Maryland to Allow Same-Sex Marriages?

[Cuivienen]

Well, that settles it. I'm not voting for any democrats and such in the state elections.

It's a court case. Maryland is not California, which passed the law without court incentive (though the governor vetoed it). Your politicians have virtually no control over what the court decides.



And good job for the Maryland court system. Another state finally beginning to realize the unbigoted solution.

 

[pajarito79]

Actually, legislation got rid of racial discrimination...not judges. Judges cant give equal rights to anyone...they dont legislate or create law. You are somewhat misinformed on how things work I think.

So segregation laws weren't declared unconstitutional by judges? Interesting... (Hint: Google "Brown Vs. Board of Education")

Back on topic, it is the Judge's job to determine if a law violates the constitution. Judge Murdock determined that Maryland's law banning same-sex marriage was in violation of their constitution. She did her job. Gay couples aren't getting married in Maryland, just as we weren't getting married in Nebraska a couple months back when out own constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions (Of any type) was thrown out as unconstitutional. A ruling or law must first pass in order to allow gay couples access to marriage liscences.

This changes nothing except removing bigotry from the law books. Score one for the good guys.

 

[Cuivienen]

Actually, legislation got rid of racial discrimination...not judges. Judges cant give equal rights to anyone...they dont legislate or create law. You are somewhat misinformed on how things work I think.

No, you are the misinformed one. Judicial decisions can essentially force legislation to be passed as happened in Massachusetts when same-sex marriages were legalized there.

Also, as pajarito79 pointed out, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas was the most important political aspect of the end of segregation - and it was a court case.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Uhm...no its not. Its not a judges job to "strike it down" based upon a single man's opinion. Its the modern day phenomena of judges legislating from the bench.

Apparently, someone has never heard of a little case called "Marbury v Madison"...

 

[blackheart]

More legislation by a single man from a judges bench. Judges who overrule legislation like this need to be removed. A single man should never, ever, have this type of power in the United States.

You need to take a refresher course in government. So, please do before you revert back to the overused cry of politically charged judges and how corrupt and horrible they are for doing their intended jobs.

 

[The Yankee]

Thats where you and I the voter come in. We should vote people out if they will not act on such blatent unconstitutional issues.

Then what would be the point of this circuit of judges?

You're right, a state constitutional amendment would overrule the decision. So would a successful appeal.

But until then, this is the ruling...

 

[Bozo Erectus]

With the conservative, right wing Supreme Court we're going to have for the next 30 years or so? Forget it, gay marriage is dead on arrival.

 

[The Yankee]

With the conservative, right wing Supreme Court we're going to have for the next 30 years or so? Forget it, gay marriage is dead on arrival.

Hmm...so if a Supreme Court decision throws out laws in some states, passed or by judicial ruling (for the sake of argument, let's say it comes from a case on an ambigous law, not one that says no gay couples can marry), would that also be judicial activism?

 

[Cuivienen]

Hmm...so if a Supreme Court decision throws out laws in some states, passed or by judicial ruling (for the sake of argument, let's say it comes from a case on an ambigous law, not one that says no gay couples can marry), would that also be judicial activism?

Not only that, but it would be violating the 10th Amendment. States have sole jurisdiction over marriage unless a different amendment decides otherwise. Of course, the lawyers would probably just whip out Interstate Commerce, the universal solution when you have nothing else. However, if all states with legal gay marriage had the residency clause as Massachusetts does, the Interstate Commerce argument becomes weaker.

 

[RameNoodle]

Sometimes, state constitutions are stupid. This is one of those times. Gays should not get married, because how would you feel if your only son turned out to be gay, and he never produced a grandchild for you because he had butt sex instead of normal sex, and your family line died out? Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Elrohir]

I fail to see how not allowing gays to marry violates an anti-gender discrimination clause. Can anyone explain that to me, or is it equally incomprehensible to everyone else?

EDIT:

Not only that, but it would be violating the 10th Amendment. States have sole jurisdiction over marriage unless a different amendment decides otherwise. Of course, the lawyers would probably just whip out Interstate Commerce, the universal solution when you have nothing else. However, if all states with legal gay marriage had the residency clause as Massachusetts does, the Interstate Commerce argument becomes weaker.

Well, to get Interstate Commerce to apply to this situation, you would have to get the courts to accept that when the Founding Father's said "goods" they meant "goods" and "people", too, in which case Congress's power is virtually unlimited, as it can affect pretty much any part of anyone's life who crosses state lines.

 

[GenMarshall]

Ditto.

I am hoping and praying that Maryland will ban same-gender marrage and preserve the tradition of marrage of between a man and a woman.

 

[The Yankee]

EDIT:

Well, to get Interstate Commerce to apply to this situation, you would have to get the courts to accept that when the Founding Father's said "goods" they meant "goods" and "people", too, in which case Congress's power is virtually unlimited, as it can affect pretty much any part of anyone's life who crosses state lines.

I don't see why Interstate Commerce wouldn't apply. It was used to finally break the last of the segregation laws in the South even after Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed. and the use of the National Guard and everyone else to enforce desegregation at some places.

 

[The Yankee]

Ditto.

I am hoping and praying that Maryland will ban same-gender marrage and preserve the tradition of marrage of between a man and a woman.

I still don't get the tradition thing. There was a tradition of marriages between one man and several women.

But, let's see how this all plays out.

I do wonder if this will spark a movement to put something like this on the ballot this November.

 

[MobBoss]

Now forgive me, but is it not part of a judge's job to uphold the constitution? If a law passed by the legislator violates the constitution (regardless of how effective or moral you feel that piece of legislation is) and a judge is asked to give his or her opinion as to whether or not the constitution had been violated, how can you verbally reprimand the judge for doing her job?

First of all, two separate Judges can have a variety of opinions on whether a law is constitutional or not. Agreed? If so, then why put such power in the hands of a single person who may very well be wrong?

Sorry, our system was never meant to put such power into a single persons hands.

 

[The Yankee]

First of all, two separate Judges can have a variety of opinions on whether a law is constitutional or not. Agreed? If so, then why put such power in the hands of a single person who may very well be wrong?

Sorry, our system was never meant to put such power into a single persons hands.

But this judge isn't the be-all and end-all of this process. Another solitary judge will get to look at this. And all the way at the top, you have nine!

 

[MobBoss]

So segregation laws weren't declared unconstitutional by judges? Interesting... (Hint: Google "Brown Vs. Board of Education")

Thats not what I said. They can declare them unconstitutional, however, it still takes legislation from congress to address the matter. This from Brown vs Board:

The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the permissive or mandatory segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. [13] It was a giant step towards complete desegregation of public schools. Even partial desegregation of these schools, however, was still very far away, as would soon become apparent.

The various states still had to address the matter in congress.

 

[MobBoss]

No, you are the misinformed one. Judicial decisions can essentially force legislation to be passed as happened in Massachusetts when same-sex marriages were legalized there.

Also, as pajarito79 pointed out, Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas was the most important political aspect of the end of segregation - and it was a court case.

Judicial decisions cant force legislation. Thats not how it works. Just like in Brown the court couldnt "force" anything else to happen...it was years before de-segragation actually became law.

 

[CartesianFart]

Judicial decisions cant force legislation.

Judicial decision can 'uphold' legislation that deems unconstitutional.It depend on that governing body [judges]on the merit of wisdom of the day. or the judge

 

[Goonie]

First of all, two separate Judges can have a variety of opinions on whether a law is constitutional or not. Agreed? If so, then why put such power in the hands of a single person who may very well be wrong?

Sorry, our system was never meant to put such power into a single persons hands.

Appeal ?