It keeps happening: Alaska's gay marriage ban struck down - Polidicks

[url]http://www.adn.com/article/20141012/federal-judge-rules-alaskas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional[/url] [quote]A federal judge ruled Sunday that Alaska's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, paving the way for gay couples to begin marrying in the state for the first time. "The court finds that Alaska's ban on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize same sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess wrote in a order in the case Hamby v. Parnell, released Sunday. The Hamby suit was filed in May by five same-sex couples. It challenged the state's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, approved by voters in 1998.[/quote]

Why can't these federal judges just make it a blanket thing instead of a state thing? It's been ruled SEVERAL times that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, so why doesn't it just became federal law that you can't ban homosexuals from getting married?

[QUOTE=Karishnikova;46217817]Why can't these federal judges just make it a blanket thing instead of a state thing? It's been ruled SEVERAL times that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, so why doesn't it just became federal law that you can't ban homosexuals from getting married?[/QUOTE] it's going to happen no matter what, may as well get it done with but personally I guess I'd rather states were ready I'd rather it happened when people were ready for it. Not all at once where we'll get some dumbfucks starting a mob or something EDIT: Actually fuck them they can have their mobs gay marriage should have been a thing a long, long time ago

[QUOTE=Karishnikova;46217817]Why can't these federal judges just make it a blanket thing instead of a state thing? It's been ruled SEVERAL times that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, so why doesn't it just became federal law that you can't ban homosexuals from getting married?[/QUOTE] That's what's happening though. People are bringing that fact to the attention of judges who rule on these state laws.

[QUOTE=Karishnikova;46217817]Why can't these federal judges just make it a blanket thing instead of a state thing? It's been ruled SEVERAL times that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, so why doesn't it just became federal law that you can't ban homosexuals from getting married?[/QUOTE] Because none of the federal judges that have given these rulings are allowed to do that. There are three tiers of general federal courts: the district courts, the courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. The District Courts have very limited jurisdiction - in this case, only Alaska, because that's what their district is. A ruling in a different district can be used as precedent, but not as case law. The Courts of Appeals are higher, and they also have been overturning these laws. The recent case where several states' laws were overturned came from a Court of Appeals ruling. There are thirteen "circuits", which are groups of districts, and once again, their rulings have no effect outside their jurisdiction. The only court that can actually overturn gay marriage bans nationally is the Supreme Court. They recently declined to hear appeals on the Fourth Circuit's ruling that the laws were unconstitutional. This had both good and bad effects - by refusing to hear the appeal, the ruling took effect immediately (the laws, though overturned, were still in effect pending the appeal), but by refusing to rule on it, they refused to legalize it nationally. My personal view is that the Supreme Court is realist enough to see that it's going to happen, but still conservative enough to not want to do it themselves. Or perhaps they just don't want to be seen as pushing an agenda - if they let each circuit slowly come to the decision that such laws are unconstitutional, they don't have to do anything, they just have to do nothing. It's harder for reactionaries to get upset that you didn't fight with them, than if you had fought against them.

Hopefully this paves the way for national legalization.

[QUOTE=Karishnikova;46217817]Why can't these federal judges just make it a blanket thing instead of a state thing? It's been ruled SEVERAL times that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, so why doesn't it just became federal law that you can't ban homosexuals from getting married?[/QUOTE] lol this guy doesn't know how the judicial system works

Any word from the resident russia watching republican nutball from said state?

[QUOTE=Karishnikova;46217817]Why can't these federal judges just make it a blanket thing instead of a state thing? It's been ruled SEVERAL times that it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, so why doesn't it just became federal law that you can't ban homosexuals from getting married?[/QUOTE] The decisions of higher courts are binding on all lower courts in the same judicial hierarchy.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;46218226]The decisions of higher courts are binding on all lower courts in the same judicial hierarchy.[/QUOTE] Ya but the decisions he's referring to are probably from the higher circuit court over in Ohio that legalized several states here on appeal. What they're saying is no higher court covering Alaska has had such a ruling

I wonder how Sarah Palin will react.

[QUOTE=Fangz;46218862]I wonder how Sarah Palin will react.[/QUOTE] She'll probably say that the ruling was incorrect because homosexuality isn't covered under the 14th amendment, and in reality, it isn't. This judge uses the 14th amendment, but sexuality isn't a "protected group", and therefore not covered under the 14th amendment. That's probably what she's going to say......

Man, 2014 has been a great year for gay marriage.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46218892]She'll probably say that the ruling was incorrect because homosexuality isn't covered under the 14th amendment, and in reality, it isn't. This judge uses the 14th amendment, but sexuality isn't a "protected group", and therefore not covered under the 14th amendment. That's probably what she's going to say......[/QUOTE] everything like that except she'll quote the 12th amendment and then the wrong part of the 14th

It's a miracle.

[QUOTE=Fangz;46218862]I wonder how Sarah Palin will react.[/QUOTE] I figured Sarah Palin was dead in a ditch somewhere by now

[QUOTE=Sableye;46218250]Ya but the decisions he's referring to are probably from the higher circuit court over in Ohio that legalized several states here on appeal. What they're saying is no higher court covering Alaska has had such a ruling[/QUOTE] Federal trumps State. States can use Federal decisions as precedence.

[QUOTE=Sableye;46218973]everything like that except she'll quote the 12th amendment and then the wrong part of the 14th[/QUOTE] As the first amendment to the constipation says, "thou shalt not gay marry", and that's all the law I need on the matter.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;46217910] My personal view is that the Supreme Court is realist enough to see that it's going to happen, but still conservative enough to not want to do it themselves. Or perhaps they just don't want to be seen as pushing an agenda - if they let each circuit slowly come to the decision that such laws are unconstitutional, they don't have to do anything, they just have to do nothing. It's harder for reactionaries to get upset that you didn't fight with them, than if you had fought against them.[/QUOTE] It's saving their skin, because they know it's going to happen and it's the popular option, but they aren't for certain that they would end up with the popular option as the ruling. SCOTUS doesn't like being on the "wrong side of history". This way they can skirt the blame for any decisions made and keep their hands clean.

I've always interpreted the 2nd amendment as the right to be held in a loving embrace by a large, hairy man. So I don't know why it's taken so long for us to embrace our right to bear arms as a nation.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46219600']It's saving their skin, because they know it's going to happen and it's the popular option, but they aren't for certain that they would end up with the popular option as the ruling. SCOTUS doesn't like being on the "wrong side of history". This way they can skirt the blame for any decisions made and keep their hands clean.[/QUOTE] Has one of these cases even been appealed to the Supreme Court yet?

I liked this comic that xkcd made: [img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/marriage.png[/img] There's really no reason for gay marriage to be illegal at this point. Well over 50% of the population approve of it, and it doesn't affect anybody who doesn't like it unless they choose to be offended because of some words in a book.

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;46219865]I liked this comic that xkcd made: [img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/marriage.png[/img] There's really no reason for gay marriage to be illegal at this point. Well over 50% of the population approve of it, and it doesn't affect anybody who doesn't like it unless they choose to be offended because of some words in a book.[/QUOTE] Was majority approval for interracial marriage seriously below 50% until [i]1995[/i]?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;46219929]Was majority approval for interracial marriage seriously below 50% until [i]1995[/i]?[/QUOTE] yeah that seems seriously fucked up

The states who fight this should be called out for what they're doing, wasting time. I'm really sick of hearing about this honestly, once it's struck down in one state for being unconstitutional, the rest should just give up.... But instead, they're fighting it as if they're the "last bastion of American freedom (to be a bigoted asshole)"

[QUOTE=Zeke129;46219929]Was majority approval for interracial marriage seriously below 50% until [i]1995[/i]?[/QUOTE] A family member of mine still doesn't agree with it, and we're not even American. It's absurd and something i'll never understand

I'm completely fine with same-sex marriage, which is a legal contract between the spouses. Everyone should have the right to it, and all the societal benefits it may bring them. Just don't go having a church wedding.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46221680] Just don't go having a church wedding.[/QUOTE] If the church agrees, why not?

[QUOTE=gufu;46222004]If the church agrees, why not?[/QUOTE] Then the church is not founded on traditional Christian values.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;46222142]Then the church is not founded on traditional Christian values, that's about it.[/QUOTE] Which one do you mean? Loving your next? You shall not judge? Please spell it out.