- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
The Supreme Court Just Quietly Made Marriage Equality The Law Of The Land In Many States"In a surprising anti-climax to one of the most important legal battles of the last several decades, the Supreme Court announced today that it would not hear several cases where federal appeals courts held that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same marriage rights as straight couples. The announcement listed these marriage equality cases as part of a lengthy order listing the cases where the Court had denied review. The justices offered no explanation for their decision.
As a practical matter, however, this decision not to hear these cases is an earthquake for gay rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, refused to issue a stay halting its order favoring marriage equality. Although the Supreme Court later stepped in with its own stay order, that order provides that the Supreme Court’s stay will “terminate automatically” if the Supreme Court denies review of the case. Now that the justices have done so, there should be no further legal barriers preventing marriages from beginning in those five states — although it is possible that there may be some delay before marriages may begin due to procedural steps that need to be taken by the judiciary."
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.
If that's the narrative that SSM advocates want to portray that's fine by me. I see it as yet another victory that the federal government won't be taking over SSM with a SCOTUS ruling - regardless of which way they would rule.
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
I like that the Feds are keeping out of it for now, the less federal intervention into States affairs, the better. I just don't like that they are allowing a handful of judges to overrule the voices of the people of an entire State when they decide how they want to handle things in their own States. This is why they got rid of the filibuster and try to flood the courts with their anti Constitutional activist judges. They know that they only need a few judges in the right places that will put the liberal agenda over the Constitution and the will of the people.
I disagree - they can leave it to the lower courts forever and continue to refuse to take the issue up. It should be IMO a state issue not a federal issue. Government really has no business being in the middle of marriage of any sort.
U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Rule on Gay Marriage - Bloomberg
The SCOTUS has ruled they will leave it up to the states to decide and will not take up a nationwide ruling on same sex marriage. This means that lower court ruling will stay in place unless challenged in the future. No federal ruling of marriage is in the near future....
This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.
Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.
This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions". It did not rule that marriage was a state issue.
The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
The issue is not so much who should marry who, but which marriages the governement should sanction or promote.
what? the SCOTUS can't decide every single case in the US. but it can, should, and must rule when an entire protected class of people are being denied a fundamental right in some states.
What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?Baker was decided for "lack of substantial federal questions".
Nobody should be involved in the issue of marriage. How the hell did this happen that it's an issue anyway? When I decided to marry my husband, I had no interest in anyone else's opinion on it whatsoever as I was free and over 18 (over 21 actually) and as an adult, it was up to me who I married, and nobody else.
Gay people should get to marry who they want. Polygamists should get to marry who they want (assuming their choice is of legal age). A 90 year old woman should get to marry a 18 year old guy. An 88 year old man whose penis is kept in a jar of formaldehyde should get to marry a 21 year old girl if it makes her happy.
This is all crazy nonsense that marriage is actually the subject of debate. Who cares who another adult marries anyway?
Government's first stepped in for health reasons, then for birthing reasons, age limits then welfare. With the rise of social welfare systems came the need for qualifiers and, of course, morality reasons, such as preventing inter-racial marriages etc. Today, the state defines what is a marriage, and dictates that through both religious and lait marriages partly due to the increase in "common law" marriages, divorces and so forth.
I believe it to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the country. If you're going to do away with government involvement, you may as well do away with the concept entirely, because the contract becomes meaningless.They shouldn't have to sanction or promote any form of marriage. It ain't their job. They can't even handle the job they are supposed to do.
What do you think lack of a federal question means if it dosent imply that it is an issue that should be decided a lower level of jurisdiction ?
I can't answer for CT of course, but my thoughts are:
1. Baker was issued in 1972.
2. In 1972 there were no Civil Marriages in any state in the union.
3. It wasn't until 1996 the DOMA was passed (i.e. federal law which impact directly the recognition of Civil Marriages by federal entities and Congress said whether other states had to recognize out of state marriages).
4. In 2004 the first state authorized SSCM (Massachusetts).
5. Now in 2014 there were 19 states recognizing SSCM.
In 1972 there really wasn't any federal question, in 2014 that condition didn't apply.
>>>>
I believe it to be necessary in promoting the general welfare of the country. If you're going to do away with government involvement, you may as well do away with the concept entirely, because the contract becomes meaningless.
It means at the time that the federal court had no place in hearing the case. Sodomy was illegal in 45 states in 1971.
That is the job of the court system, not the SCOTUS. This is not an oligarchy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?