional family.




I can't believe people actually consider this an issue! Who the hell cares what gays do in their bedroom?

Oh, and central to her argument was that marriage was a government-given right, not one that everyone should have. I guess that was to contrast with incestual relationships.

 

[teh_pwn]

I don't care what her argument is.

 

[Socreges]

The Daily Show's hilarious take on the Gay Marriage bullshit.

Realplayer required. But the quality is very good.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

The Daily Show's hilarious take on the Gay Marriage bullshit.

Realplayer required. But the quality is very good.

Thanks man.

 

[Matt]

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Please, that quote does not meant congress can make a law preventing people from challenging something in federal court. And even if it did (which it does not,) the SC get’s to interpret the Constitution, and they’re certainly not going to interpret it in a way that would allow this to happen.

 

[Everdredbanned]

It grants Congress the power to restrict the cases for which the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. What else could it mean but that which it states?

 

[Ripclawe]

Please, that quote does not meant congress can make a law preventing people from challenging something in federal court. And even if it did (which it does not,) the SC get’s to interpret the Constitution, and they’re certainly not going to interpret it in a way that would allow this to happen.

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The supreme court is not the end all.

 

[Wolfy]

Conservatives should be pushing this as a states right issue, ironically enough that's what Kerry is doing.

 

[Matt]

It grants Congress the power to restrict the cases for which the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. What else could it mean but that which it states?

Well, just to start, the Supreme Court is not the only federal court...

 

[Ripclawe]

Conservatives should be pushing this as a states right issue, ironically enough that's what Kerry is doing.

The argument against that is if one state recognizes then that couple will sue other states to recognize it as well. so the state right issue doesn't work so well.

 

[Matt]

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The supreme court is not the end all.

Umm, the part you bolded means that the congress can create lower courts when nedded. Nothing else.

 

[Ripclawe]

Umm, the part you bolded means that the congress can create lower courts when nedded. Nothing else.

what you create you can take away

the setup is there for anyone who wants to turn it around on the courts.

 

[Matt]

what you create you can take away

the setup is there for anyone who wants to turn it around on the courts.

Actually, no, that’s not true.

...Are you insane? I mean, seriously, are you advocating the disbandment of Federal Courts to fit an insane Republican agenda, which would only have to happen because this Bill is, in fact, unconstitutional? Are you insane? Please, tell me you are, because I would feel soooo much better.

 

[AniHawk]

The Daily Show's hilarious take on the Gay Marriage bullshit.

Realplayer required. But the quality is very good.

"Two straight parents is better than one straight parent which is better than two gay parents which is equal to a guy screwing a turtle."

Haha! That cracked me up.

 

[maharg]

Oh, OK. In Canada we have a "not-withstanding" clause that the provinces can use to set aside (generalizing here) laws that they simply don't want to deal with. This sounded similar, just on a larger scale.

Either way, it's an cheesy grandstanding end-run.

Just want to note that the not-withstanding clause is not a carte-blanche. It allows the provinces to pass bills violating very specific parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the part of our constitution that deals with civil liberties). Specifically, things like freedom of expression and the general equality rights (but not equality between men and women).

Also, a bill with the notwithstanding clause in it (and it must be explicitly stated in the bill) has to have a 5 year sunset, which means it has to be re-enacted by the legislature in those 5 years. This means that using it without it being extremely popular to do so virtually gaurantees the party that tries it will be out on their ass within 4 years and the bill within 5. And even in Alberta, home of the Canadian rednecks, the notwithstanding clause has been extremely unpopular every time it's been brought up, which was specifically wrt two-tier health care and gay marriage.

Now, I'm pretty sure the striking down of the wording of gay marriage in Ontario was based on the male/female equality afforded in section 28, which is not overridable with the notwithstanding clause, so I don't think even Alberta could make it go away in the long run.

Mostly, I think it was Quebec that wanted the notwithstanding clause, and it's Quebec that uses it. In fact, for a while, Quebec was passing EVERY bill with the Clause as a sort of protest to being part of canada, but I guess it got tedious because they stopped. Probably the only national instance of the use of such a thing (but this was before the Charter, in its predecessor document) was the War Measures Act by Trudeau during the FLQ crisis.

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., the bill's author, likened the Supreme Court to the Soviet Politburo. "As few as five people in black robes can look at a particular issue and determine for the rest of us, insinuate for the rest of us that they are speaking as the majority will. They are not," Hostettler said.

High courts are intended to provide a balance to 'majority will'. How the hell does someone get so high up in a government without knowing that? There should be a test for legistlaters.

 

[xsarien]

Um, maybe I'm forgetting my fucking junior high civics, but I'm fairly certain that the legislative branch can't dictate to the judicial branch on what they can and cannot judge.

That whole "seperation of powers" thing that's in the Constitution...

 

[Phoenix]

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The supreme court is not the end all.

Well since there is no super supreme court - I'd say yes it is It is THE court for deciding any issues as these and it cannot be overridden, which is one of the reasons why people are so iffy about presidents appointing judges to the supreme court.

 

[Ripclawe]

Um, maybe I'm forgetting my fucking junior high civics, but I'm fairly certain that the legislative branch can't dictate to the judicial branch on what they can and cannot judge.

That whole "seperation of powers" thing that's in the Constitution...

Lots of proposals over the years on "court stripping" few have passed though.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112909-3346r.htm

...But bill supporters noted that Congress has stripped courts before, including in 2002, when it passed legislation pushed by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, that prohibited federal courts from hearing lawsuits challenging brush clearing in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

also seems to be one in relation to immigration.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/columns/fl.guttentag.immigration.09.19/

Court-stripping provisions
Various provisions of IIRIRA dictated that there "shall be no appeal" or that "no court shall have jurisdiction" to review deportation orders issued against many immigrants. The impact of these "court-stripping" provisions was immediate. Attorney General Janet Reno issued a legal ruling that another immigration amendment, enacted by AEDPA, applied retroactively to mandate the deportation of many longtime legal permanent residents who were, in the past, convicted of minor criminal offenses.

 

[xsarien]

...But bill supporters noted that Congress has stripped courts before, including in 2002, when it passed legislation pushed by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, that prohibited federal courts from hearing lawsuits challenging brush clearing in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

Night and day, apples and oranges, environmental conservation and basic civil rights.

The forests neer the Black Hills is very specific case, whereas the whole gay marriage thing started because gay couples were (re)defining the term, and forced politicians to think about whether or not they're willing to grant recognition to two men or two women who want to get married.

 

[Phoenix]

Night and day, apples and oranges, environmental conservation and basic civil rights.

The forests neer the Black Hills is very specific case, whereas the whole gay marriage thing started because gay couples were using (re)defining the term, and forced politicians to think about whether or not they're willing to grant recognition to two men or two women who want to get married.

Even more night and day that that - these WERE NOT CHALLENGED in the supreme court. As with the pledge thingy and the 10 commandments issue a few months back - laws can be passed and they will be upheld UNTIL such time as they are brought through the appeals process to the supreme court. If the SC feels that it is not a constitutional issue, it won't hear the case. If it is, it can overrule anything anyone in the legislative branch pushes as law.

That's the way the system works.

 

[Matt]

Even more night and day that that - these WERE NOT CHALLENGED in the supreme court. As with the pledge thingy and the 10 commandments issue a few months back - laws can be passed and they will be upheld UNTIL such time as they are brought through the appeals process to the supreme court. If the SC feels that it is not a constitutional issue, it won't hear the case. If it is, it can overrule anything anyone in the legislative branch pushes as law.

That's the way the system works.

You know Phoenix, sometimes I think we’re the only ones on this board that have actually read the damm constitution.

 

[Phoenix]

Lots of proposals over the years on "court stripping" few have passed though.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-112909-3346r.htm

This could have been challenged, but it is not a SC juris issue. This is something that hardly qualifies as stripping as this is firmly a state issue.

also seems to be one in relation to immigration.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/columns/fl.guttentag.immigration.09.19/

The constitution does not apply to immigrants and the SC would not be able to review rights for someone for which it has no jurisdiction to review those rights. The const. applies to the rights of Americans, not people who come into America and 'live here'.

 

[Ripclawe]

The point is it can be done and if this passes the senate because of the narrow scope(DOMA) it would work, the problem then becomes state courts who have the final say. Then you end up with one state saying yes and another saying no.

 

[fart]

reading ripclawe's posts is like pulling a toddler's water wings off for the first time and tossing him into the pool

not that i've ever done that...