Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Gay Marriage Cases

[Wisconsin Beth]

On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court agreed to review the 6th Circuit’s decision upholding gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The decision will bring the question of marriage equality before the court for the first time since 2013’s United States v. Windsor, when five justices voted to strike down a federal gay marriage ban as a violation of the Constitution’s equal protection and due process guarantees. This time around, the court will consider whether state-level bans against gay marriage, as well as state laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages performed in other states, violate the 14th Amendment.

www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/01/16/supreme_court_agrees_to_hear_gay_marriage_cases.html

www.scotusblog.com/2015/01/court-will-rule-on-same-sex-marriage/

[Deleted]

Well... if they follow the Constitution, there's only one possible ruling: Some variation of "gay marriage bans are Unconstitutional"... because, at the very least, the ones that don't recognize marriages performed in other states are in violation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1), directly IN the Constitution (not even an Amendment, but actually in the original document).

Unfortunately we have seen that this Supreme Court's panel of Justices doesn't ALWAYS follow the Constitution (Remember the Hobby Lobby case? A ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby shouldn't have only exempted "strongly held religious beliefs"... but should have exempted everyone, due to the First Amendment {Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion}, by giving Christians {and any other faith} ONLY , and excluding people not of faith, power over a law, they basically invalidated the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment).

[Tennesseer]

I understand the justices must give each side an opportunity to present their case, but I cannot imagine any justice has not already made up their mind on this issue. I doubt nothing presented to them is going to change their minds.

[EVT1]

Jan 16, 2015 18:59:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Well... if they follow the Constitution, there's only one possible ruling: Some variation of "gay marriage bans are Unconstitutional"... because, at the very least, the ones that don't recognize marriages performed in other states are in violation of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1), directly IN the Constitution (not even an Amendment, but actually in the original document).

Unfortunately we have seen that this Supreme Court's panel of Justices doesn't ALWAYS follow the Constitution (Remember the Hobby Lobby case? A ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby shouldn't have only exempted "strongly held religious beliefs"... but should have exempted everyone, due to the First Amendment {Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion}, by giving Christians {and any other faith} ONLY , and excluding people not of faith, power over a law, they basically invalidated the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment).

If they follow the Constitution all gay marriage bans will be struck down via equal protection.

That is the real issue anyway- there is no way to accommodate states that don't want it when marriage is tied into federal law.  Biblical marriage did not require a government- it was a rite of the church.  BUT- since the government got involved and decided to give special rights to a religious construct then there is no way the current state can go on- it defies all logic and common sense.

[EVT1]

I want to add the link to the couple that are behind this one- and interestingly enough they started out this fight over adoption.

Two nurses that want to wed that have adopted 4 special needs children- tell you what- they are better than I am because I have no desire to do that. That takes special people and how anyone can stand in their way and want to hurt that family is a lowlife IMO.

www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/01/16/april-jayne-michigan-sex-plaintiffs-thrilled/21881193/

     .

[haapai]

I'm thrilled that they took the 6th Circuit case.  I know someone who is extremely affected by it and would like to see it struck down and struck down hard. 

My old boss wants to be a father and as things currently stand, he's blocked.  An out-of-state marriage license means nothing to the state of Michigan and that's a big deal when you're trying to legally adopt a child.

ETA:  I misspoke.  An out-of-state marriage license will do nothing for my boss.  Usually, i.e. in a "mixed" marriage, any marriage license is a slam dunk when it comes to adopting your spouse's child but such a license is useless when you are in a SSM.