Judge Strikes Down Indiana Ban on Gay Marriage (Jesus, school, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There will be an answer to this in under two weeks if not sooner IMHO.
If the SCOTUS does not take up Utah's appeal, then that ruling stands for the entire district and sets a pretty powerful precedent. It all be tells others challenging SSM bans in other states/federal courts nothing has changed since Windsor v DOMA so don't bother.
The high court could also decide it wishes to wait and combine several other cases pending before appellate panels such as Texas/Southwest, and IIRC Ohio. Question then becomes do they lift the stays and let marriages commence or not.
Court also could simply affirm without comment IIRC the Utah appellate decision which again pretty much means state bans against SSM are dead unless they present some sort of compelling interest.
Conservative groups keep losing these federal cases because they have brought nothing new to the table that counters Windsor v. DOMA. Utah did try by saying marriage was not a fundamental right and that states shouldn't be compelled and so forth, and you see what that got them.
Good points. Although, I don't see SCOTUS making such a huge decision quickly but it is inevitable. There is no competent argument against it. The arguments have just been hallow...
Good points. Although, I don't see SCOTUS making such a huge decision quickly but it is inevitable. There is no competent argument against it. The arguments have just been hallow...
Decision was made in the Kennedy majority decision of Windsor v DOMA. Again Justice Scalia and others knew what was afoot which is why the former stated "we will have gay marriage across the country....", and the latter at once began launching cases in all states with SSM bans and or constitutional amendments to overturn.
As things stand the SCOTUS does not have to do a thing and SSM will be the "law of the land". That is by not taking up the Utah or other appeals and allowing lower court rulings in favour of gay marriage to stand, stick a fork in it, the thing is done.
Unless or until an appellate court upholds the remaining state bans. It won't be out of Denver (Oklahoma) so we shall have to see what comes out of Texas (Southwest) and Ohio among a few others. Will we probably see (IMHO) the high court play it's hand.
Decision was made in the Kennedy majority decision of Windsor v DOMA. Again Justice Scalia and others knew what was afoot which is why the former stated "we will have gay marriage across the country....", and the latter at once began launching cases in all states with SSM bans and or constitutional amendments to overturn.
As things stand the SCOTUS does not have to do a thing and SSM will be the "law of the land". That is by not taking up the Utah or other appeals and allowing lower court rulings in favour of gay marriage to stand, stick a fork in it, the thing is done.
Unless or until an appellate court upholds the remaining state bans. It won't be out of Denver (Oklahoma) so we shall have to see what comes out of Texas (Southwest) and Ohio among a few others. Will we probably see (IMHO) the high court play it's hand.
I understand what you are saying... I agree with you.
I just do not want to hear one word at all from dems about a judge striking down a gun law when a state or city had passed it.
you want your gay marriage? then fine, don't be screaming for more gun control or something else when a judge knocks it down too.
You are talking about a very different issue and situation. They are not similar. I do not know of anyone taking a local gun law to SCOTUS. Do you? If you feel that a gun law is against your constitutional right then find an attorney and fight for that right. Good luck.
"We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union," the appellate court said.
Too bad they stayed the ruling, because who knows when SCOTUS will issue a ruling? It could be a year or more.
Good!
And no, I'm not a bigot, although gay marriage activists ruin it for me. Normally I am neutral, but the ones I have come across are very in your face about it. I think they should get the same benefits as a straight married couple, but don't define it as marriage.
I'm sure Indiana will join Utah, Texas, Arkansas, etc. in stayed cases.
And no, to anybody saying that in 10 years everybody in the country will support gay marriage just because it might be legal, you are wrong. Abortion is legal, but about half of the country is still pro-life. The right to bear arms is legal, but there are still those who want to take our guns away. The death penalty is legal, but again, there are still opponents. There will always be opponents to gay marriage, and its nothing like the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
You are talking about a very different issue and situation. They are not similar. I do not know of anyone taking a local gun law to SCOTUS. Do you? If you feel that a gun law is against your constitutional right then find an attorney and fight for that right. Good luck.
it is very much the same issue, except that marriage is not a right, and owning and using firearms is a right.
Why are you denying those children a normal family with a mother and a father?
My children are both mothered and fathered. They have opportunities most children will never get. They live in a beautiful home, attend a top-notch school in a language immersion program, get good grades, have two parents who are involved with their school and homework, sports participation, they are served healthy, home-cooked meals, given nice clothes and are disciplined and taught respect. They go to church every Sunday and have many friends in our neighborhood.
And I am truly thankful that we don't live somwhere where we encounter bigotry and hatred toward our family.
If marriage can be redefined, then why can't consent also be redefined?
If you support gay marriage and deny Harrier the right to marry his cat, then you do not support true equality, you just support special rights for certain people.
Show me a cat that can speak, agree to marrying you, and sign a marriage certificate, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, you're argument is pathetic.
That reminds me, when should I expect my invitation to the Harrier/Feline wedding?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
