West Virginia GOP Senate Nominee John Raese has just endorsed a Federal Marriage Amendment. Will Gov. Manchin agree, or will he let the surging GOP candidate in this traditionally Democratic state open ground on the marriage issue? Polls show West Virginians strongly oppose same-sex marriage. The latest PPP poll shows GOP nominee John Raese leading Gov. Manchin for the first time by 3 points, 46 to 43.
5 Comments
We need a federal marriage amendment.
In Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, the appellants appealed a Minnesota Supreme Court decision on the basis that the appellees refusal to sanctify appellants' marriage deprives appellants of their due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and their privacy rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The appeal was dismissed, for want of a substantial federal question, by the United States Supreme Court. A dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits ( Hicks v. Miranda ) It is binding precedents on the precise legal questions presented in the appeal.
The oldest pending federal challenge to the definition of marriage is Bishop v. Oklahoma . On page 4 of the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the denial of the marriage license to them on the basis of the gender of the partners violates the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. As Baker did not address the question, Baker does not bind.
Baker v. Nelson is considered a soft precedent if at all binding. A fully argued case before the court has more weight.
Indeed it does.
Davis v. Beason was fully argued. And part of its holding includes:
In 1996, Justice Scalia opined: "It remains to be explained how §501 of the Idaho Revised Statutes was not an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists, but (the much more mild) Colorado Amendment 2 is an "impermissible targeting" of homosexuals. Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a "legitimate concern of government," and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?"
Liberal activists argue that since Davis v. Beason, [things have changed] fundamental rights to homosexual behavior, abortion, and marriage for interracial couples, and felons have all been created by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even those these rights were not part of thought process in creating the US constitution.