Thread: Supreme Court: Same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution.

Nothing was left to the States, everything not assigned to the federal government was left to the "States, or to the people." Who decides for the people when they are at odds with the States? The US Supreme Court. You need to check your 9th and 10th Amendments before spouting about the Constitution in our language.

Same-sex marriage is required by the US Constitution because opposite sex marriage is recognized by the States. That is what creates the controversy from the inequality the Supreme Court has resolved.

Originally Posted by Judy

Nothing was left to the States, everything not assigned to the federal government was left to the "States, or to the people." Who decides for the people when they are at odds with the States? The US Supreme Court. You need to check your 9th and 10th Amendments before spouting about the Constitution in our language.

Same-sex marriage is required by the US Constitution because opposite sex marriage is recognized by the States. That is what creates the controversy from the inequality the Supreme Court has resolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't resolved anything, what they've done is essentially write legislation! In other words, 9 people, not elected to represent the people, have decided on a matter they had no business deciding. Many of the individual states had legal bans on homosexual marriage. I don't know exactly how many, but many of those bans were probably voted on by the people of those states! The U.S. Constitution does not address homosexual marriage, which means it was a decision, under the Constitution, that was solely left to the people and the states they reside in. It's a courts job is to interpret law, not write it. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not directly address homosexual marriage. It is my contention that your interpretation is just as faulty as the U.S. Supreme Courts.

Polygamous Montana trio applies for wedding license

MATT VOLZJul 1st 2015 7:00PM
21212068
437

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.

"It's about marriage equality," Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. "You can't have this without polygamy."

County clerk officials initially denied Collier's application, then said they would consult with the county attorney's office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana's bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.

"I think he deserves an answer," Gillen said, but added his review is finding that "the law simply doesn't provide for that yet."

The Supreme Court's ruling on Friday made gay marriages legal nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.
Related: See what some of the Supreme Court justices said in the dissent on the gay marriage ruling:

Collier, 46, said that dissent inspired him. He owns a refrigeration business in Billings and married Victoria, 40, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but did not sign a marriage license to avoid bigamy charges, he said.

Collier said he is a former Mormon who was excommunicated for polygamy and now belongs to no religious organization. He said he and his wives hid their relationship for years, but became tired of hiding and went public by appearing on the reality cable television show "Sister Wives."
The three have seven children of their own and from previous relationships.

"My second wife Christine, who I'm not legally married to, she's put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy," he said.
Collier said he sent an email asking the ACLU of Montana to represent him in a possible lawsuit. ACLU legal director Jim Taylor said he has not seen the request.

Taylor said he has no opinion on Collier's claims, though the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage "is about something very different."
Anne Wilde, a co-founder of the polygamy advocacy organization Principle Voices located in Utah, said Collier's application is the first she's heard of in the nation, and that most polygamous families in Utah are not seeking the right to have multiple marriage licenses.

Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage by State | FindTheBest

"Ninety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons don't want it legalized, they want it decriminalized," Wilde said.
A federal judge struck down parts of Utah's anti-polygamy law two years ago, saying the law violated religious freedom by prohibiting cohabitation. Bigamy is still illegal.

The state has appealed the ruling, and the case is pending in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Wilde said most polygamous families are satisfied with the judge's ruling and believe taking it further to include multiple marriage licenses would bring them under the unwanted jurisdiction of the government.

But she said the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage should strengthen their chance of winning the appeal.
"We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going," she said. "It's more liberal, it's more understanding about people forming the families the way they want."

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/07/01/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/21204001/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl5%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D-1259654238

Hmm, I guess we knew this was coming. What's next, lawsuits for siblings to marry? Maybe after that we'll get to mother/son and father/daughter combinations. The U.S. Supreme Court has opened a can of worms. Of course I'm sure they knew that.

MW wrote:

Hmm, I guess we knew this was coming. What's next, lawsuits for siblings to marry? Maybe after that we'll get to mother/son and father/daughter combinations. The U.S. Supreme Court has opened a can of worms. Of course I'm sure they knew that.

Sounds to me like it was one of the dissenters in your camp who opened the can of worms on this one:

Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent that people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

I guess he knew that when he wrote it, after all he is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

An example of thou does protest too much.

WND EXCLUSIVE

'BLAME SUPREMES' FOR CLASH WITH 1ST AMENDMENT

'I can't think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty'

Published: 1 day agoimage: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/10/runruh.jpg
BOB UNRUH About | Email | Archive

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes...ages//feed.png
Subscribe to feed


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/blame-sup...ZaI5oDxWPRM.99

o you think the courts have been busy with marriage cases? Wait until you see what happens as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision establishing a right to “same-sex marriage.”

That’s the opinion of several outspoken leaders who have been legally engaged with the issue, from a judge to an attorney and even a sitting state attorney general.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Ken Connelly told WND on Wednesday that the old maxim about conflicting rights applies to the dispute over same-sex marriage: Person A has a right to swing a fist, but that right ends where person B’s nose starts.

“It is unassailable that by redefining marriage, the Supreme Court has set up a clash between the asserted right to same-sex marriage and religious liberty,” he said.

In the ongoing conflict prompted by same-sex couples who demand wedding-related services from Christian business owners, he believes it’s clear which right should prevail.

“I can’t think of a situation where this invented right should trump religious liberty, whether they be a public official or a private individual,” Connelly said.

He anticipates, however, that many courts will not respect First Amendment religious rights, even with additional federal and state laws protecting them.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who has recused himself from some marriage cases in his state because of his public stance on the issue, pointed, in an interview with WND, to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent last week.

Thomas warned of the wide range of implications for religious liberty as a result of the court’s endorsement of same-sex marriage.

He said it’s inevitable that the two rights will come into conflict.

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

And Thomas noted that the majority appeared “unmoved” by the looming clash.

Moore said the opinion from “five lawyers” on the court, as Chief Justice John Roberts described the majority, is dangerous because it calls same-sex marriage a fundamental right.

“People have no idea what the future holds with regards to same-sex marriage,” he said.
It was Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton who released an opinion that county clerks in his state can choose not to issue licenses to same-sex couples.
He cited the clerks’ religious freedom.

“County clerks and their employees retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing same-sex marriage licenses,” he said. “The strength of any such claim depends on the particular facts of each case.”

He was immediately blasted by the left. At Think Progress, attorney Neel Lane, who has represented same-sex duos, said Paxton’s advice was “legally deficient,” falsely suggesting citizens’ First Amendment religious rights will be bulldozed.

Nowhere is the marriage conflict more apparent than in Alabama, where traditional marriage long has had strong support. Last winter, U.S. District Judge Callie Granade ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriage. But the state Supreme Court ruled probate judges are not required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Granade has renewed her order that the state abrogate the will of its voters.
ABC reported on Wednesday that there still were a handful of counties in Alabama refusing to grant marriage license to same-sex partners.
The report said same-sex marriage advocates were considering seeking penalties for those who disagree with them, no matter if that person was exercising his or her First Amendment right to practice a religious faith.

Granade’s order doesn’t affect counties where officials simply stopped granting marriage licenses.
Shannon Minter of the special-rights group National Center for Lesbian Rights, called for contempt charges against officials who refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Some clerks in Arkansas and Mississippi have decided to resign rather than be forced to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In an interview with Al.com, Moore compared the Supreme Court’s marriage decision to the court’s infamous Dred Scott ruling, which determined blacks are not equal to whites.

He pointed out the nation fought the Civil War to resolve that error.
Moore told the media outlet: “I’m not disputing that the Supreme Court ruling is not a precedent for the lower courts. But I am saying that it’s not in accordance with the Constitution.”

Moore argues the Supreme Court ruling on marriage is an “interpretation” of the Constitution, not the law itself. He said the law of the land is the U.S. Constitution.

“What we are talking about here is an interpretation of the Constitution,” he said.

“”In the Dred Scott case (1856 U.S. Supreme Court ruling) the Supreme Court ruled that blacks were property, not citizens of the U.S.,” said Moore. “That was the interpretation of the majority of the court. Were they right? Of course not.”

He continued: “Judges interpret the Constitution and if you interpret it as Justice Kennedy did (and four other justices) then same sex marriage is constitutional. But if you interpret it as justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas did, it is not constitutional. And not only is it not constitutional … it contradicts the Constitution and as Justice Thomas said it is at odds with the Constitution and the principles on which this nation were founded.”

WND reported a day ago the negative reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision was surging, with clerks quitting, judges dropping all procedures to issue any marriage licenses and even one U.S. senator telling people it should be ignored.

The Associated Press reported it found in a survey that multiple counties in Alabama were not issuing licenses.
“A Queer Thing Happened to America” chronicles the amazing transformation of America over the last 40 years and addresses the question head-on: Is there really a homosexual agenda, or is it a fiction of the religious right? Get your copy of the book the publishing world was afraid to touch!
The report said Alabama laws specify that probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses, so they are not required to do anything.

AP also reported a county clerk in Arkansas announced her resignation because of her religious and moral opposition to the mandate for same-sex marriage.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, several county clerks announced they would not issue marriage licenses to “gay” couples. In Rowan County, Clerk Kim Davis said her office has decided to stop issuing marriage certificates altogether to avoid discrimination lawsuits.

And Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, a candidate for GOP nomination for president, told NPR that there are many across America who can just ignore it.
He said the case was brought by parties from four states, but that “does not mean that those who are not parties to a case are bound by a judicial order.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/150125cruz.jpg
U.S. Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas

He said it’s tragic that the Supreme Court justices decided in the case to rewrite the Constitution instead of doing their job, which was to interpret the law.
“It is a sad moment for the court when you have judges seizing authority that does not belong to them,” he said.
WND reported Monday that not only did the court’s mandate for same-sex marriage not resolve the controversy, it triggered a wave of rejection.
“This ruling by the five lawyers is no law at all,” said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, a prominent legal defender of biblical marriage. “It is lawless and must be treated as such.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/blame-sup...ZaI5oDxWPRM.99