" May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
I believe it's part of the modern historical behavior of the court. They know how they wish to rule, but to ignore the constitution requires they wait until the bulk of society will look the other way.
Roe is a great example. Had they ruled that way just a decade prior every one of them would have been impeached and the court set on it's end. The court has gone extra constitutional, long having abandoned their oaths and duty. They are now cast as social engineers and their tool is the "living document".
Last edited by clownboy; 01-10-14 at 05:48 PM.
lets look at the facts again:
right now those UTAH marriages are 100% legal and recognized by the fed granting all LEGAL and LAWFUL federal rights to them, the state will also be granting any FEDERAL rights to them too, so NO they are factually NOT meaningless and YES they do have force of law behind them
Facts > your wrong opinion
The legal status of same-sex married couples in Utah has become a little murky in recent days. Attorney General Eric Holder tried to bring some clarity to the issue this afternoon.
Last month, a federal court struck down Utah’s ban on marriage equality, immediately opening the door to equal-marriage rights statewide. Roughly 1,300 couples took advantage of the opportunity and tied the legally recognized knot.
The U.S. Supreme Court, however, issued a stay this week, reinstating Utah’s ban while the appeals process unfolds. And as Adam Serwer explained, state officials “took the additional step of telling the couples who were married in the meantime that, in the eyes of the state of Utah, while the litigation is ongoing, those marriages don’t count.”
AG Holder offered a response today, letting those same couples know that as far as the federal government is concerned, their marriages do count. For those who can’t watch clips online, he said in a new video:
“Last June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision – in United States v. Windsor – holding that Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law. This ruling marked a historic step toward equality for all American families. And since the day it was handed down, the Department of Justice has been working tirelessly to implement it in both letter and spirit – moving to extend – federal benefits to married same-sex couples as swiftly and smoothly as possible.
“Recently, an administrative step by the court has cast doubt on same-sex marriages that have been performed in the state of Utah. And the governor has announced that the state will not recognize these marriages pending additional court action.
“In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages. And we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available.”
SSM is an equal rights issue has determined by rights, laws, facts, court cases and court prcedence
Proof: COurt cases and dealing with SSM
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts)
In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."
Hollingsworth v. Perry (Cali)
Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.
On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:
Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn)
The Court issued its opinion on October 10, 2008. The Court ruled 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, even granted them a parallel status under another name like civil unions, violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.
Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., and Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper, Jr. (who replaced the recused Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers).[b] The Court found a substantial difference between marriages and civil unions:
Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal.
Varnum v. Brien (Iowa)
The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law, and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws.
New Mexico Supreme Court
On December 19, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution required the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. Its decision said that the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution required that "All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples." The decision made New Mexico the 17th state to recognize same-sex marriages.
New Jersey Superior Court
On September 27, 2013, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson, granting summary judgement to the plaintiffs, ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry. Unless a higher court rules otherwise, or grants a stay, the effective date of Judge Jacobson's order legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey is October 21, 2013. Because New Jersey enacted a civil union statute that created a "parallel" structure to marriage (the state action) and the N.J. Supreme Court deferred to the Legislature on the actual label "as long as the classifications do not discriminate arbitrarily among persons similarly situated," the situation ended up changing post-Windsor. This change leads to Judge Jacobson's determination that "the parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, violating the mandate of Lewis and the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection guarantee."
and Hawaii and New York call their legislation "Marriage Equality Act"
Facts > your wrong opinion
remind us all what you have support your proven wrong posts?
Repeat the same debunked nonsense, deny any other opinions, and then repeat. I know you enjoy the pattern you've established, the rest of us see through it.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher