Same-Sex Marriage Ban Survives Challenge in Tennessee

[WCH]

First such prohibition to withstand a constitutional challenge since June 2013

Tennessee’s same-sex marriage ban has survived a constitutional challenge in court, the first prohibition to withstand such a challenge in almost 14 months.

Roane County Circuit Judge Russell Simmons ruled that “neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state’s responsibility,” in ruling from last Tuesday, SCOTUSblog reports.

More than two dozen federal and state court rulings since the Supreme Court’s United States v. Windsor decision in June 2013 have successfully challenged and/or nullified bans. Simmons’ ruling rejects both a claim of discrimination and a claim that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause forces the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.


snip
Tennessee Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Breaks Winning Streak - TIME

 

[Rainman05]

Seems rather stupid if you ask me.
I thought people got over this anxiety over SSM. Almost half of america has legalized it and the institution of marriage didn't collapse. Wow, shocker, I know. I was so sure the moment it becomes legal that Beelzebub will come into the world with a chariot of fire. /s

Honestly, let's not be ridiculous. This is a political move and it's a disgrace that the court of law is responding to the political whims or that judges are politically motivated in their rulings.

 

[PeteEU]

So a local judge, most likely a right wing homophobe, says that no one is gonna tell his state what to do... and who they can and cannot discriminate against.. yea right that is so gonna hold up on appeal...

 

[TheNextEra]

It won't survive the appeal, given his ruling.

 

[Rainman05]

So a local judge, most likely a right wing homophobe, says that no one is gonna tell his state what to do... and who they can and cannot discriminate against.. yea right that is so gonna hold up on appeal...

I always found it disturbing how judges in the USA are politically aligned.
Like even at the supreme court, out of 9 justices, some are considered "republican" and others "democrat" and if you look at a lot of the rulings there, they also rule based on political ideologies, rather than justice itself. So idk if that's ok. It seems quite a far cry from what is expected in the EU of the justice system.

 

[WCH]

I always found it disturbing how judges in the USA are politically aligned.
Like even at the supreme court, out of 9 justices, some are considered "republican" and others "democrat" and if you look at a lot of the rulings there, they also rule based on political ideologies, rather than justice itself. So idk if that's ok. It seems quite a far cry from what is expected in the EU of the justice system.

What disturbs me is the fact we fought a civil war over states rights and another one could be brewing.

You are right that judges especially the Justices should be politically neutral.

 

[PeteEU]

I always found it disturbing how judges in the USA are politically aligned.

They have to be as they are often elected. That means they are open to political advances and corruption which we have seen time and time again. This ultimately means when they get promoted to higher courts, where they are not elected per say, they retain the links to their previous "lives" as their whole appointment is linked to politics.

Like even at the supreme court, out of 9 justices, some are considered "republican" and others "democrat" and if you look at a lot of the rulings there, they also rule based on political ideologies, rather than justice itself.

The USC is very bad now days, ever since they start letting in the rabid right wingers like Scalia and Thomas. It has even gotten so bad, that the spouses of these men are now using their office for their own political gain.

It seems quite a far cry from what is expected in the EU of the justice system.

It is a far cry of most legal systems in Europe, even those considered "corrupt" by some.. even the Italian judges are often far more fair and stick to the law than American judges.. yes it sounds crazy. That the law is often weird in Italy is another matter.

 

[AGENT J]

Uhm this is a local circuit court . . . . .

considering the precedent already set by many state supreme courts and federal courts this ruling will fall because its already been determined to be unconstitutional at a higher level and that its not a states rights issue in anyway expect the states overstepped their rights and need corrected by the fed.

In the war for equal rights this court (short life span ruling) is about as meaningless as it gets lol

 

[TheNextEra]

What disturbs me is the fact we fought a civil war over states rights and another one could be brewing.

Doubtful, not to many people (in any serious majority) prepared to go to war over gays having the right to marry.

You are right that judges especially the Justices should be politically neutral.

Which this one proved he is not.

 

[roguenuke]

What disturbs me is the fact we fought a civil war over states rights and another one could be brewing.

You are right that judges especially the Justices should be politically neutral.

And how well did that turn out for those who were for states' rights?

In many Southern states, there has always been this deeply held belief that states' rights are very important and that the federal government is always trying to take away states' rights. But the problem is that on the major issues that tend to bring up this argument about states' rights, it really isn't about the states' rights being trampled by the federal government at all. It is almost always about the states trying to trample the rights of individuals, and those federal government stepping in to use the US Constitution to protect the rights of the individuals against the tyranny of the states. That is not the federal government trying to violate states' rights. It is the federal government protecting individual rights over states' rights. This is true for the largest issues where people try to claim states' rights, slavery, Jim Crow laws/segregation, interracial marriage, sodomy, and same sex marriage. All these involve individual rights being protected by the federal government against states trying to violate individual rights with state laws.

 

[joG]

First such prohibition to withstand a constitutional challenge since June 2013

Tennessee’s same-sex marriage ban has survived a constitutional challenge in court, the first prohibition to withstand such a challenge in almost 14 months.

Roane County Circuit Judge Russell Simmons ruled that “neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state’s responsibility,” in ruling from last Tuesday, SCOTUSblog reports.

More than two dozen federal and state court rulings since the Supreme Court’s United States v. Windsor decision in June 2013 have successfully challenged and/or nullified bans. Simmons’ ruling rejects both a claim of discrimination and a claim that the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause forces the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.


snip
Tennessee Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Breaks Winning Streak - TIME

If I were Simmons, I would wear a bulletproof vest.

 

[American]

And how well did that turn out for those who were for states' rights?

In many Southern states, there has always been this deeply held belief that states' rights are very important and that the federal government is always trying to take away states' rights. But the problem is that on the major issues that tend to bring up this argument about states' rights, it really isn't about the states' rights being trampled by the federal government at all. It is almost always about the states trying to trample the rights of individuals, and those federal government stepping in to use the US Constitution to protect the rights of the individuals against the tyranny of the states. That is not the federal government trying to violate states' rights. It is the federal government protecting individual rights over states' rights. This is true for the largest issues where people try to claim states' rights, slavery, Jim Crow laws/segregation, interracial marriage, sodomy, and same sex marriage. All these involve individual rights being protected by the federal government against states trying to violate individual rights with state laws.

Have you forgotten that people vote for their state assemblies too? So in your world the people are trampling themselves.

 

[joG]

I always found it disturbing how judges in the USA are politically aligned. ....

They are in Germany too and my experience with France says the same for that country.

That does not make it better. So how would you go about structuring it so that it does not happen?

 

[joG]

It won't survive the appeal, given his ruling.

Probably not.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

They have to be as they are often elected. That means they are open to political advances and corruption which we have seen time and time again. This ultimately means when they get promoted to higher courts, where they are not elected per say, they retain the links to their previous "lives" as their whole appointment is linked to politics.

The USC is very bad now days, ever since they start letting in the rabid right wingers like Scalia and Thomas. It has even gotten so bad, that the spouses of these men are now using their office for their own political gain.

It is a far cry of most legal systems in Europe, even those considered "corrupt" by some.. even the Italian judges are often far more fair and stick to the law than American judges.. yes it sounds crazy. That the law is often weird in Italy is another matter.

I always found it disturbing how judges in the USA are politically aligned.
Like even at the supreme court, out of 9 justices, some are considered "republican" and others "democrat" and if you look at a lot of the rulings there, they also rule based on political ideologies, rather than justice itself. So idk if that's ok. It seems quite a far cry from what is expected in the EU of the justice system.

I think this is a misconception more than anything. Think about it, were the court to vote a long political lines, Obamacare wouldn't even be an issue today because the Chief Justice (put in under Bush) would of struck it down. Didn't he end up writing the majority opinion as well? Also, you wouldn't also have examples of the court giving a 9-0 smack down of Obama's abuse of his authority.

And don't even get me started on the Burka Ban in the EU. Say what you will for American Courts... that's something that would NEVER happened here.

 

[joG]

Have you forgotten that people vote for their state assemblies too? So in your world the people are trampling themselves.

People just don't like it, when they don't get what they want.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

They are in Germany too and my experience with France says the same for that country.

That does not make it better. So how would you go about structuring it so that it does not happen?

How did Kennedy get in there?

 

[joG]

I think this is a misconception more than anything. Think about it, were the court to vote a long political lines, Obamacare wouldn't even be an issue today because the Chief Justice (put in under Bush) would of struck it down. Didn't he end up writing the majority opinion as well? Also, you wouldn't also have examples of the court giving a 9-0 smack down of Obama's abuse of his authority.

And don't even get me started on the Burka Ban in the EU. Say what you will for American Courts... that's something that would NEVER happened here.

People will always squeal "Foul!", and become unreal and obnoxious, when they don't get, what they want.

 

[joG]

How did Kennedy get in there?

'Don't understand. It was about judges with political opinions.

 

[American]

People just don't like it, when they don't get what they want.

We're talking about people would likely get rid of states govts altogether if they could. In their world the federal govt is all that's necessary to arbitrate over all our rights. I never see them argue any other implication.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

'Don't understand. It was about judges with political opinions.

No I meant Anthony Kennedy. He seems to be the only true neutral judge up there, as it's always him that is the wildcard. I was wondering if anyone knew his story, cause I don't really.

 

[roguenuke]

Have you forgotten that people vote for their state assemblies too? So in your world the people are trampling themselves.

We are still constitutional republics. We have our rights protected by the Constitution, and the governments, including the state government and the voters are limited by the guarantees of the constitutions, both state constitutions and the US Constitution.

It is always people who trample the rights of other people, some even trample their own rights because people in large numbers tend to be stupid.

 

[roguenuke]

People just don't like it, when they don't get what they want.

No. This is about one group wanting control over what another does and trying to turn the argument about voting rights or the federal government trying to trample states' rights when it is really the state governments trying to trample individual rights. We have a right to do what we want up to the point where others are able to show that an individual's freedom to do what they want violates the rights of another or causes some sort of measurable harm.

 

[roguenuke]

We're talking about people would likely get rid of states govts altogether if they could. In their world the federal govt is all that's necessary to arbitrate over all our rights. I never see them argue any other implication.

And yet again, this is trying to be framed as a federal government trying to trample states' rights issue rather than what it truly is, the federal government protecting individual rights from the state governments trying to trample them.

 

[PeteEU]

I think this is a misconception more than anything. Think about it, were the court to vote a long political lines, Obamacare wouldn't even be an issue today because the Chief Justice (put in under Bush) would of struck it down. Didn't he end up writing the majority opinion as well? Also, you wouldn't also have examples of the court giving a 9-0 smack down of Obama's abuse of his authority.

He changed his mind.. hence his right wing ideology almost won the day. The Chief Justice has a small conscience or a skeleton in the closet that the left exploited.. both would be shocking. He more than often votes along partisan lines, along with his right wing jackboot friends.

And don't even get me started on the Burka Ban in the EU. Say what you will for American Courts... that's something that would NEVER happened here.

There is no Burka Ban in the EU. There is a ban on covering your face in public places, yes, in some countries (including the US btw), but there is not a burka ban across the EU. The face covering ban was up head by the European Human Rights Court, a court not affiliated with the EU directly. They based their ruling on the European Human Rights Convention, and the judges found based on the convention that the state has a right to encourage citizens to live together and covering your face in public for what ever reason other than weather or because it is required by law.. is not exactly productive for "living together". Not to mention the security issue of course, which is also a valid reason.