Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66
Sarcasm in text is soooo easily interpreted...
Usually why I include some comment to make it so clear...
Yeah. How often does that ACTUALLY get done cnredd?
The miscegenation laws were on the books in the vast majority of states. (Possibly every state).
Ballot measures typically get challenged AFTER they have already been approved. If it gets challenged before, it's typically because of some logistic technique (like some state constitutions evidently require state amendments to only deal with one specific issue).
More like California doing business like every other state in the union.
Can you name me any state that does business like you discuss?
Any state that struck down a law as "unconstitutional" BEFORE it was actually approved by vote?
Your criticism applies to all 50 states. Not just "california"...
I agree.
At the moment, I'm questioning the grounds by which somebody would appeal it to SCOTUS in the first place.
We're talking about making the jump from a state decision, to the federal government saying that it can't recognize a specific issue as a "right".
State / Federal rights are obviously invoked...
Wasn't there already an attempt to do this with Massachusetts that got shot down? |
WASHINGTON, November 29, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The US Supreme Court rejected Monday a bid challenging the Massachusetts law allowing same-sex "marriage." The Court declined the hearing without comment.
In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state government to rewrite marriage laws to include same-sex couples. Since the decision, approximately 3,000 same-sex Massachusetts couples have 'married'. Robert Largess, Vice President of the Catholic Action League, along with eleven Massachusetts legislators launched the suit. Their initial challenge, heard at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, was lost.
US Supreme Court Rejects Massachusetts Gay "Marriage" Challenge
But as they say, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. "La-la-la-la-la! La-la" oh! Where was I? 
Seriously, there will be another fight to have a U.S. amendment. Hide and watch. But by then, enough ground will have been covered state wise, to throw it back to the SC. Then they will throw it back as a state responsibility, is my guess. For what it's worth.