Posted on 01/17/2015 11:48:18 PM PST by NetAddicted
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether all 50 states must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, positioning it to resolve one of the great civil rights questions in a generation before its current term ends in June.
The decision came just months after the justices ducked the issue, refusing in October to hear appeals from rulings allowing same-sex marriage in five states. That decision, which was considered a major surprise, delivered a tacit victory for gay rights, immediately expanding the number of states with same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia, up from 19.
Largely as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision not to act, the number of states allowing same-sex marriage has since grown to 36, and more than 70 percent of Americans live in places where gay couples can marry. ... The last hour will concern a question that will be moot if the answer to the first one is yes: whether states must “recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out of state.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hmmmmm,,, so if (when) the Supremes say that one state MUST honor a marriage license issued by another state, I guess that will mean a concealed carry license issued by any state must be honored nationwide? Cool!!
Is sodomy a necessary component, or can platonic drinking buddies get married too?
And professional licenses too! If I have a contractors license in one state, I should be about to use IT in any state I please too, right?
Nice... So marriage is only about sex and sexual preferences? Obviously they are pre-accepting definitions, talking of right of something that does not even exist.
Have we all conceded the “civil right” premise?
This “newspaper” seems to have.
Mental illness and unnatural sexual behavior is not a civil right.
My take:
Since they want to deal with it as little as possible - witness the fact that they’ve ducked the issue to the greatest degree they could- they are going to rule in favor of it.
If they rule against it, the issue is not going to go away, and they want it to go away;; if they rule in favor of it, there will be initial outrage but they might figure it will either be over or less to deal with.
An analysis based only on what the path of least resistance will be, or what SCOTUS will perceive to the such.
“The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of
certiorari are granted limited to the following questions:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to
license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to
recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex
when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?”
-
Reference the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
My beloved mentor Dr. Ed Cronin, PhD just spilled red ink all over your post.
I would agree, and I doubt if the liberal folks grasp the fact that you could now come up with a dozen states that have a particular view of something....and therefore force everyone in the remaining states to go along.
Concealed weapons is simply one. Legal sales and distribution of marijuana would be another. We could even see a couple of states outlaw baggy pants, and suddenly find that the stance applies across all fifty states.
But on a broader issue....there isn’t some written note anywhere that says marriage is a right. It’s basically treated like a fishing license, a hunting license, or a taxi-license. Because I have a fishing license for Mississippi does not mean that I can fish in Alaska or New Jersey. The history of this whole marriage license business goes back to the early 1800s when you had various guys who’d marry some gal, then run off and marry in another state. The license was a method that you’d try the guy in court. Without the license, you had no legal basis to know if the guy was really married or just hanging out with some gal.
The heck with what God says..let’s listen to what the Supreme Court says /sarc
The black-robed cabal dispensing social, legal fakery under the pseudonym aka the US Supreme Court, having been under a Zombie spell cast upon them by a gay, liberal Kenyan Medicine Man, Bahr’Reeh Soh’Terrus, his real identity as Muslim Fakir, since 2008 will continue to indulge their SMOATF (Sodomite Master Of All Things Fudge) towards the facilitation that Gay is the New Way.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman."
*****
Will two persons be able to marry even if they are not gay men or gay women? For instance they want to get married to get benefits that single persons cannot get.
Will couples have to show proof that they are indeed gay?
It is all very confusing to me.
Why not two spinster sisters, with no interest in sex? They’re living together simply for reasons of friendship and frugality. An official marriage between the two would show the world that they really care for each other.
Just like a man and his dog (wait — don’t give the court any ideas!)
Amazing that something nobody on earth had even heard of a generation ago has become "one of the great civil rights questions in a generation."
A black person cannot decide to become white tomorrow.
A gay man can be straight by sundown if he chooses.
Homosexuality is not just a flimsy premise for constitutional protections...it’s no premise at all.
This should not be in the supreme court. It is a matter for the states to decide.
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.