Posted on 04/25/2024 2:23:55 PM PDT by fwdude
A court case that already has been in the system for years is being pushed up to the level of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is expected ultimately to be before the Supreme Court, where it could be a vehicle to overturn that institution's creation of same-sex marriage for the nation.
That 2015 ruling, the Obergefell case, has been described by no less than the chief justice of the high court as unrelated to the U.S. Constitution, and exploded limits on same-sex marriage in dozens of states.
...
The case at hand is the attack on former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis. She was in office at the time the Obergefell decision exploded on the American public, and was caught in a dilemma: Her faith would not allow her to issue certificates to same-sex duos, nor did her state law at the time allow it. Yet the court ruling demanded it.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Good, reverse it. The sooner, the better.
Over 25 states would immediately find their state constitutional marriage amendments newly in force if Obergefell were overturned. Man, would that elicit screeching from the left.
1. The "full faith and credit" clause could be used to force states with laws against gay "marriage" to honor gay "marriages" consummated in states that allow gay "marriage".
2. Corporations are generally in favor of federalization of all laws so that laws in one state are the same as in every other state. They wouldn't want a situation where they would like to move an important employee from an office in a gay friendly state to an office in a normal state if the gay employee is "married". They will fund all efforts to put support for gay "marriage" into law and will use boycotts, etc. to discourage states from enacting or re-enacting laws that favor traditional marriage.
Reversing it only means to take it out of the religious context of marriage. It would therefore continue to allow legal unions.
As far as the government is concerned it’s a tax issue. The Gov’t wants a cut of the action. Which guarantees a resolution for these unions to continue.
Personally I’m against marriage as an institution because it has gone from holy matrimony to a legal union, or civil union with governmental underpinnings tied directly to the IRS.
Do people wishing to avoid the tax ramifications but and still enter into a union? Certainly they do it’s called holy matrimony and they don’t need a preacher with a state license to conduct a ceremony or a civilian to conduct a ceremony for 50 bucks a shot.
The downside is the divorce rate because if you’re legally married the legal entitlement through divorce would be strictly adhered to, where if you just went and got your holy man to perform the ceremony for you it would be more of a mutual agreement. Even a whisper of getting an attorney involved with legal prenuptial agreements is probably impossible and would also be a tip-off to the IRS.
Plain and simple - it’s all about the Franklin’s.
Where does a gubmint less than 250 years old get the authority to change the definition of a religious concept thousands of years old?
“ 1. The “full faith and credit” clause could be used to force states with laws against gay “marriage” to honor gay “marriages” consummated in states that allow gay “marriage.”
Why hasn’t someone based a lawsuit like that over CCLs?
L
There’s no reason for states to even be involved in marriages at all. All those relationships could be covered under a state’s contract laws.
The perverse, reprobate genie is already out of the bottle in post-modern, pagan America.
If Roe v Wade was returned to being a states’ rights issue, then by the same logic, Obergefell should be overturned as well.
But that doesn’t mean California or New York will change their laws. In fact, they will double down on perversion.
At least let conservative states get out from under the DOJ and DC Marxist boot
This case has "full faith and credit" and 2nd Amendment written all over it.
That's exactly what's going on now in numerous states with regard to abortion, such as what's happening in Arizona.
Marriage licenses go way back and there are situations such as the military where being legally recognized as married matters.
That was already done when Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act. Should Obergefell be reversed, any couple legally married in the state or country in which it was done will be legally married in their home state, regardless of whether or not that state has such a law on their books.
Reverse that monumental mistake!
True. Congress passed the Respect for Marriage Act , which created a federal law which explicitly legalizes same-sex marriage.
So even if the Supreme Court were to reverse the case on same-sex marriage, the fact that you now have a federal law which explicitly allows it fundamentally changes the legal landscape surrounding same-sex marriage.
Reversing the Supreme Court decision would legally say that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, but such a ruling would not over rule the Federal Respect for Marriage Act.
Exactly. It was enacted in response to a possible future reversal of Obergefell.
Is that the civil judgment against her? It should be appealed on the basis that the only damages they could have suffered was the cost of gas or cab fare to go to the next county clerk's office. She did cause them any hardship other than that...no anguish, no real delays - had no power to stop them from getting a license. Counties in Kentucky and small and plentiful - each one with a county clerk that can issue licenses.
Correct - they stopped teaching why elective abortion is wrong. Actually the same thing happened with the success in passing state constitutional amendments against same sex marriage and the defense of marriage act...stopped teaching. Ireland the same thing with their ban on abortions then getting overwhelmingly repealed. A law or lack of a law does not teach morals.
Personally I DON’T GIVE A DAMN IF FAGGOTS GET MARRIED!
Just so long as THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADOPT OR IN VITRO ANY CHILDREN!!!!
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.