Skip to comments.
US Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Zenit ^
| January 17, 2015
Posted on 01/17/2015 3:22:48 PM PST by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
To: Tax-chick
There arent many states that have, at the state level, established homosexual marriage. In most cases, its been imposed by a Federal override of state law.
35 States Have Legal Same-Sex Marriage
by Court Decision Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014) |
|
8 |
by State Legislature Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009)
|
3
|
by Popular Vote Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), Washington (Dec. 9, 2012)
Washington, DC legalized gay marriage on Mar. 3, 2010, the date marriage licenses became available to same-sex couples.
|
|
14 States Ban Same-Sex Marriage
|
13 |
by Constitutional Amendment and State Law Alabama (2006, 1998), Arkansas (2004, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), Texas (2005, 1997) |
|
1 |
by Constitutional Amendment only Nebraska (2000) |
|
|
|
_____________________________________________________ |
7 |
states where gay marriage bans have been overturned, but where appeals are in progress |
|
In 2013 and 2014, following the US Supreme Court's United States v. Windsor decision, gay marriage bans were overturned by court rulings in several states, but those rulings were put on hold pending appeals to the US Supreme Court. On Oct. 6, 2014, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from five of those states, and the decision immediately cleared the way for legal gay marriage in Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Six other states, Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming, were also potentially affected by the Supreme Court ruling because they were in the jurisdictions of the lower courts that had overturned the gay marriage bans.
- ARKANSAS On May 9, 2014, Arkansas' gay marriage ban was ruled unconstitutional by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza. Arkansas had previously banned gay marriage by both state law and voter-approved constitutional amendment. Some Arkansas counties began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on May 10, 2014, while other counties refused to issue licenses. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel requested that the State Supreme Court put a stay on Judge Piazza's ruling, but the request was denied on May 14, 2014. The Supreme Court effectively halted gay marriages from taking place, however, by noting that while Judge Piazza's ruling had struck down both the constitutional amendment and the state law, it had not affected an additional state law prohibiting county clerks from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. 456 licenses had been issued in total. On May 15, 2014, Judge Piazza expanded his ruling to strike down the additional law and any other measures that made gay marriage illegal, but on May 16, 2014 the State Supreme Court suspended that ruling, halting all gay marriages within the state. On Nov. 25, 2014, US District Judge Kristine Baker ruled the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, but stayed her own ruling, pending expected appeals.
- KENTUCKY On July 1, 2014, US District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage violates the equal protection clause in the US Constitution. Judge Heyburn stated that the ban serves "no conceivable legitimate purpose," but stayed his own decision, pending the state's appeal. On Nov. 6, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Heyburn's ruling 2-1, thus upholding the state's gay marriage ban. An appeal to either the full bench of the court or directly to the US Supreme Court is expected.
- MICHIGAN On Mar. 21, 2014, a federal judge ruled Michigan's gay marriage ban unconstitutional. US District Judge Bernard Friedman wrote that "Today's decision... affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail." Around 300 same-sex couples received marriage licenses before the US 6th Court of Appeals issued a stay on the decision on Mar. 22, 2014, making same-sex marriage illegal again in Michigan, pending the appeal process. On Mar. 28, 2014, US Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the marriages performed prior to the stay being issued would be recognized by the federal government: "These families will be eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages." On Nov. 6, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Friedman's ruling 2-1, thus upholding the state's gay marriage ban. An appeal to either the full bench of the court or directly to the US Supreme Court is expected.
- MISSISSIPPI On Nov. 25, 2014, US District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled the state's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, but stayed his own ruling, pending expected appeals.
- MISSOURI On Nov. 5, 2014, St. Louis Circuit Judge Rex Burlison ruled that the state's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. The ruling only applies to St. Louis, where same-sex couples began applying for marriage licenses shortly after the decision. On Nov. 7, 2014, US District Judge Ortrie D. Smith also ruled that the state's ban is unconstitutional, but stayed his own ruling. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster announced that he will appeal the ruling to the Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals.
- SOUTH DAKOTA On Jan. 12, 2015, US District Judge Karen Schreier ruled South Dakota's gay marriage ban unconstitutional, stating that "Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry... South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification." The ruling was put on hold pending the state's appeal to the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
- TEXAS On Feb. 26, 2014, a federal judge ruled Texas' gay marriage ban unconstitutional. Judge Orlando Garcia wrote "Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuges in our U.S. Constitution." He then stayed his own decision pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, leaving same-sex marriage illegal in Texas.
Read More
|
21
posted on
01/17/2015 4:00:04 PM PST
by
NYer
(Without justice - what else is the State but a great band of robbers? - St. Augustine)
To: workerbee
“Not at all. Theyll simply write in except for those already married under the previous erroneous rules and granfather em all in.”
Doesn’t seem to me that that would work... What if the state decided it wasn’t going to change it’s law?
22
posted on
01/17/2015 4:00:24 PM PST
by
babygene
To: Sacajaweau
I think theyre just going to look at it as a contract between 2 people...and nothing more. No religious or moral application. Exactly right. And therefore they will be merely clarifying a tax-and-benefits legal definition.
What really needs to happen is that this administratively acknowledged contractual agreement needs to be called something other than "marriage" for everybody. And the word "marriage" has to go back to where it came from: a joining acknowledged by a spiritual tradition between two people and God, based on love - and completely outside of government jurisdiction.
23
posted on
01/17/2015 4:03:05 PM PST
by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: NYer
As that one wit said, "Why don't we just save a lot of time and ask Justice Kennedy what he thinks?"
To: NYer; All
"Can someone post the number of states activist judges that have already legalized gay marriage [from the bench]." There! I think thats a more precise question.
To: NYer; All
"Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, [
] , saying, A decision by the Supreme Court on whether a state may define marriage as the union of one man and one woman may be the most significant Court decision since the Courts tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision making abortion a constitutional right." With all due respect to Archbishop Cordileone, he needs to get up to speed on 10th Amendment powers versus 14th Amendment protect rights. From a related thread, please consider the following.
As a consequence of widespread ignorance of 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus constitutionally non-enumerated rights, the pro-gay marriage movement is wrongly getting away with shoving constitutionally unprotected gay marriage down everybodys throats with a PC interpretation of the 14th Amendments (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC).
More specifically, activist judges are wrongly subjectively reading the so-called right to gay marriage into the EPC. But by doing so they are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has historically clarified that 14A added no new protections to the Constitution. With respect to constitutional rights, it was intended only to strengthen only those rights expressly amended to the Constitution by the states.
3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added]. Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the Supreme Court was likely basing its clarification of the scope of 14A on the official clarification of 14A by John Bingham, the main of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.
Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added]. Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
So in order for the courts to apply the so-called right to gay marriage to the states via 14A, the states would have already had to amend the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage as a right, imo, which they have never done. So activist justices and judges dont have any constitutionally enumerated gay rights protections that they can apply to the states.
Again, special interest groups are getting away with using judicial activism to shove their agendas down peoples throats because nobody knows the Constitution and its history anymore.
To: Tax-chick
You're right about "forced approval."
It buzz-word used to be "tolerance," implying "reluctantly put up with something you don't like."
Then it became "acceptance," implying "get over it."
We long ago passed that stage to finally end up with "celebration!"
As I said before, I'm not necessarily against the concept of gays marrying... it doesn't have any impact on me personally. But I am DEFINITELY against the issue being forced on States where the people have emphatically expressed their wills.
To: allendale
I doubt that, what recent rulings from this court can you point to that the liberal justices decided in accordance with the Shaira.
To: Dilbert San Diego
I agree, but I think it will be 6 to 3 as apposed to 5 to 4.
IMO Roberts will vote to uphold gay marriage.
To: babygene
"It seems to me that if the USSC rules that the marriage laws in a state are unconstitutional , then wouldnt those couples that are married under those same laws are no longer married
" Wouldnt they have to remarry to be legal?
I believe this to be an excellent question. I know this: If two men in the State of Missouri can get the same marriage license as a man and a woman, then mine and my wife's Missouri license actually means nothing at all. It has no moral significance whatsoever.
To: TontoKowalski
. I certainly have not felt my traditional marriage weakened by gays marrying. I certainly have not felt my U.S. Dollars weakened by counterfeiters printing.
31
posted on
01/17/2015 6:24:30 PM PST
by
Jeff Chandler
(Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
To: John Leland 1789
“I believe this to be an excellent question. I know this: If two men in the State of Missouri can get the same marriage license as a man and a woman, then mine and my wife’s Missouri license actually means nothing at all. It has no moral significance whatsoever.”
Understand, I’m not looking at this as a way to dissolve marriages, but a way to get the feds to back off. If this idea were adopted by states, we’d see an end to this nonsense I believe.
32
posted on
01/17/2015 6:33:43 PM PST
by
babygene
To: John Leland 1789
So, suppose the states who’s marriage laws were overturned by the courts took the position; Fine, our marriage laws are (were) unconstitutional. All state marriages must therefore be re-done under the new law, otherwise they are invalid. Imagine the uproar?
33
posted on
01/17/2015 6:50:00 PM PST
by
babygene
To: Jeff Chandler
Most of the damage is done by counterfeits that bear some resemblance to the real thing. Homosexual “marriage” is the equivalent of Monopoly money.
34
posted on
01/18/2015 7:46:56 AM PST
by
Tax-chick
("A war is not over until the enemy stops fighting." ~ Thomas Sowell)
To: Jeff Chandler
I certainly have not felt my U.S. Dollars weakened by counterfeiters printing. Come on now. In what tangible ways have the validity or sanctity of the vows you exchanged with your wife been either weakened or strengthened because two men or two women that you probably don't even know got a license and got "married?"
I'm neither "pro" nor "anti" gay marriage. It is just irrelevant to my day-to-day life. I don't care if the voters or elected representatives of a state sanction it. I don't care if those same voters/representatives ban it.
The much bigger issue is the imposition of laws by an unelected judiciary which should not even have standing to decide the matter on behalf of a State's citizens.
To: TontoKowalski
People who divorce do not affect my personal relationship, either, but they certainly damage the institution of marriage. Marriage is an institution created for the protection of of the offspring of procreation; a child does best being raised by a mother and a father; it is in society’s interest to preserve the family.
Redefining marriage to include a man masturbating inside another man’s shit hole is insane, and forcing people to accept it as normal and healthy is evil.
36
posted on
01/18/2015 4:54:19 PM PST
by
Jeff Chandler
(Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
To: NYer
will roberts pull a fast one like he did with obamacare? you just can’t trust any republicans anymore, like justice kennedy...
37
posted on
01/18/2015 6:48:51 PM PST
by
Coleus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-37 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson