School Assignment

Sonoran · May 06, 2009, 08:10:21 PM

Hi everyone,

This is about a school assignment that I had to do. I just got my grade and I'm not happy. 45/75. I wanted to share it with everyone here and see what you think. (This is actually an e-mail I sent out before I turned in the assignment)

The assignment was an essay and the prompt is as follows:

You are to assume the role of a Supreme Court Justice as the final interpreter of the Constitution which includes its amendments. The people of the State of California recently passed Proposition 8, which is now a part of the California State Constitution. It specifies that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result of this addition to the California State Constitution, the County Clerk for the County of Fresno, has refused to issue a marriage license to Lindsay and Ellen. The injured parties are claiming that their 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment citizenship rights under the U.S. Constitution have been violated.

Please provide your ruling in this case. Your ruling must be based on the content of the U.S. Constitution and its applicable Amendments only. Your ruling needs to be coherent, typed, double spaced, organized and spell checked with proper grammar. Your response is limited to two pages.

Because of the time I have spent in class, I know that this professor is against proposition 8. He is not some extreme left or right wing person who votes the party line, instead he is a registered Republican who cares greatly about the Constitution and he is against proposition 8 because he feels that it is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I decided early on that I would write him an essay that would make him happy, and hopefully I would get a good grade. Honestly, I felt that I would not be able to defend Proposition 8 if I was supposed to use the constitution. I started writing the paper and I found, for some strange reason, the explanations flowed through me and I was able to defend the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Hopefully, my grade will not suffer because the teacher has different views. Anyways, if you care to read it (for future reference) here it is. Keep in mind I'm not a professional on the U.S. constitution. If I have learned one thing from this class it is that it's all about how you interpret it.
______________________________________________________________________________
Lindsay and Ellen are two United States Citizens abiding in the state of California who have applied for a marriage license with the county of Fresno and were refused the license by the county clerk. The county clerk refused to issue a marriage license because of the passing of proposition 8 in the State of California which states, "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in the State of California." Lindsay and Ellen are claiming that their first and fourteenth amendment rights under the U.S. constitution have been violated. I am Supreme Court Justice Derek and my ruling on this issue is as follows.

The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." I do not find proposition 8 to be violating the first amendment rights of Lindsay and Ellen. Marriage licenses issued by the state are not a religious matter. If in any way, by depriving Lindsay and Ellen of the right to be married was a violation of the first amendment, then state issued marriage would also have to be a violation of the first amendment, because it would have to be an establishment of religion by Congress. The issuance of marriage licenses by the state is not connected to religion. It is connected to the wishes of the citizens of the state of California. The citizens of the state of California have voted for how they wish the state to issue marriage licenses and the state has followed their wishes. The state did not make this law based on religion, and state issued marriage is not a religion, so denying Lindsay and Ellen a marriage license based upon the wishes of the citizens of the state of California is not a prohibition of the free exercise clause because it is not a religious institution.

The fourteenth amendment states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." I do not find the denial of a marriage certificate to Lindsay and Ellen to be in contradiction to the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. Proposition 8 does not abridge the privileges of the citizens of the United States. Under the law of proposition 8, every citizen of the State of California has the right to be married. If Proposition 8 claimed "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, but homosexuals are not allowed to be married" then it would be abridging the right of its citizens. Lindsay and Ellen have the same right to be married to a man as any other person in the United States has the right to be married to a person of the opposite sex.

My ruling is that Lindsay and Ellen's first and fourteenth amendment rights have not been violated by the state of California and Proposition 8 is not an unconstitutional law.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What do you guys think? Be honest, if I am crazy biased then tell me, if it does not make sense tell me, if it is sound argument tell me.

ScottA · May 06, 2009, 08:33:55 PM

The whole idea of needing a licence to get married...what gives the state the right to issue a licence to get married? Why does one need a licence for a way of life? I do not belive the constitutional rights of the parties have been violated anymore than I think the constitution gives the state the right to require a licence. Think about that for a second... The issue is purly political and rights have nothing to do with it. Someday you'll need a licence to have a child.

Something else to consider. The state considers a person to be a legal enity like a corperation. A marrige is the merger of two corperations. That might require a licence.

May 06, 2009, 10:35:56 PM

This may be a simplistic answer; but it's all I have time for. First, my thoughts on the question and the constitution.

The words marriage and married do not appear anywhere in the constitution nor the amendments. Therefore I believe, under Amendment 10 the states have the right to regulate and issue licenses.

Second, is it correct for the states to limit the issuance of marriage licenses to only heterosexual couples?

That is a good question. There are people in long term caring relationships who are not married for any of a number of reasons. Some are straight and some are gay/lesbian. There are rights and privileges that are not extended readily to these unmarried but caring relationships. That is wrong on a human scale. Myself, I do think of marriage as being between a man and a woman; however there should be something as well for those who do not fit into the one man - one woman stereotype marriage.

Sonoran, I didn't quite follow your reasoning on the 14th amendment argument. That could be me.

I do believe the answer to the question is not defined in the constitution, but is something that is to be decided on a state by state basis.

As for the 'need' for a license, there are times the record in the state office could be handy. We may lose our copy, have it burned in a fire, have it stolen, tear it up in a fit, and so on. If for no other reason that to have a repository for records like marriage, birth, etc. I believe the licensing is fair. The user pays the fee, those who never marry pay nothing.

Sonoran · May 07, 2009, 12:58:46 AM

Quote from: MountainDon on May 06, 2009, 10:35:56 PM
That is a good question. There are people in long term caring relationships who are not married for any of a number of reasons. Some are straight and some are gay/lesbian. There are rights and privileges that are not extended readily to these unmarried but caring relationships. That is wrong on a human scale.

I definitley agree. I would be happy to see equal treatment for everyone. I would be happy with no state issued marriages. Instead I would like to see what scott said, a merger for couples so they can manage their belongings or children appropriatley.

Do you think that this paper should have gotten a 60%? It's good to hear that my reasoning with the 14th didn't make sense. Is there anything else that would make it an F?

pagan · May 07, 2009, 07:27:11 AM

My take is that by specifying marriage as being between a man and a woman the rights of homosexuals have been abridged violating the Fourteenth amendment.

May 07, 2009, 09:38:51 AM

Were there no explanations of your grade? No spelling, grammar, syntax mistakes? Also, I think your reasoning could have been clearer on the 14th Amendment, but hardly think it was worth that much of a cut. If it makes you feel any better, I got a low C on a senior English paper with no mistakes in it because I disagreed with my teacher on _The Grapes of Wrath_. I argued that while Steinbeck was an excellent writer, that book was not great literature. I dissected the book. She hated my paper, and to be honest, I think the only reason she didn't flunk it is that she would have been in trouble with school administration as I was in line to be valedictorian. When I asked why the grade was so low when it was a well-written paper with plenty of evidence to back up my position, she had nothing to say. I wrote another paper for her that I actually TRIED to come up with the most drivel that could possibly fit on one page and she wrote glowing remarks on it along with A+++++... just proved to me that she was as full of nonsense as any true believer in the public school system could possibly be. If I were you, I would go to the teacher, humbly and respectfully, and ask for justification for such a low grade. Ask him to show you where your mistakes were so that you won't repeat them, and if he basically says that the "mistake" was that you don't agree with him, and he can't back his position logically, take him to task for it. However, if his corrections are more than just a difference of opinion, learn from it. Best of luck with it.

pagan · May 07, 2009, 10:43:59 AM

Homegrown,

I got a C+ on a twenty-two page compare and contrast paper that was without a single error. The professor read to the class a couple of papers that he really thought were stellar. Each one was nothing more than a simple regurgitation of the main themes of each story compiled through excessive quoting. After the class I questioned the professor about my paper and he explained the only reason I even got a C+ was because it was so well written. From his tone I inferred he meant I should be happy with my grade and shut up. When I pressed him further he stated he didn't like the two books I chose to compare and contrast. After arguing with him for several minutes about his not liking the books I used being irrelevant to the quality of the argument in my paper he told me that if I said one more word he'd drop my grade to a D. I smiled and said, "I'm dropping your useless ****ing class." He did, in fact, drop me to a D, but it didn't matter because I kept my word and dropped his class. After that I never took a class without having my advisor check who the professor was first. That saved me a lot of trouble.

peternap · May 07, 2009, 11:02:54 AM

First, I agree completely with Scott.

I don't see how this is a constitutional issue at all. Being from the mountains, I can still remember a time when two people decided to get married. Since there were circuit preachers, they would just move in together and were in fact...married. When the preacher came by, he would preform a ceremony.

The ceremony was an affirmation before God, not a legal requirement.

Marriage is a commitment between two people. Despite my personal feelings about homosexuals, I see no reason why two people who have made that commitment, should not be considered married and have all legal rights as such.

Sonoran · May 07, 2009, 03:54:44 PM

Quote from: pagancelt on May 07, 2009, 07:27:11 AM
My take is that by specifying marriage as being between a man and a woman the rights of homosexuals have been abridged violating the Fourteenth amendment.

I feel if the state didn't specify marriage then what would prevent me from marrying my dog or something strange like that. I know that this prop is definitley trying to prevent homosexuals from being married. But in the way it is written, is it really unconstitutional according to the fourteenth amendment? They could now amend it to say "between a man and a man, a woman and a woman, and a man and woman is legal." But as it is, every man and woman has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. At least, that was what I was trying to reason.

harry51 · May 09, 2009, 11:47:25 PM

For me, the issue is defining the word "marriage". Do the people of the state of California have the right to establish a specific legal definition of the word by majority vote? Clearly, a specific definition is required to have a meaningful discussion, to set policy, write laws, or enforce them. Either it is arrived at by general acceptance formalized by majority vote like Prop. 8, or it is ordained by the legislature, the bureauracracy, or the courts. I agree with MD's reasoning that this is a state issue, and the federal gov. is not constitutionally delegated any authority to act in this area.

It seems that a majority of Californians feel the word has traditionally referred to a committed heterosexual relationship, structured to create a favorable environment for the conception and rearing of children. Ergo, the derogatory term "marriage of convenience" has for years been applied to heterosexual unions formalized for reasons other than creating a family, and the pejoritive "shacking up" has long been used to label unions not formalized, and entered into without the intention of long term commitment and the creation of a family.

Since homosexual couples cannot reproduce without serious medical intervention, many people feel that the term marriage simply cannot apply to such a relationship. That does not make a gay relationship or the people involved bad, or in any way second-class citizens, it only means what they have is not and cannot be a marriage by the generally accepted and now legally established definition. People of this persuasion see the gay demand to be included in the definition as nothing less than a crude attempt to hijack a term which has deep, specific meaning to them.

If there is a constitutional issue here, it would seem to be why married people get privileges and protections not available to the rest of us. Why don't domestic partnerships, duly registered with the government, have identical provisions relating to taxes, time off to care for a sick partner, inheritance rights, property rights, etc? Where is the equal protection under the law?

I agree with Scott that a marriage license does not a marriage make. The state cannot compel commitment and love. The civil license is only a contract showing that the parties agree to the state laws concerning property and responsibility, and could be seen to sort of imply that the parties really don't trust each other to do the right thing. So much for romance and personal integrity.............however, in the case of the untimely death of a spouse, and many other unfortunate circumstances not involving any wrongdoing or moral turptitude, that license can be very valuable.

Virginia Gent · May 11, 2009, 01:48:08 AM

I agree with Harry51 100% in all he said. However I think the way to get around the legal debate between two married people without a marrage lisence is easy ... a will. Now I dunno the cost of a will, but I imagine they aren't all to cheap. However I've heard that are other ways to make a will that will hold up in a court of law. Simply make a quick, but legal, will stating what each person gets should the other die. Update it regularly as your relationship grows. As for separation and any dispute there, assuming the two parties aren't adult enough to discuss and solve this problem on their own, it should be left to a judge, and/or jury to decide. This is simply my opinion; no I'm not married nor have I ever been

MountainDon · May 11, 2009, 06:59:32 PM

I agree with VG about having a will; an up-to-date will let me add. To that I'll add that it is imperative to have an up-to-date health care directive. All just in case. However, too many folks do not have either. Do you all?? If not, why not??

One thing that can be a "biggie" to a non married and/or same sex relationship is that hospitals may restrict visits to married spouses in some cases. The non lagally married may encounter problems. I'm not sure how that should be addressed in the absence of a legal marriage or state recognized partnership.

Homegrown Tomatoes · May 11, 2009, 10:40:50 PM

Don, I kind of doubt a hospital could ask for the necessary documentation for that; these days it is likely to lead to a discrimination suit.

May 12, 2009, 01:07:14 PM

Quote from: MountainDon on May 11, 2009, 06:59:32 PM
I agree with VG about having a will; an up-to-date will let me add. To that I'll add that it is imperative to have an up-to-date health care directive. All just in case. However, too many folks do not have either. Do you all?? If not, why not??

One thing that can be a "biggie" to a non married and/or same sex relationship is that hospitals may restrict visits to married spouses in some cases. The non lagally married may encounter problems. I'm not sure how that should be addressed in the absence of a legal marriage or state recognized partnership.

Even though I'm married, I have both a living will (Directives) and a power of attorney for Jane. This puts her in control no matter what.
I made two of each and had both notarized (It's important that both are originals) One is in the safe and the other is in my wallet.

Wills are easy and as expensive or cheap as you want. A holographic (Handwritten) will is legal in every state I know of. If done in your own handwriting, it does not need to be witnessed.

Just write out how you want everything divided. A lot of the BS in wills is boilerplate that lawyers like.
I have a family full of lawyers and still write my own wills when it needs updating.

You can also get the forms off the net or at most office supply stores.

One thing I did and try to keep up with is put everything in both names with the right of survivorship. It takes the courts out of the picture completely.

MountainDon · May 12, 2009, 07:56:13 PM

Quote from: peternap on May 12, 2009, 01:07:14 PM

One thing I did and try to keep up with is put everything in both names with the right of survivorship. It takes the courts out of the picture completely.

Depending on your state, it may be possible to add revocable beneficiaries on real property and automobiles/bikes/ATV's/PWC... anything that gets registered. Here in NM it cost us $11 to register the beneficiary on each real property title; ditto the vehicles. That means that if/when we both die those pass to our named beneficiary (son) without the need to go through probate court. In NM, if the estate is valued at less than $30K there is no need to probate at all. So if one can whittle down the estate by using revocable beneficiaries you're doing them a favor and saving them money.

Sonoran · May 12, 2009, 10:54:49 PM

I haven't talked to my teacher yet. I did talk to kids today in class and I wasn't the only one who had this problem. Everyone who said that prop 8 didn't violate the constitution received a miserable score, while everyone who "BS'd it and said it violated their rights" (their own words) received a perfect score.

Virginia Gent · May 13, 2009, 06:53:11 PM

What do you expect from state-sponsored propaganda, I mean, Public Education

pagan · May 14, 2009, 06:55:19 AM

VG,

Yup, about what we should expect.

Sonoran · May 17, 2009, 10:59:20 PM

I just wanted to share something with you guys. I turned in a term paper for my Speech class last Wednesday. It was a basic 3-5 page essay.

I got my paper back and Mr. Spence commented, "Outstanding!" at the end of it and gave me a 150 out of 150.

He also sent out an e-mail to the class which said the following:

"I have read and graded half the classes papers and I am very disappointed. Only one person has done a college level job of proof-reading their paper before they submitted it. Spelling errors, punctuation errors, cliches, grammar errors, contractions, numbering errors, and sentences that just make no sense at all are all too common. If you want a successful college experience than you will need to learn how to write and proof read your papers before you submit them."

He he he. Just wanted you guys to know I'm not a bad writer because of the grade my poli-sci teacher gave me.