Jeb Bush: Constitution doesn't grant a"right" to gay marriage

Displaced Bama Fan

Hall of Fame
Jun 5, 2000
23,344
39
167
Shiner, TX
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-jeb-bush-sees-no-constitutional-gay-marriage-010358140.html

I've read the Constitution a couple of times and I don't recall seeing anything spelled out on this. However, our Declaration of Independence does state "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That being said, I'm not sure the signers or the framers envisioned sodomy as an issue that would surface...or zoophilia for that matter.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,461
13,292
287
Hooterville, Vir.
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-jeb-bush-sees-no-constitutional-gay-marriage-010358140.html

I've read the Constitution a couple of times and I don't recall seeing anything spelled out on this. However, our Declaration of Independence does state "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That being said, I'm not sure the signers or the framers envisioned sodomy as an issue that would surface...or zoophilia for that matter.
You could make an argument that it is covered by the IX Amendment.

On the other hand, what the Constitution does not do is to delegate to the Federal government the power to overturn the sovereign constitution-making power of the peoples of the several states to define the issue.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
It's an absurd constitutional argument that the court is going to accept anyway. Can the states have gay marriage? Sure. Does the constitution require it? Of course not. It's amazing to me that a position which a decade ago was well in the minority and which just three years ago Barack Obama (supposedly) opposed is now going to be declared an inviolable right enshrined in the constittion, presumably in a 14th Amendment that was ratified over a hundred years ago. It boggles the mind.
Agreed
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,849
35,154
362
Mountainous Northern California
What the court must decide is whether common law/natural law rights exist for same sex marriage or not. Of course something as mundane as marriage won't make an appearance in the Constitution. Neither do many other long and widely recognized rights. I think the SCOTUS will recognize the right.

What may be more interesting legally is what protections the court will carve out for same sex couples vs those like the bakers, photographers, and ministers who at times literally refuse to cater to those weddings.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,607
39,822
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
What the court must decide is whether common law/natural law rights exist for same sex marriage or not. Of course something as mundane as marriage won't make an appearance in the Constitution. Neither do many other long and widely recognized rights. I think the SCOTUS will recognize the right.

What may be more interesting legally is what protections the court will carve out for same sex couples vs those like the bakers, photographers, and ministers who at times literally refuse to cater to those weddings.
I tend to agree. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kennedy line up with Scalia but Roberts to line up with the liberal wing, writing a concurring opinion on narrower grounds of sexual discrimination. I also think that individuals will continue to be able to refuse to take part in such marriages. More interesting will be how the courts decide the cases like a couple coming up now where local ordinances require clergy, caterers, etc. to participate...
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,849
35,154
362
Mountainous Northern California
I tend to agree. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kennedy line up with Scalia but Roberts to line up with the liberal wing, writing a concurring opinion on narrower grounds of sexual discrimination. I also think that individuals will continue to be able to refuse to take part in such marriages. More interesting will be how the courts decide the cases like a couple coming up now where local ordinances require clergy, caterers, etc. to participate...
Standard disclaimer of "I'm not a lawyer", but here's my thinking of how it should and may end up: It is unlawful to simply refuse service in a "generic" way like someone walks into a store and wants to buy something available to anyone. It is lawful to refuse to participate in/provide services for a specific event based on free speech/right of conscience grounds. I think there's fairly clear dividing line there that can mostly satisfy or be acceptable to all but the most rabid on either side of the issues.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/republican-jeb-bush-sees-no-constitutional-gay-marriage-010358140.html

I've read the Constitution a couple of times and I don't recall seeing anything spelled out on this. However, our Declaration of Independence does state "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That being said, I'm not sure the signers or the framers envisioned sodomy as an issue that would surface...or zoophilia for that matter.
Word.


Sent from my iPhone 6 Plus RTR
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,607
39,822
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Standard disclaimer of "I'm not a lawyer", but here's my thinking of how it should and may end up: It is unlawful to simply refuse service in a "generic" way like someone walks into a store and wants to buy something available to anyone. It is lawful to refuse to participate in/provide services for a specific event based on free speech/right of conscience grounds. I think there's fairly clear dividing line there that can mostly satisfy or be acceptable to all but the most rabid on either side of the issues.
Well, I'll have to enter my disclaimer that I really am a lawyer. :D And, as one, I don't really see a clear-cut line. Sure if a couple comes in off the street to buy a wedding cake, OK. But what if say they want "John and Joe Forever?" This becomes particularly vexing when there's a local ordinance saying the baker can't refuse...
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
Standard disclaimer of "I'm not a lawyer", but here's my thinking of how it should and may end up: It is unlawful to simply refuse service in a "generic" way like someone walks into a store and wants to buy something available to anyone. It is lawful to refuse to participate in/provide services for a specific event based on free speech/right of conscience grounds. I think there's fairly clear dividing line there that can mostly satisfy or be acceptable to all but the most rabid on either side of the issues.
What you're supposed to say is:


I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TideFans.
 

CrimsonNagus

Hall of Fame
Jun 6, 2007
8,556
6,352
212
45
Montgomery, Alabama, United States
A baker should not be able to refuse service to a gay couple but, they should be able to refuse to write a pro-gay message if that is offensive to them. The baker could gladly make the cake for them but, ask them to take it somewhere else to have the message written on it or even provide them the tools to write the message themselves.

I don't think any minister should ever be forced by law to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. If the government is going to force religions to abandon their beliefs then we no longer have freedom of religion.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
It's an absurd constitutional argument that the court is going to accept anyway. Can the states have gay marriage? Sure. Does the constitution require it? Of course not. It's amazing to me that a position which a decade ago was well in the minority and which just three years ago Barack Obama (supposedly) opposed is now going to be declared an inviolable right enshrined in the constittion, presumably in a 14th Amendment that was ratified over a hundred years ago. It boggles the mind.
I agree completely.
 

gman4tide

All-SEC
Nov 21, 2005
1,907
446
107
55
Flint Creek
A baker should not be able to refuse service to a gay couple but, they should be able to refuse to write a pro-gay message if that is offensive to them. The baker could gladly make the cake for them but, ask them to take it somewhere else to have the message written on it or even provide them the tools to write the message themselves.

I don't think any minister should ever be forced by law to perform a wedding ceremony for a gay couple. If the government is going to force religions to abandon their beliefs then we no longer have freedom of religion.
LIKE
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,461
13,292
287
Hooterville, Vir.
It's an absurd constitutional argument that the court is going to accept anyway. Can the states have gay marriage? Sure. Does the constitution require it? Of course not. It's amazing to me that a position which a decade ago was well in the minority and which just three years ago Barack Obama (supposedly) opposed is now going to be declared an inviolable right enshrined in the constittion, presumably in a 14th Amendment that was ratified over a hundred years ago. It boggles the mind.
The XIV Amendment was never legally ratified it was simply declared to have been ratified, so, at the very least, it should be interpreted very, very narrowly. Instead, it has been used as a camel's nose under the tent to do just about whatever any particular executive official or judge wants to do.

I look at state constitutional referenda on the subject as the sovereigns in our system (the peoples of the several states in their sovereign constitution-making capacity) as clarifying their intent. The people of Virginia in 2006 amended their state constitution to define marriage solely as being between one man and one woman. They were saying, in effect ,"Hey, Federal government, we, the sovereigns in our system who ratified and adopted the Federal Constitution in 1788, do not wish you to interpret the Constitutions of the United States in any way as defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Defining it in some other way was not our intent. Please abide by our intent." Instead, a Federal judge, citing, of all things, the Declaration of Independence (which has no constitutional standing), declared the Constitution of Virginia to be unconstitutional. She was being disloyal to her oath. She should have been impeached and removed for that travesty of a decision.
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,614
12,992
237
Tuscaloosa
Personally, I think it's an equal protection issue. We grant a lot of rights to married couples, particularly in regard to inheritance, and I think it's hard to deny those rights because the spouses have the same plumbing.

As I have stated many times on this board, I also think this is as regards governmental recognition of marriage. In my view, any religion is free to recognize it or not as its doctrine allows. Separation of church and state and all that.

I'm still pondering on requiring a business to do business with anybody. On that one, I currently feel strongly both ways.
 

mrusso

1st Team
Apr 17, 2006
808
344
87
55
Should the government have the power to require a business to do something that is offensive to said business or the owner's religious beliefs? Well, they sure are interested in protecting the religious beliefs of some...

EEOC Sues Star Transport, Inc. for Religious Discrimination

Agency Charges Trucking Company Failed to Accommodate and Wrongfully Terminated Two Muslim Employees For Refusal to Deliver Alcohol Due to Religious Beliefs
PEORIA, Ill. - Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.
The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol. According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe, who supervised administrative investigation prior to filing the lawsuit, "Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."
Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. The EEOC filed suit, (EEOC v. Star Transport, Inc., Civil Action No. 13 C 01240-JES-BGC, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Peoria, assigned to U.S. District Judge James E. Shadid), after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement through its statutory conciliation process. The agency seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages for the fired truck drivers and an order barring future discrimination and other relief.
John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office said, "Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Personally, I think it's an equal protection issue. We grant a lot of rights to married couples, particularly in regard to inheritance, and I think it's hard to deny those rights because the spouses have the same plumbing.

As I have stated many times on this board, I also think this is as regards governmental recognition of marriage. In my view, any religion is free to recognize it or not as its doctrine allows. Separation of church and state and all that.

I'm still pondering on requiring a business to do business with anybody. On that one, I currently feel strongly both ways.
As a note, even normal married couples need to have wills if they want their inheritance intentions carried out. You certainly don't want to leave your assets to the mercy of state laws governing intestate succession.
 

mittman

All-American
Jun 19, 2009
3,942
0
0
Personally, I think it's an equal protection issue. We grant a lot of rights to married couples, particularly in regard to inheritance, and I think it's hard to deny those rights because the spouses have the same plumbing.

As I have stated many times on this board, I also think this is as regards governmental recognition of marriage. In my view, any religion is free to recognize it or not as its doctrine allows. Separation of church and state and all that.

I'm still pondering on requiring a business to do business with anybody. On that one, I currently feel strongly both ways.
BiB and TW are arguing (correctly IMO) that trying to shoe horn it under Article 4 Section 2, or the 14th amendment is absurd.

That said. I can understand why people try to use that argument. Government's attempt to change social norms by taxation or exempts from taxation gives government loads of unnecessary power. Governments (as usual) abuse the power they are given and cause all kinds of problems. IMO this is one of them. I believe taking that power away with a simple tax structure (whatever that may be) would be an effective solution.

Any inheritance issue is easily resolved by a legal will.
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,614
12,992
237
Tuscaloosa
BiB and TW are arguing (correctly IMO) that trying to shoe horn it under Article 4 Section 2, or the 14th amendment is absurd.

That said. I can understand why people try to use that argument. Government's attempt to change social norms by taxation or exempts from taxation gives government loads of unnecessary power. Governments (as usual) abuse the power they are given and cause all kinds of problems. IMO this is one of them. I believe taking that power away with a simple tax structure (whatever that may be) would be an effective solution.

Any inheritance issue is easily resolved by a legal will.
I was really thinking more about rights to SSI survivor benefits, pension survivor benefits, life insurance annuities and 401k survivor benefits. All those are available to married couples, but until last year they were not to same-sex couples. Even today, they have to get married in a state where it's legal.

I still haven't heard an argument that invalidates the equal protection assertion, only that there are options available other than equal protection. If you want to argue that the 14th has lesser legal status than the others, good luck with that. But, hey, I'm no stranger to tilting at windmills.

Further, if you want to open up the states' rights argument in this instance, there's a whole body of mainly Civil Rights law that becomes subject to re-examination.

Once again, Ollie McClung rises up in areas he would never have imagined.
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.