Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If Gay Marriage Is Legal, What About Polygamy?

How did you find all of your special pleading in that Article?

Article 4, Section 2 is legally binding on both the general government and the sovereign States, in their severalty.

Is clearly a choice of that law as enumerated in Article 4, Section 2 in any conflict of laws arising under the United States. Are you claiming that the citizens in the several States have no recourse to a literal interpretation of Article 4, Section 2 upon appeal to a federal venue?

 

You don't have a clue, it is not a special pleading and is instead the original pleading. It's the "comity clause" carried over from the original Articles of confederation.

"the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State"

When you travel to another state, you get the same rights as citizens of the sate you are within. The state can't treat you differently because you are from another state. Texas can still refuse to recognize Colorado citizens right to recreational marijuana just as they can refuse to recognize gay marriages of people from Mass.

(*)And if I travel to Colorado I get the right to recreational marijuana. Art 4sec2 prevents them from arresting me for smoking pot. Art 4 sec 2 just has no relevance to the gay marriage debate. At least I've never heard of Iowa refusing to recognize (*)a gay marriage of someone from Mass.(*)
(*)Why don't you try putting a few words together to explain how you think it does. Avoid parroting the provisions and try to use your own words.

 

In case you missed it, our federal Constitution is not the Articles of Confederation; and it is our supreme law of the land as ratified by the several States, upon recourse in any conflict of laws, as that supreme choice of law.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*) Sherlock, I was addressing your claim that I was making a special pleading when it is the original not special. Not the exception but in fact the rule. Not some new interpretation dreamed up by a court but the original pleading from the Articles of Confederation-
(*)the free inhabitants of each of these States, ... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States;
adopted into the Constitution-
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

Again, google "special pleading", educate yourself

 

You still seem to be missing the point about the ratification of our federal Constitution as our supreme law of the land. Article 4, Section 2, is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States, for any of the citizenry in the several States; simply due to that separation of powers and several and sovereign governments.

 

There is no choice ol law involved. Like I said, string together a few words exposing how you think art 4 sec 2 would ever be involved in gay marriage. Notice the complete absence of any reference to gay marriage in the 30 of your posts regarding art 4 sec 2, in threads regarding gay marriage.

 

I think anyone should be able to enter into any contract with any other human or humans they wish. This shouldn't even be in the hands of government to decide.

No automatic benefits, though.

 

Everyone is free to enter any contract with anyone they like.

Considering that children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, highschool dropouts, poverty and criminal convictions as an adult, I think encouraging heterosexuals to marry is an appropriate role of government to improve the general welfare of the people.
And since only women give birth and only a man is obligated by law upon that birth to provide and care for that child, it's limitation to only heterosexual couples makes perfectly rational sense. Because it would make no sense whatsoever applied to any other couple. Platonic couples don't procreate, closely related couples should not procreate and any couple made up of two people of the same sex could not procreate. The fact that a couple made up of two people of the same sex who are gay, also have sex with each other like those heterosexual couples who procreate, doesn't change anything. The government has no reason to be involved because sex is occurring among some couples. Their only concern is that when sex is occuring between heterosexual couples, children are frequently the result. It's simply a preference for biological parents to provide and care for their own children together, as opposed to the alternative of doing so apart or not at all.

 

For comparison and contrast and analogy, do you also believe a United States Statute is also, no form of choice of law arising under the United States? Our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates terms and conditions binding on both the several States and the general government.

 

Still no reference to the articles application to the gay marriage debate. And there is no choice of law issue when one law is supreme.

 

Marriage is currently a State issue with full faith and credit Obligations. It should only become a federal issue upon appeal to the general government regarding specific recourse to specific redress of grievances. Article 4, Section 2 is available as part of our supreme law, as a choice in any conflict of State laws or conflict of laws enacted by our elected representatives.

Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply.

Since it is a self-evident truth that Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States, it only remains to discover why you believe your special pleading should limit the plain meaning of the terms specifically enumerated in Article 4, Section 2.

From one perspective and in that alternative, Article 4, Section 2 was included in our supreme law of the land and ratified by the several and sovereign States of the Union; denying and disparaging our privileges and immunities is no longer a States' right nor a power delegated to our elected representatives since the ratification of our federal Constitution.

Since that is the Case in our written Constitution and supreme law of the land, why do you believe the stereotypical States' rights view of the Articles of Confederation would still be binding today with our federal and republican form of Government?

 

Interesting question.

You would think it would be. Because it is vague and expansive the Supreme Court has resisted, quite properly, the many invitations to invoke the clause. The Constitution does not define those "privileges and immunities" and thus the clause can mean anything, or nothing. The clause would turn the Supreme Court into an unelected legislature, a role into which it has intruded too frequently.

 

There is nothing vague about Article 4, Section 2 as a choice of law in any conflict of laws.

 

You're mixing it up with the Full Faith and Credit Clause (link):

 

They are different issues. From one perspective and in that alternative, marriage is a natural right and private Act. There is no Constitutional requirement that marriage be Regulated by a State but merely ensure the full faith and credit of any Acts it recognizes, for that purpose.

The "comity" clause in Article 4, Section 2 is a choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States.

 

It applies to the marriage debate because it is the citizens in the several States that are getting married.

 

Silly, don't tell us it applies, APPLY it to the gay marriage debate. John and Bob in Texas want to get married. How does Art 4 help them?

 

Article 4, Section 2 clearly limits our governments authority in any infringements to individual liberty. How doesn't it apply to two citizens in the several States regarding marriage?