Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

From the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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.

http://www.archives.gov/national_archiv ... rters.html

I'm sure our new Attorney General, Mr. Gonzalez, would refer to these statements as "quaint."

Unfortunately the Legal Positivism which began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries--especially exemplified by Wilson and Roosevelt--pretty much destroyed the concept of "Constitutional" Law.

Juckson, I hate it when you nail me on discrepancies.

And so what if Constitutional law was hammered into submission....nothing says it can't come back.

okee dokee...let's see...

First, I sure as hell hope that Constitutional Law is alive and well, considering I've spent five nights a week for the last nine months studying the bejeezus out of it. It's actually a very exciting time for Con Law, because no one has any friggin' idea what they're gonna do next.

Deuce, aside from some of his more colorful turns of a phrase here and there, is pretty much dead on as far as the gay marriage issue goes. Simple fact is that, barring a sudden swath of the Rapture in the various Bible-belt Christian groups that work and live here, the only way homosexual rights are going to be formally recognized is on equal protection grounds. Lawrence v. Texas was a start, but it was a baby step and it, like just about every other major decision to come out of the Court in the last 20 years, was 5-4.

Simple fact. When it all comes down to brass tacks, in 50 years historians are going to look at the way we currently treat gay marriage the same way we look back at the civil rights movement of the 60s.

Keep in mind that in this day and age, Virginia and several other states still have laws on the books that prohibit interracial marriage. They're unenforceable due to Supreme Court decisions holding them as violations of the 14th, but they're still there.

Look on the bright side...we live in very interesting times.

Yeah, this is what I find odd. The only way that the marriage bans recently passed by various states can constitutionally hold up is if the Constitution is amended to allow it. And I don't see that happening. Face it, it was a n empty campaign promise designed to garner the religious vote...and boy are they pissed.

So since that isn't going to happen...where's someone like the ACLU with a a massive legal campaign driven straight to the steps of the Supreme Court screaming for justice? Is someone asleep at the wheel? Or:

Do they not want to stir up a political hornet's nest right now?
Is there actual "behind closed door" talks goin on at the House and Senate, with both the pro-gay and anti-gay sides trying to see who's going to vote what way? If that's the case, it may be a closer vote than initially thought.

I mean, seriously, the gay marriage ban is pretty petty and unconstitutional, just as unconstitutional as Affirmative Action or an unwarranted search of your vehicle without your verbal permission.

Stooge, yer in the know...what's the haps?

In a nutshell, sexual orientation is not considered a "suspect" class like race and gender, which triggers strict constitutional scrutiny (in other words, under strict scrutiny the law in question is presumed invalid unless the state can show that the classification is necessary to achieve an important state goal).

Sexual orientation, like age, is considered, at best, to be "quasi-suspect." The Lawrence v. Texas decision was decided on due process grounds, but the justices played around with the equal protection argument in the decision and looked at it from a "rational basis" standard (under rational basis review, the law in question is presumed valid so long as the classification is rationally based to a legitimate state purpose). The Court does, however, appear to be looking at sexual-orientation-based classification more closely than the normal extremely deferential "rational basis" analysis.

Short answer, Deuce? It's gonna take quite a while. You figure the Stonewall riots that began the initial out-of-the-closet push for gay rights occurred in the 60s. My personal prediction is that, when it is all said and done, the entire gay rights issue is going to take the same general arc as the racial equality movement.

Having said that, and just to give an idea of the realistic time frame I'm talking, keep in mind that:

1862 or so...Supreme Court decides in Dredd Scott that slaves who make it North are still "property" of their former owners. This is considered the case that started the Civil War.

1863...Lincoln presents the Emancipation Proclamation.

1865...13th Amendment passed.
1868...14th Amendment passed.

1873...Slaughter-House Cases decided...and the Supreme Court holds that the 13th and 14th Amendments apply ONLY to the Federal Government and ONLY to former slaves.

1896...Plessy v. Fergusen decided. Supreme Court holds that 'separate but equal' racial segregation is constitutionally permitted.

1954 Brown v. Board of Education decided. Supreme Court overrules Plessy and holds that separate but equal is not constitutionally acceptable.

1967...Loving v. Virginia decided, States cannot prevent marraige between persons based solely on the basis of racial classification. (hint...if someone were to really challenge a ban on gay marriage, this would be a good place to start)

In a nutshell, over 100 years after it was decided that all men are created equal, states were still fighting tooth and nail to deny minority rights. I don't even want to start with the voting issues, much less the selective prosecutions, jury tampering, and plain terrorism that occurred during these years.

Bottom line? I personally believe gay marriage will be recognized, but it's gonna take a long time and it's gonna be an ugly, ugly trip.

Sweet reply.

Here's a question for you....I don't know how well versed you are in equal housing law so I may be asking the wrong guy but,

The Fair Housing Act basically word for word matches the Civil Rights Act and subsequent acts in terms of classification (age, race, gender, faith) etc etc....

Now, does there have to be a class before there is discrimination?

Just as a hypothetical:
Gay couple (either sex) is rented an apartment and then evicted "because they're gay" sez the landlord.
Now, if a lawsuit was filed in a criminal court against the landlord and won on the basis that the landlord was in violation of the Fair Housing Act, would then an immediate amendment to the FHA be created? And if so, would this not jumpstart the process that you've laid out (and I completely agree with)?

Or am I just throwing darts?

1857

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/fac ... rac/21.htm

Juck, while you're at it, when abouts did blacks quit being 1/5th of a person?

-Energized to care, just not enough to look.

Hey, I'm personally interested in the Dred Scott decision, what with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the formation of the Republican party, the election of Abraham Lincoln, the secession of the South, the start of the Civil War, etc.

I recommend you direct your questions to these lovely people who get paid to answer them:

http://www.knowitnow24x7.net/
http://www.worthingtonlibraries.org/ask ... =9&rid=55&

Links work just as well, thanks.

Check out the eye for detail on Jackson!!!!

How'd I do on the rest of 'em?

Deuce, I don't think a court decision would rewrite the FHA, it would just be a statutory interpretation. Depending on which court wrote the decision and what happened on appeal (i.e. if it didn't make it all the way to the Supreme Court), the decision would only be binding in the jurisdiction where the court sits.

A+