2 men to ask court for right to marry under Constitution

[question everything]

2 men to ask court for right to marry under Constitution

Groups deem effort futile, won't back it

By David Kravets
ASSOCIATED PRESS

April 4, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO – Two gay California men will ask a federal appeals court this week to declare they have a right to marry under the U.S. Constitution, but heavyweights in the fight for same-sex marriage are sitting this one out because they think the legal tactic is misguided.

(snip)

Lambda, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are waging their campaigns in the state courts of California, Iowa, Washington, New Jersey, New York and elsewhere, seeking rulings similar to the one that led to legal gay marriage in Massachusetts. The groups are withholding funding and other support for this case because a U.S. Supreme Court ruling at this juncture is a likely loser given the national consensus against gay marriage, and it's likely to set bad precedent, they say.

(snip)

The lawsuit is already one stop short of the Supreme Court – meaning the case could prompt a definitive ruling by the justices as early as next year on whether the 49 states that don't permit same-sex marriage are violating the Constitution.

The conventional wisdom among many same-sex marriage advocates is that gays and lesbians must win the right to marry in several states before asking the Supreme Court to rule on whether the Constitution prohibits laws opposing it.

(snip)

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060404/news_1n4marry.html

[BOSSHOG]

1. There request has merit

If same sex marriage is not now constitutional, why does the constitution have to be amended to prevent such unions? I can see no other ruling. And if that is the ruling, state laws are trumped. That's my amateur legal interpretation for the day.

[Atman]

2. Dangerous move.

What if SCOTUS takes the case?

And what if these guys aren't really a couple at all, but just a couple of phoney Log Cabiners, looking to force a ruling from the SCOTUS before it's time?

[Sammy Pepys]

3. I don't quite understand what the argument is.

What exactly is being cited in the Constitution?

I think if the USSC does hear it they may deny the case, but on the grounds that the couple isn't citing the proper source.

I also think that if there was something to this argument, it would've already been used at this point.

[qazplm]

4. I would guess they are arguing

equal protection, being allowed to get married and not being discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

No Supreme Court has ever gone that far so there is no precedent there of course.

[AllegroRondo]

5. Also gender discrimination

ie - a man is not allowed to do the same thing a woman can do (marry a man) simply because of his gender.