Tweet
Originally posted by RedSox
View Post
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Underlying Facts: Skinner involves an early-20th century version of the notorious "three strikes" rule...only on your third strike you are not just put away in the slammer for life....you are sterilized for life. Skinner was convicted of a felony for robbing chickens; and two others for robbery with a firearm. After being incarcerated the third time, the OK AG instituted the requisite sterilization hearings. At these hearings the only issue was whether the convict can be sterilized (via vasectomy) "without detriment to his general health." Not a very high standard.
Inexplicably, the law contains an exception to the felonies that qualify for three strikes treatment. The statute stated that all felonies involving crimes of "moral terpitude" will count against the convict for purposes of sterilization unless the crime is embezzlement (stealing money/property when you're placed in a supervisory/custodial/bailee/bailor situation). This is central to the grounds upon which the OK law was overturned and the fundamental right of marriage has very little if anything to do with the opinion (I'll get to that later).
Grounds for reversing the OK Statute: The SC said that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Before you claim victory, follow the SC's logic. Imagine I steal 1,000 dollars from a perfect stranger three times...and am convicted for all three offenses; I can get sterilized in OK under this law. Now imagine you steal a grand from three different employers and are convicted thrice of embezzlement. Under the OK statute, I'd have to get sterilized while your boys would go untouched. Such a trivial distinction for the what amounts to the same crime is the reason that the law was overturned. The case has nothing (and I mean nothing) to do with marriage. It has to do with a statute that imposes a harsher penalty for a meaningless distinction and therefore violates the EPC of the 14th Am.
Where does your quote come from? As noted, page 541: "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man." Does the legislation deal with marriage in any way? No. It deals with sterilization...the right to procreate (I'm not sure Prop. 8 opponents want to go the procreation route, do they?) The opinion then goes on to say "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race." Marriage is thrown in as an afterthought and has nothing to do with the opinion. At the very best this is semi-relevant dicta. In my opinion, it is nothing more than an early-20th century judge who simply associates procreation with marriage and it is tossed in to the sentence. Even if we give weight to the use of the term marriage, it does not say that marriage is a civil right, but says Marriage is fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race [sidenote: why is that? due to procreation purposes].
Sorry, man, but if the Supreme Court states that marriage is a civil right, it's not in the case you cited.
Underlying Facts: Skinner involves an early-20th century version of the notorious "three strikes" rule...only on your third strike you are not just put away in the slammer for life....you are sterilized for life. Skinner was convicted of a felony for robbing chickens; and two others for robbery with a firearm. After being incarcerated the third time, the OK AG instituted the requisite sterilization hearings. At these hearings the only issue was whether the convict can be sterilized (via vasectomy) "without detriment to his general health." Not a very high standard.
Inexplicably, the law contains an exception to the felonies that qualify for three strikes treatment. The statute stated that all felonies involving crimes of "moral terpitude" will count against the convict for purposes of sterilization unless the crime is embezzlement (stealing money/property when you're placed in a supervisory/custodial/bailee/bailor situation). This is central to the grounds upon which the OK law was overturned and the fundamental right of marriage has very little if anything to do with the opinion (I'll get to that later).
Grounds for reversing the OK Statute: The SC said that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Before you claim victory, follow the SC's logic. Imagine I steal 1,000 dollars from a perfect stranger three times...and am convicted for all three offenses; I can get sterilized in OK under this law. Now imagine you steal a grand from three different employers and are convicted thrice of embezzlement. Under the OK statute, I'd have to get sterilized while your boys would go untouched. Such a trivial distinction for the what amounts to the same crime is the reason that the law was overturned. The case has nothing (and I mean nothing) to do with marriage. It has to do with a statute that imposes a harsher penalty for a meaningless distinction and therefore violates the EPC of the 14th Am.
Where does your quote come from? As noted, page 541: "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man." Does the legislation deal with marriage in any way? No. It deals with sterilization...the right to procreate (I'm not sure Prop. 8 opponents want to go the procreation route, do they?) The opinion then goes on to say "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race." Marriage is thrown in as an afterthought and has nothing to do with the opinion. At the very best this is semi-relevant dicta. In my opinion, it is nothing more than an early-20th century judge who simply associates procreation with marriage and it is tossed in to the sentence. Even if we give weight to the use of the term marriage, it does not say that marriage is a civil right, but says Marriage is fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race [sidenote: why is that? due to procreation purposes].
Sorry, man, but if the Supreme Court states that marriage is a civil right, it's not in the case you cited.
Comment