Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, and Virgina have filed amicus brief with the 9th circuit US Court of Appeals which states that the Constitution doesn't require marriage to include same-sex couples, and that individual States, not the Federal Courts, have the final say in whether to allow same-sex marriages.
www.kpvi.com/story.php?id=28529&n=15207

California isn't part of the States mentioned in the list above, so why is it that other States, the Mormon Church, and the Roman Catholic Church thinks they can control the State of California. I wonder how the States mentioned in the list above,the Mormon Church, and the Roman Catholic Church would feel if California controlled them.

It's whether the states have the right to PROHIBIT same-sex marriage.

First you have the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It's not up to the government to "grant" us rights, since the power, authority and right to govern originates with the people. We have many rights not specified in the Constitution. Some would argue we have ALL rights.

Then you have the 14th Amendment with its Equal Protection clause. Over and over, in various ways, the US Supreme Court has ruled states can't restrict the rights of various subgroups of citizens. One of the more directly relevant decisions was Loving v. Virginia that unanimously overturned state laws against mixed-race marriage. Quoting the decision:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Substitute "gender" for "race" and you have the fundamental argument.

The ten states are hoping federal courts will overturn long-established constitutional precedent.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2010 11:19AM by Stray Mutt.

"individual States, not the Federal Courts, have the final say"

Virginia should know better.

The highest court of the land ruled that the right to marry resides with the individual person, not the state or federal.

In 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that:

"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The same argument these states make now against same sex marriage was used in another century to make it unlawful for my marriage.

Some such as Dallin Oaks go on and on about state sovereignty, at the expense of individual rights.

as no doubt the other AG's are as well. The AG's can file whatever suits they like without the legislatures or governors approvals. A lot of this is grandstanding for their own narrow constituencies.

I agree, the Loving v. Virginia opinion seems very powerful. Some day these old dinosaur opponents (of whatever chronological age they may be) will be very embarrassed by their behavior.

Only behind the scenes.