Posted on 10/03/2014 8:21:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The case was brought by 10 same-sex couples who are represented by the ACLU.
Missouri must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples that were granted elsewhere, state Judge Dale Youngs ruled on Friday.
“[T]o the extent these laws prohibit plaintiffs’ legally contracted marriages from other states from being recognized here, they are wholly irrational, do not rest upon any reasonable basis, and are purely arbitrary,” Youngs wrote.
The ruling followed a hearing in September on the case, which was brought by 10 same-sex couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“Missouri has finally recognized our couples’ marriages as being no different from any other marriage,” Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement....
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
This was always the plan. All they had to do was get one state, and the rest would have to recognize those “marriages.”
Does this now mean that a Texas CHL has to be recognized all across the US?
Hopefully they are off to the SCOTUS.
And some people still wonder why they’re called the American Communist Litigation Union.
Yeah, sure it does...
I don’t see how this ruling can be legal.
A Missouri state judge should not be able to rule this way, because Missouri is one of 30+ states which have marriage amendments. If marriage is defined in the constitution, as a man and a woman, then how can a judge mandate that it is unconstitutional to not recognize homosexual marriage???
I know, to liberals, the rule of law is meaningless. This is an example of that.
Yeah? Then every state must respect every other state’s CCW or other permit.
eg New Jersey must free Shaneen Allen of Pennsylvania.
Because we have allowed government to define “marriage” for its own purposes (such as taxation and regulation of estates), we have allowed government to define marriage as a social institution. That was fine as long as people in control of government were generally supportive of God’s original definition of marriage. However we have entered a time when a growing number of people in control of government want to redefine marriage for their own purposes, which in part is contrary to God’s definition.
Marriage is now far more a matter of politics and ideology than of private religious beliefs.
Therefore, for the sake of marriage as God defines it, it is time to remove from government the power to define who is married and who is not. Then gays could form whatever relationships they please but they could not force those who disagree to be enablers for those relationships. And we would not have schools that must teach that homosexual “marriages” are just as legitimate as heterosexual ones. Nor would we have owners of wedding photography services being threatened with arrest and being convicted of a crime for merely declining to artfully photograph a “marriage” they find morally repugnant.
No truer words have ever been spoken !
Yeah, off to the Supreme Court where the outcome is certain. Anthony Kennedy is at his worst on gay-related cases. He will be the fifth vote to impose recognition of gay marriage on the entire nation.
Knowing this, I wouldn’t be surprised if John Roberts joins the left to make it a 6-3 decision.
So in NJ where a lady is having the maximum sentence against her for carrying a legally bought weapon and a concealed carry permit from another state can use this ruling on appeal and when, yes???!!!
when-win
I don’t understand why we have to recognize other states’ laws on marriage and yet we don’t have to do so with gun laws. Is it selective interpretation(violation of the 10th amendment)?
Exactly - of course the more likely scenario is that some hard Left State's policies will be pushed across the board...
I think it was two-three years ago that a couple of lesbians who had married in another State were trying to get a divorce in Texas. The Judge refused the divorce because under Texas law they were not considered to be married.
I don’t know how that eventually wound up, but they should have just applied for divorce in the State where they married.
That’s the problem people don’t realize about the courts. The court system can impise strict gun control, strike down immigration policy, or worse. This is just the beginning.
It’s legal positivism. People just don’t do principled defiance any more. They don’t even talk about doing it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.