View Single Post
Old 08-31-2011, 04:57 PM   #139
little man
Member

How Do You Identify?:
mister
Preferred Pronoun?:
he
Relationship Status:
hard to hold
 
1 Highscore

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: where the road goes on forever and the party never ends
Posts: 1,003
Thanks: 169
Thanked 1,535 Times in 437 Posts
Rep Power: 13709164
little man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputationlittle man Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadgeek View Post
There's a number of problems. The first is that the government has sovereign immunity. What that means is that for most things you can't sue the government, particularly not the Federal government. The second is that if you are going to sue the Federal government, that very same government has to tell you that you *can* sue them. Third, we'd have to determine on what possible grounds we are suing them. The social contract is an unspoken contract and so would not stand up in court. Fourth, in order to have standing we would have to show that the government was in breach either of law or of a signed contract.

What we *can* do is sue our states for violation of our 14th Amendment rights. But even that should probably be done only on a limited basis. What we're going to have to have is that enough states will pass laws guaranteeing marriage equality. Then when a couple in one state, moves to another state where their marriage is not recognized, sue that state for violating the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. The short version of that clause is that a contract executed in California is legally binding in Oregon. This is going down the same path as interracial marriage took. By 1967, 33 states had legalized interracial marriage. All of the states of the South, however, still had anti-miscegenation laws on the books and in force. Mildred and Richard Loving were an interracial couple (she black, he white) who were originally from Virginia but had moved to DC and gotten married. They then went to Virginia and had to rent a hotel room. Their being married violated Virginia law and so they were arrested, tried and convicted. The judge suspended the sentence on the proviso that they leave Virginia never to return. They appealed the decision and the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it in one of the uglier court decisions one is like to read in American law. They then appealed it to the Federal courts and it thus wound up in the Supreme Court.

We *can* use the law in that way but a class action lawsuit simply won't work because the legal system has to recognize that you have rights under the law and, at present, it doesn't in a consistent fashion which, after all, is what the whole argument is about.

cheers
Aj
i kind of figured that wouldn't work, or someone would have grandstanded that play already. i wonder, though, if just the effort would garner enough press to make people just stop and think for a minute.

i do find some irony in a system that outlawed interracial marriage because the people were "different" from one another. now? they want to keep people who are alike from marrying.
__________________
i gots pitchers here

i'm a rambling man
i ain't ever gonna change
i got a gypsy soul to blame
and i was born for leaving

--zac brown band (colder weather)

Last edited by little man; 08-31-2011 at 04:59 PM.
little man is offline   Reply With Quote