Judge: No right to same-sex marriage

Depressing, but the fight goes on, and it doesn't look like we'll lose in the end.

 

^ Indeed.

Not quite sure how this'll totally reverse the ground made in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health (2003), but haters gonna hate, I suppose.

 

Sigh it's ridiculous but I guess we just have to wait for time to progress. -_-

 

Honestly even if a federal law was passed this will not be settled until the SCOTUS rules on it.

 

strange, because it is the role of the courts to determine constitutionality, and past rulings are not 100% impenetrable solid ground, because the world is not a static place, and situations and realities are ever changing.

The courts were created in part for the express purpose of constantly reviewing what has happened in the past.

 

As a general rule I think it's always wise for Courts to understand their limitations. There are certainly times when the Courts overstep their bounds and jump into the role of legislators, not as much as most like to believe, but it does happen. This is obviously not the case in this situation, I could go into a number of reasons why, but let's just dive right into the key points he makes in his ruling.

This, for me, cuts directly at the heart of his ruling. It is easily proven false.

They never actually heard the case, they simply issued a summary ruling. All they did was dismiss a challenge to a Minnesota Supreme Court decision upholding that state's ban under the federal Constitution. So it is very subjective, and highly debatable. Of course, this is why all this gay marriage stuff is moving toward the SCOTUS in the first place, and why they're almost certainly going to take it up.

This argument supposes that the constitutionality of our laws should take into account history and tradition. This is false and has never been the case. This is a weak argument.

This is false because the right to marry has already been established by the SCOTUS. This is how Loving v. Virginia was won. Other cases have gone before the SCOTUS, and again and again they've ruled in their favor. Marriage is a firmly established right in our laws.

Maynard v. Hill - (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Griswold v. Connecticut - (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

Loving v. Virginia - (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Boddie v. Connecticut - (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur - (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Moore v. City of East Cleveland - (1977): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”

Lawrence v. Texas - (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” <---- And this ruling here, Justice Kay, invalidates your rejection of “suspect classification” for LGBT people. Were we not a group that attracted hostility and bias toward it, Lawrence v. Texas would have never been necessary in the first place, and furthermore would have never fallen in our favor.

This is ridiculous for reasons that are easily disputed. Marriage is not restricted to procreative couples. You know this, Justice Kay, so unless you're a stupid man why even bother including this in your ruling? Furthermore, it overlooks the glaring fact that there are indeed gay couples raising children together in stable, long-term relationships. By this token alone, even if marriage was only given to child-rearing families it would STILL need to be extended to LGBT people.

What the legislature believes is irrelevant to the constitutionality of their laws. They can believe that children are best raised by aliens from the planet X'orprh - their beliefs are not relevant to the constitutionality of the law.

Doing things with caution is doing your job. If you believed that Baker v. Nelson held due to the SCOTUS summary ruling in 1972, that's one thing. It's debatable. You could have issued your ruling, but then in your judgment outlined why you felt the law was unconstitutional. You could have then issued a plea for a higher court to take up your 'cautious' ruling in order to see it passed onto the SCOTUS 'for clarification.'

You didn't do that Justice Kay. You didn't do that, because you wanted to deliver a slap to LGBT American's fighting for equal rights under the law - under the 14th Amendment. You know full well that your ruling is full of shit, and has more holes than swiss cheese. But you didn't care; you wanted to make a point.

Well you've made your point, Senior U.S. District Judge Alan C. Kay. It was heard loud and clear. I wouldn't expect any further advancements in your career, and should anything be written about you in a history book - be certain that you will be remembered for this... and you'll be reviled for it. Your descendants will look upon you with shame and humiliation.

Assuming, of course, that you are remembered at all; because in the end you've accomplished nothing. You have made a point, but it is a point that is destined to be reviled and overturned.

Enjoy still having an invitation to cocktail parties; I hope someone spits in your drink.

 

please, oh please write that in a letter to him!