Quote:
Originally Posted by ocinteeni
to Creative Mind, first just want to clear things up because you referred to me as a her, I'm a guy. Secondly, I would argue that a Federal supreme court law would override state legislation, if I remember correctly there were federal level supreme court rulings that overturned state legislation in regards to the black civil rights movements when blacks had the right to vote essentially taken away from them again after the 13th amendment was passed. Also in the time period of Jim Crow Laws where the idea was "seperate but equal," I beleive supreme court rulings ultimately changed the legality of those particular state legislations.
|
Hello again, Ocinteeni!
And my big apologies for the mistaken reference!
I was typing fast and didn't even catch that, so sorry again....
As for this question that you're bringing up -- namely, who technically outranks who and whose legal judgment supersedes who -- you're basically right BECAUSE of the example you're citing. In short, the Supreme Court (in Washington) can't step in and overrule the California State Supreme Court or the toss out the will of the California voters IF this is perceived as state ballot measure. IF this is seen as an issue that the people of the state should have every right to self-determine for themselves.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court could step in IF the case was truly framed...and IF the Supreme Court agreed to hear it...AS an actual civil rights issue. Much like you said, THAT is something you could take all the way to the top IF the Supreme Court bought into the argument that same-sex marriage is somehow, in some way, analogous to something like the Black civil rights movement.
But that's the big question here. As I pointed out in my post, those in the gay community certainly feel that way. And yet the reason that Prop 8 won in California...and similar amendments won in other states on Election Day by even WIDER margins of support...is because many people
don't feel this is a civil rights issue. Polls show that a majority of Americans feel that so long as same-sex couples have civil unions readily available to them, they have no right to bitch. Simply because a civil union will ultiimately safeguard and protect their legal rights.
In other words, as you often hear this phrased, same-sex couples can be together...they can get married...they just can't use the WORD "married" in describing themselves. Which to many makes the whole debate seem rather silly at times -- well, that is until people from either side start whipping out their long list of reasons why that one simple word, marriage, carries SO much weight and importance.
To those in the gay community, "marriage" signifies a more clearly defined legal status and ensures them full-on rights. And it gives them a greater emotional satisfaction because now they feel as though their relationship is a validated part of society. On the other hand, those against same-sex marriage argue that civil unions DO give same-sex couples the same legal rights as a married couple, so what are we fighting about? Stop bitching about the word "marriage" and move on. They argue that even as a word "marriage" is based on religion, so that takes it out of the legal arena. Or taking this a step further, they argue it's not right for the Vatican and the Catholic Church to say "Same-sex marriage is wrong. We don't allow this in our church. This goes against the very principles that makes us Catholics" only to have the U.S. government step in and say "Well, we've decided that we're going to now TELL YOU how you have to run your churches and THIS is what you'll have to believe in from now on."
So like I said, it ALL comes down to the million dollar question: Do you think same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue...or do you think it's splitting hairs over a word, that the same legal rights are already available in a civil union, at which point this really is a religious debate or a sexual orientation debate which the government has no business sticking its nose into?
And that's why each side is now desperately fighting to "frame" the entire argument in a certain way. Because whoever wins THAT fight will ultimately determine WHICH court (State vs. Federal) gets to hear these issues and rule on them...