UK set for same-sex marriage battle...

[_subgenius]

That language in Skinner is dicta. It is not legally binding. It has no stare decisis effect. It is "speaking as a man," not "official doctrine." Baker was not citing that language because it was binding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what "substantively defining what marriage is" means.

a perfect example of your inconsistent position and need to move goal posts.
My response with Baker was for your direct request to reference a case that "interprets" Skinner in the manner described. I never claimed it was "binding precedent"...and it does not have to be in order to justify legislation....see the "fundamental rights" discussed before.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: Darth J's post that used to be three back from this one is now in the Terrestrial Forum. Click here to read it.]

[_Equality]

There is no such thing as federal common law.

This is technically not true. There is no general federal common law. But there is a whole lot of specific federal common law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the ... els_of_law

[_Darth J]

There is no such thing as federal common law.

This is technically not true. There is no general federal common law. But there is a whole lot of specific federal common law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the ... els_of_law

From the context of what I said and the imbedded hyperlink to Erie v. Tompkins, I think you can see that I meant no general common law.

[_Equality]

From the context of what I said and the imbedded hyperlink to Erie v. Tompkins, I think you can see that I meant no general common law.

Ok. And I agree with your argument. Sorry to be a nitpicker. I had a professor who would go apeshit if someone said there is no federal common law and I just have a kneejerk reaction to it.

[_Darth J]

That language in Skinner is dicta. It is not legally binding. It has no stare decisis effect. It is "speaking as a man," not "official doctrine." Baker was not citing that language because it was binding precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what "substantively defining what marriage is" means.

a perfect example of your inconsistent position and need to move goal posts.

No. Your inability to understand the difference between holding and dicta does not mean I am moving the goalposts.

My response with Baker was for your direct request to reference a case that "interprets" Skinner in the manner described. I never claimed it was "binding precedent"...[/quote]

Your exact words: "a pretty darn good legal precedent for many subsequent decisions, especially based on that clear notion." And stop putting correct terminology in scare quotes.

and it does not have to be in order to justify legislation....see the "fundamental rights" discussed before.

What are you even trying to assert? Do you think someone, somewhere believes that the U.S. Supreme Court has to establish substantive law in order to justify state legislation? Are you implying that state legislatures determine what people's fundamental rights are?

Seriously, Subgenius, just stop with this pseudo-legal gibberish and say that you think the law should be that only opposite-sex couples should be allowed to marry because that is what God established in the Garden of Eden.

[_Darth J]

From the context of what I said and the imbedded hyperlink to Erie v. Tompkins, I think you can see that I meant no general common law.

Ok. And I agree with your argument. Sorry to be a nitpicker. I had a professor who would go apeshit if someone said there is no federal common law and I just have a kneejerk reaction to it.

But Equality, why do we even need case law, since the Constitution is a self-executing document that can be applied to real-life facts without needing to decide what it means?