Endowing marriage on existing gay couples but not new ones - violation of equal protection?

[blueclown]

Am I missing something here?

This seems so simple, even to a law novice such as me.

Somebody want to give me a hand here.

We need to try for a proposition next year, and if that fails, this needs to be petitioned to the SCOTUS. I think we will have 4 solid votes there, with Kennedy being the big question mark.

[jgraz]

1. Clearly. But don't count on the Puke-dominated SCOTUS to give a shit.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

3. How about outlawing divorce.

Marrige is supposed to be for life.

[xultar]

4. Even eviler...much better. What should we call it?

[JamesA1102]

5. The Defense of Marrige Act nt

[billyoc]

6. (Revisited)

[jgraz]

7. Make it retroactive

Everybody, return to your original partner!

[JamesA1102]

15. Then Newt and Rush would have to...

go back to their first wives.

[dorktv]

19. Hey! Why make them suffer more?

[Oregone]

13. Fundies would love that! Battered women, eh, not so much.

[Neecy]

14. oooooh, I like that.

1 person 1 marriage - brilliant!

[DrToast]

8. If you invoke equal protection

Then wouldn't the remedy be to invalidate the marriages done prior to Prop 8 since the law today says gay marriage is illegal?

Not sure what good that would do.

[blueclown]

10. I believe last year's 4-3 decision essentially stated that gays were entitled to the rights

of marriage as opposite sex couples.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[DrToast]

11. But that was because of the California Constitution

And Prop 8 changed the Constitution.

[blueclown]

12. No, the Prop 8 ruling simply stated that prospectively that these rights...

... could not be called marriage.

It did not deny that the rights to the benefits of "marriage" could be extended to gay couples. It states that those rights could not be defined under the legal definition known as marriage, however.

[slackmaster]

9. Sexual orientation does not define a federally recognized protected class

I think it should, and then your argument would have a leg to stand on.

[kwenu]

16. No bullshit. Your focus should be on the referendum and convincing people that freedom is not a

privilege but rather something that belongs to all people of all orientations. Sexual orientation is not legally protected so stop leading yourselves to shortcuts that won't get you anywhere. There is nothing remarkable about the court decision. They did what they had to do even though they didn't like it.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Like convincing 1850s Georgia that slavery was wrong

You just have to win the hearts and minds...


:puke:

[kwenu]

18. I don't know about all of that but you have to get some law to base a decision on.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. I would probably start with the 14th Amendment.

Maybe go from there?


:crazy:

[kwenu]

21. Well perhaps you can go to the 2nd Amendment too and buy your own nuclear weapon.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. Nah. Just equal protection under the law

A gay couple of 20 years should not have to file "single" on Federal Tax Returns. It is an issue of fairness, and the Constitution overrides any DOMA silliness.

[kwenu]

23. I think there is more to the desire to get married than tax breaks but

the issue remains the same. The best shot is to get the California Constitution changed. I am certain that lawyers for the GLBT community will strategize to pursue that goal.