Mass. Supreme Court Rules - Gay Couples have the Right to Marry

FoxNews | 11-18-03 | FoxNews

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

Mass. Supreme Court rules that illegal for state to deny marriage license to gay couples.

[jwalsh07]

Yeah my bad, Article 3, Section 2 states:

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.

Which you conveniently left out of your prior post. Possibly the hubris in your eye distorting your vision.

[jwalsh07]

This has nothing to do with controlling the judiciary, and everything with determining what cases they can hear.

That would be correct Everet and determining what cases the judiciary can hear is de facto control.

[puroresu]

#####Perhaps you should save your histrionics for something you understand. You spend a lot of time talking about our Founding Fathers. In this instance, they have little relevance. The state court was interpreting a provision of the state consitution as it related to a state law. Given these facts, there is no role for the federal judiciary in the MA court's determination. This might make you mad, but your only recourse is to move to MA and vote for new Legislators and, perhaps, a constitutional amendment.#####


Oh, I think I understand the law quite well, thank you. We all know these little state mini-fiats by "liberal" courts are part of an effort to force gay marriage on the entire country by demanding that the other states recognize marriage contracts from the states that permit gay marriage.

But if you're so familiar with the Massachusetts state constitution, I'm sure you'll have no trouble whatsoever documenting when a provision banning the state from limiting marriage to one man and one woman was ratified. Surely such a provision would have triggered a heated debate, yet there seems to be no record of it ever occurring. When did the voters and/or legislature put a right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts state constitution?

If there is no record of such a thing, then this is just one more case of judges "interpreting" a constitutional provision to mean something it cannot possibly mean. And in fact, the provision in question would not have been ratified had anyone in their wildest dreams believed it could lead to gay marriage.

The solution to this nonsense is a federal marriage amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. It's a shame we have to resort to that, but this dishonest campaign to force gay marriage on the country must end. It's being carried out by engineering state judicial fiats in places where the courts are dominated by out-of-control leftists, with the hope of forcing the other states to comply via a federal judicial fiat to come later. That's obviously what's occurring, and I'm sorry if you can't see that.

[jwalsh07]

Congress also can control the Judiciary through the purse and by expanding or contracting federal seats on the judiciary. But you knew that, right?

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

I bold the important part.

Yep, I read that.

Consider...

Amendment XIV to the United (I first typed "Untied" - maybe it's headed that way, at least psychologically?) States Constitution reads in pertinent part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What will be argued my friend is that, while the Congress may have the authority you mentioned, it is considered null and void when taken in totality - which is, alas, how this stuff has to be read - with the due process clause of the Constitution.

For to enforce the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution in this regard will be framed as forcing the states to enforce laws that will deny people the equal protection of the law - the very underpinning of the argument made by the majority in today's ruling by the Supreme Judithal Circus.

That being incongruous with the meaning outlined in Amendment XIV, and as placed forward as legal precedent in countless Supreme Court rulings, will force the issue.

Is there any wonder the liberal swine want to frame this as a civil rights issue? The agenda ought to be crystal clear now.

The Defense of Marriage Act is not a fortress, it is but a mere defensive stop line that will be overrun by the battalions of evil.

The fortress is a clear, unequivocable, precisely worded Constitutional Amendment.

[jwalsh07]

I bold the important part. Congress can determine the effect thereof. If you are correct, and pro-gay forces attempt to make all states abide by MA's law, Congress can merely pass a law making gay marriage laws inapplicable in no state but that of origin.

The full faith and credit clause is disjunctive and therefore susceptible to 5 penumbral votes on the SCOTUS. SCOTUS recently ignored precedent in Bowers to wax poetically about "transcendent liberty" in Lawrence.

Looking to SCOTUS as a bulwark for judicial activism is akin to looking toward Karl MArx for individual rights.

[jwalsh07]

Everet, here is where you started:

The Constitution makes no provision for "controlling" the judiciary.

Here is what it has evolved to:

Again, this has nothing to do with controlling how the judicary makes it decisions.

Concede the point that your original statement was wrong and move on to the next point of contention.

[The Red Zone]

O-TAY! NEXT: END BIGOTRRY AGAINST BIGAMISTS!

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

As I've stated before, you are describing jurisdictional provisions of the Constitution. This has nothing to do with controlling the judiciary, and everything with determining what cases they can hear. With regard to state laws, the Congress has no power to give the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions on the interpretation of state constitutions.

I'll deal with the second point first as it's easy to dispatch. I don't disagree with you. I think you continue to make my case why amending the Consitution is vital. A marriage definition Amendment would indeed give the Supreme Court jurisdiction - at such point were one to be enacted - over such rediculousness. And the jurisdiction would be RETROACTIVE! (Laws cannot continue that are in direct contravention to the Constitution, even if enacted in the past. Unconstitutionality is indeed ex post facto.)

Now the first point. Once again the Constitution:

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.

Darn tootin the Congress has control over the Judiciary. Just something they haven't asserted to often.

They get to establish everything except the Supreme Court. Except for the Constitutionally reserved jurisdictional elements of the Supreme Court, they get to define jurisdiction.

Through a little thing called appropriations - Article I stuff, you might have heard about it - Congress funds the Government. They are the only ones who can do so. They can defund the Judiciary.

I argue that if Congress can create "inferior courts" (the District and Circuit Courts), they can abolish them too. But even if you argue that Congress cannot abolish them because the Constitution gives them no clear writ to do so, it can certainly establish an appropriate level of funding with a nice round number: "$0".

Congress can very much control the judiciary. It is a power reserved to them by the Constitution, which is very clear on the subject.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

In all cases described in the preceding paragraph (i.e. cases arising under Constitution, Federal Law and Treaties) the supreme Court will have appellate jurisdiction except when Congress chooses to regulate otherwise.

See #493. Got it covered.

[jwalsh07]

If MA citizens dislike the result, it's up to them to amend their constitution in such a way that won't be susceptible to the court's interpretive methods.

Judges make new law.

Citizens must then endure a three year process to strike down a law made by 4 justices with a one justice majority?

Somehow, I don't think this was the republican form of government Madison, Jefferson and Mason had in mind.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

END BIGOTRRY AGAINST BIGAMISTS!

Nah, you're simply not thinking big enough here.

I say abolish all laws.

After all, laws are an abridgement of liberty in some form or another. We must not have that. We must have chaos!

Only through chaos can we truly be free.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

I've pointed out that Congress cannot control Court decisions, only its jursidiction.

If you control jurisdiction, don't you then have an opportunity, moving forward, to control decisions?

Or is it that my elevator doesn't go high enough?

[jwalsh07]

I would suggest you read the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003 for an idea on how Congress can and does control what the SCOTUS can and can't do. It is actually very well written and makes clear to the SCOTUS that Congress and not the courts are the decision maker on matters of fact in certain matters. In fact it states quite clearly that Congress has no obligation to accept findings of fact by Circuit Courts.

Would that be exerting control on the courts?