They would sooner burn the Constitution than ...

[Pookie]

Republicans/social conservatives would sooner burn the Constitution than allow equal rights to those they hate.

ACLU Calls Discriminatory House Court Stripping Bill Unconstitutional, Measure Would Deny Gay and Lesbian Couples Their "Day in Court"

July 21, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - One week after the Senate rejected the discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union today urged the House of Representatives to reject a controversial court stripping measure. That legislation, scheduled for a vote tomorrow, would forever slam shut federal courthouse doors to gay and lesbian couples challenging an anti-gay federal marriage law.

"House leaders seem to have forgotten their high school civics lessons," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "The entire system of checks and balances depends on an independent federal judiciary that ensures that laws passed by Congress are constitutional. This reckless bill would take away the Supreme Court’s authority to decide whether a federal law is constitutional.

"Stripping the federal courts of their ability to review laws is wrong," Anders continued. "Just last week, the Senate had the courage to reject amending the Constitution, but now House leaders seek to violate it."

The Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) would deny the Supreme Court and all other federal courts the ability to consider any challenges to the cross-state recognition section of the Defense of Marriage Act. It would deny gay and lesbian couples the right to even have their day in federal court, thereby violating both the Equal Protection Clause and the separation of powers principle.

The only option left for challenging DOMA would be in state courts. But because the bill strips the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear DOMA challenges, there could potentially be as many as 50 different interpretations of the constitutionality of DOMA, as each of the 50 state supreme courts would be a final authority on the constitutionality of DOMA. Without the final voice of the Supreme Court and the supremacy and uniformity of federal law, legal chaos could ensue.

Former member of Congress and author of DOMA Bob Barr has expressed deep concern about the court-stripping legislation. In a letter sent to Congress, he reiterated his belief that DOMA would withstand constitutional scrutiny, and that he "fears an increased likelihood of an adverse decision [by a state court] on DOMA" if the bill were to pass. Moreover, he reminded members that, "our healthy democracy depends on having three separate and independent branches of government."

The ACLU also noted that the Act would violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it would punish a specific minority group by completely cutting off federal judicial review of a statute affecting only that minority group.

"The Supreme Court has been clear that no one can close off an entire part of the government to any group of individuals," Anders said. "Congress cannot and should not shut the federal courthouse door to married gay and lesbian couples."

http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16142&c=101

Fuckers.

 

[John Doe]

Ok, are we talking about a copy of the Constitution or the original document? Because if I were freezing to death and I needed to start a fire, I'd at least light up a copy of it.

 

[thickspear]

i agree pookie....and the thing that amazes me is that the flag wavers would trample what the constitution was intended to preserve while they pass amendments with the excuse of patriotism...or family values...or decency..

in"rebels without a cause" a young woman wanted marlon brandos character to become a conformist..she asked him "what are you rebelling against ? "...he said "whattya got ?"

but it's all cynical politics with those self rightous asses...amendments to prevent same sex marriage or what ever the sycophantic press and a fearful public lets them get away with...

a few years ago it was flag burning...and before that the smugs wanted to outlaw wearing the flag but now that's considered patriotic...

i once marveled that the nazi's could take over a country with their tactics..but growing nationalism coupled with religeous fundamentalism results in the patriot act and other outrages here...

hooray for michael moore and all the other dissenters...

i think i'll roll one up and smoke it for a protest...smile..and i aint talkin about rolling the constitution...a little bit from my own richard nixon victory garden

 

[deezire1900]

It makes me so sad. I hope this fight ends soon. I almost feel like it is a civil war within our country, it just has limited deaths.

THe only way we will ever change the world is with money. I hate to say it, but as long as rich queer people continue to hide, and gays and lesbians continue to buy products from places that don't support us, we will never win. The all mighty dollar is the way to have power and create change.

 

[Pookie]

ACLU Says Anti-Gay House Court Stripping Bill Unconstitutional, But Vote Indicates Federal Marriage Amendment Can’t Pass House

July 22, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its disappointment with the House’s passage of a controversial and discriminatory court stripping measure, but heralded the number of "no" votes as a good predictor of the futility of bringing an anti-gay constitutional amendment to the House floor. The legislation seeks to forever slam shut federal courthouse doors to gay and lesbian couples challenging an anti-gay federal marriage law.

"Last week, the Senate rejected amending the Constitution, but today the House voted to violate it," said Christopher E. Anders, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "This unconstitutional bill violates the notion of Equal Protection by excluding an entire segment of Americans from ever having their day in court. By making gay and lesbian couples second class citizens, House leaders are letting politics rise above the interests of the American people."

The Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) seeks to deny the Supreme Court and all other federal courts the ability to consider any challenges to the cross-state recognition section of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. It would deny gay and lesbian couples the right to even have their day in federal court, thereby violating both the Equal Protection Clause and the separation of powers principle. It was adopted by the House today on a vote of 233 to 194.

While no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, if this measure were to become law, DOMA could only be challenged in state courts. Because the bill strips the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear such challenges, there could potentially be as many as 50 different interpretations of DOMA, as each state supreme courts would be the final authority on the constitutionality of DOMA in their state. Without the final voice of the Supreme Court and the supremacy of a uniform federal law, the ACLU noted, legal chaos could ensue.

Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the Federal Marriage Amendment, which fell 19 votes short of the 67 needed to pass an amendment in the Senate. House Majority Leader Tom Delay said that while a vote on the constitutional amendment would be delayed until September, the Marriage Protection Act would be a "test vote" on the underlying issue. The ACLU noted that today’s vote falls well short of the two-thirds that would be needed in the House to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Former member of Congress and author of DOMA Bob Barr has also expressed deep concern about the court-stripping legislation. In a letter sent to Congress, he reiterated his belief that DOMA would withstand constitutional scrutiny, and that he "fears an increased likelihood of an adverse decision [by a state court] on DOMA" if the bill were to pass. Moreover, he reminded members that, "our healthy democracy depends on having three separate and independent branches of government."

The ACLU also welcomed a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which found that, "we are not aware of any precedent for a law that would deny the inferior federal courts original jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a law of Congress."

"Majority Leader Tom DeLay set this bill up as a ‘test vote’ for a constitutional amendment. The vote today makes clear that the amendment will overwhelmingly fail the test. Supporters of a Federal Marriage Amendment are short by at least 57 votes of the 290 that they need to pass an amendment," Anders added. "It’s time for the Republican leadership to stop messing around with the Constitution, and get back to addressing the real problems that face real Americans.."

The ACLU’s letter on the Marriage Protection Act can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16132&c=101

Former Congressman Bob Barr’s letter can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16139&c=101

A letter from law professors on the Marriage Protection Act can be found at:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16140&c=101



Source: http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=16152&c=101

At least the support for discrimination isn't strong enough to pass constitutional amendments. But you can be sure that those opposed to equal rights won't ever stop. Enemies of freedom are always out there waiting for the first chance to take it away from each of us.

 

[domwife8]

I was just in the car ...

and there was someone talking about some baseball player who is being bashed right and left because he stated that he (the baseball player) felt the war in Iraq was " the stupidest war in history" and went on to say the he was in favor of peace (who really isn't in favor of peace? That would be my sarcastic aside, but I digress!!!!!). The radio guy said that the ball player should just keep his mouth shut.

Anyway, the call said the baseball player had a constutional right in under the first to express his opinion. The annoucer said that "everybody is is using the constitution as a fall back to get what they want." I was stunned!!!!!!!!

That is what we've come to in America. When people try to express an opinion that goes against anyones particular opinion, they are told that they are unAmerican and do not have the right to say what they belive.

Since when do we need or want, this particular government, or any government tell us who we can love, who we can choose to spend our lives with and how we choose to express that love?


Thank you for letting me rant!