Tenth Circuit: Gay marriage protected by the Constitution

[politicallefty]

Link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Excellent news. I wouldn't be surprised now to see this at SCOTUS next term.

[memphis]

I'm sure the members of Bushie's church are thrilled.

[Flake]

I'm sure the members of Bushie's church are thrilled.

Considering they called him a socialist so far left he has to move to San Francisco, they must be ecstatic that gay marriage is being legalized.

[politicallefty]

From the opinion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The decision was 2-1 (Clinton and GWB appointees in the majority, GHWB appointee dissenting).

[Simfan34]

Also, did anyone else know Google does a weird thing with the navigation bar when you search for gay-related terms? It's some rainbow-patterned texture.

[Tender Branson]

If the SC upholds this ruling, would this only apply to the states in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming ?

Or would it apply to all states that still have bans on gay marriage ?

Probably the first one, right ?

[bedstuy]

If the SC upholds this ruling, would this only apply to the states in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming ?

Or would it apply to all states that still have bans on gay marriage ?

Probably the first one, right ?

No, it would be option two.  If the US Supreme Court says that not providing for same-sex marriage violates the Constitution, it would apply to every state  because the Supreme Court is the authority on Federal Constitutional law for every state.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If the SC upholds this ruling, would this only apply to the states in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming ?

Or would it apply to all states that still have bans on gay marriage ?

Probably the first one, right ?

It would apply just to the 10th circuit if there was no stay and no appeal, or in the event the Supreme Court decided for some reason not to do anything with it one way or another.  But if the Supreme Court hears the case and upholds the decision, it applies to the whole country.

[eric82oslo]

Yey! Happy day.

[eric82oslo]

Also, did anyone else know Google does a weird thing with the navigation bar when you search for gay-related terms? It's some rainbow-patterned texture.

I saw it now. Cool.

[pbrower2a]

Unless states' statutory bans on SSM are identical, the ruling is on a state-by-state basis.

[bedstuy]

Unless states' statutory bans on SSM are identical, the ruling is on a state-by-state basis.

Why is that?  The basic facts are not going to be different in a legally significant way.  A state with a slightly different history or language of a gay marriage ban is free to make that argument in court after the Supreme Court makes that hypothetical decision.  But, how are they going to convince a judge that same-sex marriage bans are Constitutional in Alabama if they are impermissible under the Federal Constitution in Mississippi?  That's unrealistic.

[Likely Voter]

This is a BFD. First appellate court level decision, and it is likely more will follow for other circuits. But eventually one of the Fed Appellate courts will rule in favor of a state ban, and that is likely when SCOTUS will take this up and settle it for the whole country.

[SteveRogers]

Unless states' statutory bans on SSM are identical, the ruling is on a state-by-state basis.

I don't know that that's quite true. Once the 10th Circuit's decision in this case goes into effect, another state within the 10th circuit could try to continue enforcing its ban since technically this holding is specific to Utah, but unless this court wants to reverse this decision, no state ban in Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, or Oklahoma is going to last long. If those states don't feel like wasting taxpayer money on what will now be a wholly frivolous legal battle, they'll probably just play ball. 

[IceSpear]

Freepers react.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Indy Texas]

Freepers react.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why do these people think that what "Bruce and Tom" or "Gilda and Mavis" do or don't do has any impact whatsoever on their lives?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

And why would they choose the hypothetical names Gilda and Mavis?

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Freepers react.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wonder how this would go down in the history books...

"In mid-2014, amidst the rising tide of the gay rights movement, a group of elderly whites attacked a Human Rights Campaign office in Los Angeles, California. Several Rascal scooters were destroyed in the assault..."

[dead0man]

Great news!

[Lief 🗽]

Freepers react.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's only one response for these sort of people:

[CountryClassSF]

No it's not!!! Our founding fathers would never have thought of this. Ever. This is judicial TYRANNY. Plain and simple! Even folks who support SSM can see that!

[Barnes]

No it's not!!! Our founding fathers would never have thought of this. Ever. This is judicial TYRANNY. Plain and simple! Even folks who support SSM can see that!

You do know that the Founding Fathers didn't write the Fourteenth Amendment, right?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Meursault]

The opinions of the 'Founders' is irrelevant. Setting aside the sort of generalized knowledge of The Classics, Greek and Latin typical of the period, there is no reason to assume the typical 'Founder' was not mentally inferior to even a generic poli-sci student of today (as indeed is almost certainly true due to nutritional deficiencies if nothing else).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No it's not!!! Our founding fathers would never have thought of this. Ever. This is judicial TYRANNY. Plain and simple! Even folks who support SSM can see that!

You do know that the Founding Fathers didn't write the Fourteenth Amendment, right?

But they did write the 27th amendment, LOL.