A national gay-rights groups filed a lawsuit today challenging Nevada’s law that prohibits recognition of gay marriage. The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund sued in federal court on behalf of eight gay and lesbian couples challenging the law as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.
Nevada’s law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples is similar to the current law in North Carolina. A proposed constitutional amendment on the May 8 ballot here would broaden the prohibition of legal recognition to same-sex civil unions and heterosexual domestic partnerships. It would define marriage as only between men and women.
Comments
Supemacy Clause, duh
April 10, 2012 - 2:49pm — timewastedA federal suit under equal protection if ruled in favor of same sex couples would trump any state law or consitutional provision, states are limited to being within the confines of the US constitution and cannot make laws or amendments in violation of it regardless of what is in their own constitution. The only thing Amendment 1 will do, aside from unintended consequences to domestic violence laws etc., is make it harder for the State legisalture to overturn the existing law, if passed the legisalture would need to go through the amendment criteira (3/5ths vote in the chambers and popular vote of the people) again to remove the provision. This is an attempt by old conservatives who see the writing on the wall, that the younger generation is not prejudiced or against equal rights, to keep their dated beliefs around a little longer, even Tillis has acknowledged that it will likely be changed in 20 years.
The federal constitution trumps the state constitution
April 10, 2012 - 1:55pm — morecornbreadThat's grade school stuff.
But since you casually refer to fellow taxpaying citizens seeking to assert their 14th Amendment rights as sociopaths, well, just... bless your heart.
A federal ruling wouldn't
April 10, 2012 - 1:37pm — NonanonA federal ruling wouldn't supercede a state constitutional amendment. All the more reason to vote FOR amendment one.
SCOTUS would be hard pressed to overturn a duly enacted state constitutional amendment, and rule against the will of the people. This is the main reason for an amendment in the first place, to prevent juducial activism.
You're attempting to accomplish in the courts what you can't in state legislatures. At the end of the day, there is no compelling reason to change the definition of marriage to include same sex marriage, and all the more reason to resist this blatant attempt to normalize sociopathic behavior.
This issue will not be resolved on the pages of electronic media, but rather at the polls, where I will be voting FOR the defense of marriage amendment.
Vegas!
April 10, 2012 - 1:03pm — morecornbreadIf Britney Spears can have a legal 55-hour marriage performed in Vegas, I have no problem with gay citizens being married in Nevada.
Of course this is a federal lawsuit, so it would seem other cases in the First, Second and Ninth Circuits may make it to the US Supreme Court before this one.
Still, a federal ruling would supercede NC's proposed amendment. Not sure why The N&O is posting this in Under the Dome.