I feel great sorrow for so many people who have chosen to ignore God's
laws, including His ordaining that marriage is between a man and a woman. (See
Genesis)I empathize with Senator Hatch, whose political background
prompted him to issue the warning that same-sex marriage will likely become law.
His words were not a concession, but a warning.At the same time, God
also decrees the right of agency, or the right to chose one's own actions
and life course. We are not free, however, from the consequences of those
choices.I join the plea for people and governments to uphold correct
principles, including that marriage is only between a man and a woman. To chose
otherwise will bring upon this nation the calamities foretold by men of God,
both ancient and modern.
Some said: "I do not need to recognize them or their so called marriages. I
will continue to vote against those who do."I always wondered
what Jesus meant when he said":"The second most important
commandment is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as you love
yourself.’" Thanks for clearing it up for me.
Re: "Marriage is not a right, it is a rite."Sadly, you have
confused the religious rite of holy matrimony with what WE are talking about,
namely, civil marriage.No religious rite makes a couple legally
married in America.
I truly hope the SCOTUS takes a case so this issue can be finalized once and for
all. Plus I want to see Brian Brown sitting on the steps of the court with head
in hand asking "why did I take this job?" Either that or he will be on
his back crying like a little spoiled brat. Either way I will be content.
@Badgerbadger: "Marriage is not a right, it is a rite."Marriage comes with over 1200 legal protections and benefits. Marriage in
modern society has value because of the law, not because of the church.In fact, there is no discernible difference between a marriage performed by a
local justice of the peace and a religious figure. Both give exactly the same
rights under state and federal law.
Quoting BadgerBadger, 'Shadow01 says it well. "I do not need to
recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against
those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will
continue."'Everyone is free to hold whatever opinions they
want, and act however they wish within the law. This does not extend, of
course, to throwing rocks, damaging property, or violating individual rights.You may hold a same-sex marriage in contempt, but if you work in a
hospital, tax department, social welfare agency, physician's office, or for
an undertaker, you are legally required to extend to such people their rights as
next-of-kin to each other, and to calculate benefits or liabilities on a
household income basis.Maybe you can't accept their romantic
equivalence to a "traditional" couple, but you must accept their
next-of-kin, survivorship, guardianship, and household income status for all
medical, legal, official, and financial purposes.What's so hard
Badger and Shadow: You are welcome to be as defiant and non-recognizing as you
wish. Your neighbors will probably not copy your behavior. They know only too
well how Lester Maddox and George Wallace--with their bluster about
"Segregation Forever!"--ended up in history.
Shall we protect conservative religious people from having to get used to
others' achieving freedoms that you do not like?I remember very
well "Why don't those Black people stay on their own side of town like
God intended, and stop this immoral race mixing?"And how about
"Why are those immoral mormons, with their strange religion and their pushy
door knocking coming to my town, when they belong in Utah?"Why
to those Jews of Mexicans or Chinese want to rent an apartment from me?
Don't they know their place?--- Gays don't come knocking
on your door and insist you listen to how they believe. The only reason you are
hearing much about them is that they have to speak up to get their rights, which
is a shame.By the way: To my knowledge, the only Judge dissenting in
the marriage rulings was the Idaho mormon on the 9th Circuit, Judge N. Randy
Smith. in the original Prop 8 case. He is the judge who should be criticized,
because he exposed himself to the charge that he violated his Oath of Office to
avoid controversy for his family in his stake.
Marriage is not a right, it is a rite.We would be far better off if
all laws were marriage neutral. No one should pay estate taxes. Everyone should
be able to designate who can visit them in a hospital. The state could recognize
domestic contracts, but never marriages. Regardless what the state wrongfully
does, I will not recognize state marriages of SS couples. Marriage requires a
man and a wife, male and female. Contracts can be between any two or more
people. They aren't the same thing, no matter what any court says.Shadow01 says it well. "I do not need to recognize them or their so called
marriages. I will continue to vote against those who do. My vote may be unheard
but my defiance will continue."
@wrz "Wait a minute... marriage is not denied anyone. All anyone need do is
marry someone of the opposite sex. Applies to all adults."That's the exact same argument the racists used 50 years ago against
mixed-race marriage, that everyone had an equal right to marry someone of the
same race as themselves. No wonder your side is losing in court unanimously
And the wind force just picked up significantly. The state of Oregon amendment
blocking gay marriage was overturned. The state declined to appeal the decision.
The national organization for marriage tried to file an appeal, the Supreme
Court denied it. I can't help but wonder, had Utah been the
17th case instead of the first case what the Supreme Court would have done with
@wrz--Wow. The state could have saved two hundred thousand in legal fees if
they had just talked to you first--they might even have let you argue the case,
and I'll bet you would have done it for free. Any day now the 10th Circuit
will rule against Utah, and you'll be able to tell them you told them so;
you knew they would lose because they were just arguing the wrong points.
@wrz: "They're arguing the wrong points."Really? So how
come the only place your points are being argued is here, by a few people
posting in the Deseret News forums?I haven't read all of the
arguments in all of the cases, but I have at least read summaries. Nobody is
making the argument you're making. Non-of the high price, highly educated
attorneys on your side are making your points. Why?
"Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said he was struggling with how one federal
judge could strike down a marriage law passed by the Legislature and approved by
voters as Utahns did with Amendment 3.'If a judge can do that,
what's left?' he asked."-- Either Rep. Ivory slept
through Civics class, is pandering to the most conservative in his district,
or???? People sued, and the judge had to rule according to the
Constitution. Period! He did not wake up one morning in an activist mood and
decide to overturn the Amendment.
suhein:"You need to... read the briefs presented to the 10th circuit
by the lawyers arguing your side..."They're arguing the
wrong points."There is a reason none of them are making the
argument that you are concerning the 14th Amendment. Because they no (sic) it
would be thrown out."What will be thrown out is their
argument... (families/children.)Again, there is no federal law re
marriage, since DOMA was tossed. Thus, SCOTUS can make no ruling on marriage
citing federal law.So state marriage laws prevail (since powers not
delegated to the US are reserved to the states...). And state marriage laws
apply equally to all citizens of the respective states (Amendment 14 - Equal
protection of state law).For example, marriage laws in Utah says...
anyone, ANYONE can marry provided they marry: One person who is not
already married, Is not a child, Is mentally competent, Is
not the same sex... etc.Seems like, to me that that's equal
protection under State law since it applies equally to all state residents.Some adults might wanna marry their son or a child but... they
can't, per State law.
@wrz: You have my deepest condolences on your inability to engage in rational
debate or thought. Just because you disagree with what others are saying is no
reason to say the stupidest things you can think of.We've had
this discussion before, as have others with you, and it's been explained
dozens of times what the differences are. If you want to continue to play the
village idiot, you're probably going to just be ignored from here out.But, just for old time's sake, let's review the ground rules,
which are not at issue:TWO. (Equal partners.)CONSENTING
ADULTS. (Human persons considered legally capable of consent, as defined by
state law.)UNRELATED BY BLOOD. (To the degree of non-consanguinity
required by state law. Bear in mind that several states permit cousin
marriages, even first cousins.)Thank you. Now, carry on.
@wrzYou need to go and read the briefs presented to the 10th circuit
by the lawyers arguing your side of this case (the ones who want to ban same sex
marriage). There is a reason none of them are making the argument that you are
concerning the 14th Amendment. Because they no it would be thrown out. They are
making other arguments because they know that the 14th Amendment does in fact
apply in this case and so they are trying everything they can to work around
that problem citing other legal issues. In other words, this point isn't
being argued by anyone actually trying to ban same sex marriage because they
know it's an invalid argument.So yes, the courts have been
applying the 14th Amendment appropriately when voiding same sex marriage bans.
Tiago:"Protecting the rights of LGBT people protects all of our
rights."Tell us, does that include the rights of polygamists to
marry? Or brother/sister marriage? Or two or three brothers and a sister to
marry? Or an old geezer to marry a 10YO?Sorry, but you can't
just limit marriage 'rights' to LGBT's.A Quaker:"...and insufficient reason to exclude a minority consisting of
homosexuals who would benefit equally."Does it exclude other
types of marriages as described in my response to Tiago, above? The
Wraith:"Once again, the courts are well within their rights in voiding
laws voted on by either the public or Congress."But the courts
must have a reason for voiding laws. And the reason to void a state law on
marriage is not within the 14th Amendment. Clearly it says that 'states...
cannot deny equal protection of the laws.' There are no federal law re
marriage. So, the 14th applies only to state laws. And state law allows the
marriage of all adults provided they marry one adult person of the opposite sex.
Seems the law apply equally to all state citizens.
What will happen first:A. The US Supreme Court will rule on the
constitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban by a stateor B. The Deseret News will run out of "Two hands" pictures illustrating
a same-sex marriage storyI'm leaning towards "A".
@wrz & UncleFester;Slippery slopes are for sliding. Have a fun
@higv"There are biological differences between genders,"And?"There really are no biological differences between
races"There absolutely are; how do you account for the fact that
there are different races?"So you can't use laws against
interracial marriage to compare to so called same gender marriage."Yes, you can. Inequality is inequality."It is biology not
bigotry."It's bigotry couched in
"biology/religion/protect the children...""Marriage of a
man and woman is ordained of God."Then why do I need a license
from the state to marry? Why do ministers, bishops, and other clergy need
permission from the state to perform marriages? "Could be
lifestyle."Well, if enough of "Christian" society keeps
telling you your relationships are meaningless I suppose that after time you
might just begin to believe it. @wrz "All anyone
need do is marry someone of the opposite sex."Really? How about
we pass laws prohibiting Jews from marrying gentiles? Blacks from marrying
whites? Mormons from marrying non-mormons.
@higv: Show me in Utah's laws where that "biological difference"
affects any of the rights, duties, responsibilities or effects of marriage. If
that difference matters to marriage, certainly it must be mentioned somewhere?
Anywhere? Cite me the section or sections.Show us where it explains
(in the law) which part of a marriage requires a woman to do or not do
something, and which part requires a man to do or not do something.Here's the problem with your assertion: None of the laws of the great
state of Utah which describe, permit, or regulate married life say anything
whatsoever about the roles of the partners. The laws themselves are entirely
mute on gender roles within a family.If there are biological
differences essential to letting a couple marry, certainly the law will explain
what the function of those are. Cite the law. The entire Utah Code is online
and easy to research.I'll be waiting.
Ranch:"You may not like it, but we are going to have marriage equality
in all 50 states eventually."That could be a good move. Means
that polygamists would have their marriages solemnized/recognized. And first
cousins, brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, fathers and daughters who love
each other can no longer be denied marriage. This could also mean
that someone can even marry a tree, perhaps."It won't
affect you (or society) negatively (except perhaps in your mind)."It will mean the eventual demise of marriage. The Supreme Court
cannot stop with just ruling on SSM. It would have to include ruling in favor
of any and all other marriage combinations regardless of how seemingly weird.
Anything less would be effectively court authorized/approved discrimination.Thanks, Supreme Court, for moving civilization back a few giant steps
toward the Stone Age.skrekk:"You'll just have to
learn to deal with the fact that all Americans will soon have the same civil
rights you've always enjoyed."Wait a minute... marriage is
not denied anyone. All anyone need do is marry someone of the opposite sex.
Applies to all adults.
Marriage is not a right, it's a regulated activity. The notion it's a
right created whenever two (and why stop at two?) people love each other is
absurd. You can't marry your sister or your brother for example. You
can't marry under fraudulent conditions either. To elevate sexual
proclivity and deviant behavior to legal moral equivalency with traditional
marriage is just perversion.
There are biological differences between genders, There really are no
biological differences between races, So you can't use laws against
interracial marriage to compare to so called same gender marriage. It is
biology not bigotry. The majority of Americans never supported segregation or
slavery either, both were man made institutions as is so called same gender
marriage which will fall under the weight of it's own iniquity. Marriage
of a man and woman is ordained of God. Also why do people that engage in
homosexual relations have a higher rate of aids and other std's. Could be
lifestyle. Pushing for something that only gives people more misery.
I have heard the very same arguments being made against same sex marriages as
being made against inter-racial marriage, and nearly word for word. The Bible
was cited, sacred immutable laws were invoked, and damnation was guaranteed for
anyone who had the effrontery to (then) marry outside of his/her race and (now)
to marry within his/her gender. The Bible did not then, nor does it now
prohibit inter-racial; yet this was law of the land in the not-to-distant past.
Wisely most of the states--the 15 southern states, in the end, being the
exception--repealed these laws. After WW2, several servicemen were coming home
with "colored" wives (ie Japanese, Korean, Philippina). Similarly, the
Bible doesn't prohibit marriage between 2 men or 2 women; it makes no
mention of it. It does have a whole slough of sexual proscriptions (including
marital relations during menstruation). It's time for the various states
to come to grips with reality, and get out of the business of intruding into the
private affairs of its common citizens.
Think of your children, grandchildren, friends, colleagues and fellow Citizens.
They have uniformly, collectively, and with considerable thought and
comprehension, declared that Equality is the Law of the Land. Equality is NOT
based on, nor dependent upon, individual Religious Based Prejudices and Dictum.
That's the beauty of Our Constitution. It says "ALL." Consider
this; when (not if) Catholic Latinos dominate this Nation, and they will, do you
want your grandchildren following the Dictates of the Roman Catholic Church?
Their Thousand Year Plan specifically calls for "Reclaiming the United
States for Catholicism." Fact. Are you ready for a picture of the Current
Pope, and a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe in all our Public School
Classrooms? After all, if you defend "The Majority Rules," you support
that and will have no redress from yet another form of Tyranny of The Majority.
Ask your children and grandchildren why they honor Equality. This Nation is now
in THEIR care, and Equality must be defended. Remember Mormon History? Often,
the Majority was an angry mob, intent on persecuting, demonizing and dominating
us Mormons. Lesson learned.
@Rocket ScienceThe "definition" of marriage as you describe
it has not, and I cannot emphasize this enough -not, stood for thousands of
years. A very simple examination of the history of marriage in the world is
enough to destroy this idea.- In ancient Greece marriage was between
a man and a woman but only for legal and inheritance reasons. Men were expected
to love and have a sexual relationship with adolescent boys - homosexuality was
an important part of their culture.-In Rome marriage was seen as a way of
enhancing a career and so wife swapping was a large part of the definition of
marriage.-In parts of Europe both before and after Christianity arrived
marriage was defined as between a man and several women.-In many parts of
the world both past and present marriages are arranged.In the Bible
marriage was also between a man and several women - especially among the
important prophets of the Bible.-For early Mormons marriage was between a
man and several women. Even today Mormonism teaches that polygamy is an
important part of Celestial Marriage.I could go on an on.
It is NOT "one Judge making a decision," as if there is something
unlawful, unseemly, or unfair about that. OFTEN "one Judge" forges an
entire decision, as in a SCOTUS Judge who breaks the tie vote on some issue.
The Big Picture is this; Our Constitution says "All." You cannot
argue, redefine, or diminish any part of that word, that meaning or Sacred
Guarantee. There is no doubt that denying Equal Protection, Equal Treatment,
and Equal Process demands that we set our Bigotries and Religious Fears aside,
for the good of "ALL." After all, there was a time when we Mormons had
NONE of those protections, because WE were the hated, abused, and demonized.
@higvYour argument is fast becoming a p.r.a.t.t. Even just on this
comment board. Once again, the courts are well within their rights in voiding
laws voted on by either the public or Congress. In fact reviewing the laws is
their job. The best example is segregation laws in the 50's. Had it been
left to a vote these laws would have held firm for decades longer. Thankfully
the Supreme Court voided the will of the voters because the laws were
unconstitutional. You may not like the ruling but what they are doing is exactly
what they are supposed to be doing .Nowhere in the 14th amendment
does it cover the right to marry at all. No where in the constitution does it
cover the right to privacy or even the right to life. What the 14th amendment
does say is that all citizens have to be equal before the law. The U.S. courts
and laws of the land have for a long, long time now viewed marriage as a legal
right. Therefore the argument that marriage equality is sound.
"Changing the definition of marriage."This is the most
persistent buzz-phrase of the anti-gay-marriage supporters, but let's think
about this for a second.Is DESCRIBING something the same as DEFINING
it? And, can't something be described in many ways?Clearly,
the majority of marriages will always involve a man and a woman, because the
majority of people are heterosexual. So, when you read marriage laws written by
the majority, it's understandable that they should describe the partners as
such. But those two participants don't define the marriage.There are many man/woman couples who are not married. Marriage must be
something more than that.If you look at how law treats marriage, you
see a very egalitarian picture. There are no defined gender roles for the
partners. There's no linkage to child-bearing. Family law deals with
children regardless of parental marital status. The only overlap was
illegitimacy, which SCOTUS threw away decades ago. Claiming a
"definition" is majoritarian ex-post-facto rationalization, not
supported by any other statutes describing marital life, and insufficient reason
to exclude a minority consisting of homosexuals who would benefit equally.
"Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said he was struggling with how one federal
judge could strike down a marriage law passed by the Legislature and approved by
voters as Utahns did with Amendment 3."Umm, because the law is
@shadow01You certainly have the right to say that gay marriage is an idea
from Satan based on "primal gratification with no eternal reward."You are free to believe that the courts are liberal and eroding the nation.You are free to call a legal marriage "so called" and vote against
equal rights every chance you can.For the sake of our nation, our church,
and our families, I hope that you choose not do those things.I hope that
you will allow yourself to see the real hearts of LGBT who want the same things
you do. I hope that you will recognize that they are God's children made in
His image.Protecting the rights of LGBT people protects all of our rights.
Supporting committed, responsible relationships among LGBT people promotes
commitment for all people.I invite you to search online for first-person
stories and videos from LGBT people, including LGBT Mormons and how positions
like yours affect them. Then go to the websites of the major organizations
fighting gay marriage, read their position papers and watch their videos. See
which one you want to align with. For me, the choice was clear.
@Rocket Science..." the dictionary definition, ... of marriage is the
union of a man and a woman as husband and wife"This may come as
a shock, but it doesn't take rocket science to realize that the dictionary
isn't law and Noah Webster doesn't decide how the Constitution is
interpreted and applied throughout the land. However, since you asked:"The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in
some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a
relationship" (Oxford Dictionary)"1 a: the relationship that
exists between a husband and a wife ... b: a similar relationship
between people of the same sex" (Merriam Webster Learner's Dictionary)
" a legally accepted relationship between two people in which
they live together" (Cambridge Dictionary Online)Any questions?
As just about every Latter Day Saint has been taught; Whenever God puts forth a
ordinances with blessings meant to draw us closer to him and receive eternal
blessings, Satan puts into the minds of man counter ordinances based on primal
gratification with no eternal reward. But of course God lets us choose. I
suppose the courts may continue to stab at eroding away at the Nation. I
suppose that people will continue to remake God in their image. I suppose that
the LGBT community will get their way through the liberal courts. But I do not
choose to support them. Since I am not a commercial entity, I do not need to
recognize them or their so called marriages. I will continue to vote against
those who do. My vote may be unheard but my defiance will continue.
mcraven,The wording in Loving v. Virginia (1967) stipulates that
marriage is a fundamental right. Granted, it is given in context of race.
However, it is also worded in the context of due process. Many of the rulings
regarding same-sex marriage are worded using the same language. "These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights
essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.Marriage
is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also
Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes,
classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart
of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens
of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that
the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted ...by the State.These convictions must be reversed."
"Ivory said regulating marriage is a power that has belonged to the states
for 237 years."Nearly all of the states used to ban mixed-race
marriages. The federal courts declared that unconstitutional in the late
60's.So there's certainly precedent for the feds to step
in when the states are treating American citizens unequally.
@Skrekk Nikita Kruchev boasted to Ezra Taft Benson that his grandchildren would
live under communism. What does that prophecy and those of so called same
gender marriage have in common? They are both false prophecies one that
hasn't came to pass and one that won't come to pass. If so called
same gender marriage does exist in all 50 states like communism in Eastern
Europe won't last too long as it will collapse under the weight of
it's own iniquity.
@Rocket Science "Remember CA prop 8 case did not make SSM the law of the
land even though SCOTUS had the opportunity to do so if so inclined."No, that wasn't even an option for the court since the Prop h8
proponents didn't have standing to appeal.@Rocket Science
"Maybe they will decide that states must either recognize SSM or some other
type of civil union."Sorry but the courts already know that
separate is never equal. In particular civil unions don't have any of the
federal rights of marriage and aren't recognized by the feds, by other
states or by other countries. You'll just have to learn to deal with the
fact that all Americans will soon have the same civil rights you've always
enjoyed. Marriage equality is the only possible outcome and so far the
federal courts unanimously recognize that fact.
@Rocket Science;The sky is falling, the sky is falling...You may not like it, but we are going to have marriage equality in all 50
states eventually. It won't affect you (or society) negatively (except
perhaps in your mind).
While it may be SCOTUS decides the case not hearing it, it is interesting that
SSM advocates want and expect those who have a differing opinion to shut up or
give up now, to not pursue the interest of the State. Remember CA prop 8 case
did not make SSM the law of the land even though SCOTUS had the opportunity to
do so if so inclined. SCOTUS ruled those who brough the suit did not have
standing. SCOTUS took the easy way out that time, perhaps suggesting they
wanted additional judicial review through lower courts before it reaches them,
then decline the case. OR, maybe they will take it in which case it is very
possible they will be split 4/5 or 5/4.Those that want SSM do not
want the case to be decided by SCOTUS because there is some uncertainty there,
my guess is 80/20, it's not 100% as some hope. SCOTUS will certainly weigh
very heavily if the powers recognized as the states for over 200 years should be
changed or if the States retain that power. Maybe they will decide that states
must either recognize SSM or some other type of civil union. Everything right
now is opinion.
What good are voters rights if courts overturn them anyway. No where in the
14th amendment is there a right to marry someone of the same gender? Why are
people just now finding this right? So called same gender marriage I don't
think will last since the person behind that inspiration never supports those
that follow him in the end. In the vast majority of states that voted to define
marriage they voted to keep it between man and woman. Courts are taking away
there rights. If all else fails eventually enough of society will change that a
constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman will exist.
Men and Women are different biologically, they are not regardless of race.
Why is it that until recently changes to civil law to redefine marriage to
include SSM have not even been brought up? SSM advocates hate it but again and
again the dictionary definition, and a definition that has stood for thousands
of years, of marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No
man can be a wife, no woman can be a husband. Protest the argument but it is
fact and yes it affects families,No male can be a mother no female can be a
father. Society will pay a price for this social mistake brought on by those
who want to justify something that is not by creating something that not be,
Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, said he was struggling with how one federal judge
could strike down a marriage law passed by the Legislature and approved by
voters as Utahns did with Amendment 3."If a judge can do that,
what's left?" he asked.=============If voters
can vote away another's rights, Rep. Ivory, what's left?
In my opinion, SCOTUS is going to pick up a SSM case, but it may not be
Utah's case. They may table 10th circuit case and wait for a while, until
another one or two circuit court rulings, especially the most conservative 5th
circuit's, come up, to see if there is any difference in their separate
opinions, and then decide to pick which case. Unless several circuit
courts all reach the exact same conclusion, especially in terms of narrow or
broad interpretation of Windsor, which I doubt they will, I think SCOTUS will
eventually pick up a case and set the tone for the whole nation.
@Henry Drummond"Windsor never needed to reach the Supreme Court either
since the Justice Department made it clear it agreed with the lower court's
ruling."If SCOTUS had declined to hear one of the several
appeals of rulings which had found DOMA unconstitutional, gays would only have
full federal civil rights in the 1st and 2nd circuits and DOMA section 3 would
still be enforced in the rest of the country. That's not an outcome
SCOTUS would tolerate. In other words SCOTUS had to take one of these cases
and they chose the one which told the best story.
I think that the whole issue is based upon the determination of whether
"marriage" is a fundamental unalienable right, as in Life, Liberty, and
Pursuit of Happiness, or not. If not, and is determined to be a state regulated
social contract, then of course the state legislature can define it. If so, then
the Supreme Court must apply the Constitution to the issue. The idea that the
U.S. Supreme Court can't nullify a state's law is just wrong and has
been done over and over again throughout our (USA) history.
Let's be clear. Rep. King wasn't saying whether he thought it was a
good thing or a bad thing that the Supreme Court should review the case.
He's merely sharing his knowledge of how the Court typically allocates its
limited docket time. They only agree to hear cases ("grant cert") when
they think it's necessary and the issue can't be resolved
otherwise.The Federal judiciary has three levels, the District
Courts, the Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. Federal District
Courts in several different Circuits have rendered basically identical
decisions. It's very early days yet if you're counting on SCOTUS
stepping in. None of the Circuit Courts have spoken yet, and as Rep. King
points out, unless they disagree with each other as to the constitutionality of
restricting gay couples from marriage, there's no question for SCOTUS.We not only have to wait for the 10th, but also the other Circuits to
see if they agree. Rep. King is right. SCOTUS may not step up at
all. Nearly half the population of the US now lives in Marriage Equality
states. Its job isn't removing rights.
Thanks Schnee, I read the article but it didn't seem clear to me. I agree
though, I could see the Supreme Court declining the case and letting the lower
court decisions stand if they are all in agreement (and I believe they will be
in agreement in granting marriage rights to same sex couples). I actually hope
that's what happens it's faster that way and the faster same sex
couples can legally marry the better.
@The WraithYes and no. Depends on how technical you want to be about it.
What he meant by his comment is that the Supreme Court won't hear the case.
Correct me if I'm wrong but when the 10th Circuit rules in the case (no
matter which side they rule on) the other side will appeal. The Supreme Court
would then at least have to say whether they will hear it or not. Is he not
counting that as "reaching" the Supreme Court? By reaching does he just
mean if they will hear it or not?
All 14 verdicts are based in large measure on last year's ruling in U. S. v
Windsor. If you think about it, Windsor never needed to reach the Supreme Court
either since the Justice Department made it clear it agreed with the lower
court's ruling. The appeal was purely to have the Supreme Court decide the
issue once and for all. I think that will happen here as well.