Skip to main content

View Diary: Prop H8 Ruling Threatens Gay Marriage Bans Across the Nation (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am responding to what I quoted (0+ / 0-)

    read your own words

    "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

    by teacherken on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:54:18 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  which words I stands by. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Killer of Sacred Cows, JackND

      I wrote them, after all. As far as the only constitutional law on point as of this moment (ie, the Perry decision) those bans are now suspect.

      Nothing in that implies that they are automatically overturned or that the decision is binding outside the jurisdiction of the court issuing it.

      •  then reread these: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Captain Sham, yella dawg, valion

        every one of those initiatives are, as a matter of federal constitutional law as of this very moment, impermissible denials

        that statement is wrong as a matter of law.  It was that to which I was responding.

        Had the passage I just blockquote instead read  "every one of those initiatives are, as a matter of federal constitutional law as of this very moment, very much in question"   or "every one of those initiatives are, as a matter of federal constitutional law as of this very moment, very much in doubt"   I would not have posted my original comment.

        You described them as "impermissible denials"  which is not true until a court with jurisdiction over those states so rules.

        "what the best and wisest parent wants for his child is what we should want for all the children of the community" - John Dewey

        by teacherken on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:19:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree with your analysis. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ExStr8, JackND

          They ARE under this precdedent impermissible denials, until another federal court overturns or distinguishes this decision and establishes a precedent that they do not deny due process or equal protection and upholds them.  Until that point, this court's reasoning on the merits IS the applicable law for federal court consideration of how the constitution applies to state gay marriage bans, binding in that circuit (yet) or not.  Accept or reject it, every federal court will have to contend with the reasoning of this decision on the merits.

          Thus, I don't think my characterization is wrong "as a matter of law."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site