SSM legal in 36 states and DC.....and yet?

Absolutely. The 'ban' states are falling like dominoes. Gives me faith that, what is fair and just does win out, eventually.

(I'm sure Gorn will find something racist or homophobic in my position.)

 

Right on Brother! Hey, I'm an old hippy

 

On that line in that post....nope, very true and nothing racist or homophobic about it.

My ONLY point before was that the "libertarian dodge"...is played too often....by those who oppose gay rights, but want to try to keep their "libertarian street cred."

REAL libertarians....I like.

 

I completely agree. While a government not involved in marriage (in terms of licensing) is ideal, the reality is that is not what is on the table right now. Granting marriage licenses to all couples, gay or straight, is the next best thing.

 

The answer would appear to be no! Not as long as you have idiots like Huckabee beating the drum bemoaning equality. I love it. Let them dig their own grave.

 

It's going to be interesting to see what the Social Cons say, if the USSC strikes down all the bans, in the 2016 Republican Primaries.

Will they demand that the candidates "swear to appoint Jusitces who'll overturn the ruling if they become President"?

Little tough to imagine that being taken seriously (since 5 of 9 Justices right now are Republicans).

Additionally, it would put the Eventual GOP Nominee at odds with a majority of Americans.

 

The smart one who want to play to the establishment will shut up and blame the judges if it comes. Guts like Huchabee won't let it go and push the others to say and promise stupid stuff

 

My prediction if that happens is the candidates will give "lip-service" to the whole "Marriage is between a man and a woman", but I think that is about as far as it will go IMO. They will whine and cry about activist judges, however, that is about it.

 

I'll bet that there will still be something about overturning marriage equality in the party platform though. They can't help themselves

 

The smart ones may TRY.....but given the homophobia rampant on the Right, if Huckabee and Santorum push it as an "issue" and say "Governor Bush/Governor Christie/Governor Walker? Will you go on record RIGHT NOW saying that you would nominate Justices to the Supreme Court that will over-rule the ruling that has allowed gay marriage?"

And Jeb and Chris and Scott have to try to say "I'll nominate Justices who will follow the Constitution"....and Huck and Ricky say "Not good enough. WIll you nominate Justices who will over-turn the _____ v. _____ decison and reinstate State laws defining marriage?"

The Sane Repubs will be stuck.....either looking like

A. Homophobes....which lose them moderates and Independents in the General Election.

B. Pro-gay rights guys...if weakly....which lose them Social Cons in the Primaries.

C. Wafflers who won't give a straight answer....who lose both groups.

 

Doubtful, their younger base is not interested in this issue. In fact most of my conservative friends are for gay marriage.

 

OK Thanks for that insight

 

Polling shows that.....61% of young REPUBLICANS...support gay marriage rights.


Of course the OLD homophobes still hold onto their dream that "Once those kids hit 35, they'll start hating gays like I do." Sad, but funny too.

 

Yes, while we are focused on the marriage issue which is going well, it may be that we have lost site of the fact that even after marriage is won nation wide, there is still much to be done. Those working against equality are not giving up easily:

 

GOP State Rep. Sally Kern Announces Trifecta Of Anti-Gay Legislation

This sucks....the new Jim Crow!

 

Well, her third one at least would be absolutely dead on arrival, thanks to the Romer v. Evans decision.

 

Another desperate attempt by Republicans to lawlessly circumvent the court rulings and the constitution on same sex marriage. This is the most ridiculous one yet. Anyone who wants to marry must get the approval of a clergy person?!! How can that be remotely constitutional?

And what will it accomplish aside from setting up a system that discriminates against people who do not want religion inserted into their marriage. At the same time, it will not really stop most gay folks from marrying as many clergy are quite willing to accommodate them although they may have to go outside of their religion or denomination to do so. However, those proposing this are probably to stupid to know any of this

It appears that there are some people who a seeking to drag the court battles out for another decade or more, after SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is a right as is heterosexual marriage.

Note: Oklahoma is in the tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which also includes Utah , Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico. That court has ruled against the states on same sex marriage bans, and SCOTUS has turned away appeals from the states, effectively legalizing same sex marriage in the entire circuit,

 

You can tell that the Religious Right is worried about the June SCOTUS decision....

guys like Jindal and Cruz are talking about a "Constitutional Amendment to allow state bans."

Meaning they've already decided the June decision is going to go against the groups they pander to.

 

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the four gay marriage cases out of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee sets the stage for the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans to be decided once and for all.

With the high court's previous DOMA ruling in place and its refusal to stay lower court rulings bringing marriage equality to a number of states, it can be tempting to think nationwide marriage equality will be a sure bet this year.

For precautions sake though, Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson has spelled out what will happen should SCOTUS go the other way: http://www.towleroad.com/2015/01/what-happens-if-we-lose-the-supreme-court-gay-marriage-cases.html


With respect to same-sex couples who already have married as a result of court rulings, Lambda Legal strongly believes -- as a federal district court in Michigan ruled just yesterday with respect to marriages entered in that state before the 6th Circuit's adverse ruling -- that those marriages will remain valid and will need to continue to be respected by the states in which those marriages were entered. Nonetheless, the validity of those couples' marriages may be challenged and those couples may want to take additional steps (such as executing wills, durable health care powers of attorney, and securing second parent adoptions) to provide them and their families extra peace of mind and security.

With respect to whether same-sex couples would be able to marry and would have their marriages respected in other states, that would vary from state to state. States in which marriage equality was achieved by a ruling under the state's constitution, by legislative reform, or at the ballot box, would be unaffected. Unmarried same-sex couples in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee (the states whose marriage laws the Supreme Court today agreed to review) would be forced to seek reform through the political process. States in which a final judgment has been obtained in federal court would be required to continue to allow same-sex couples to marry and to respect out-of-state marriages entered by same-sex couples unless and until someone with standing makes a motion to reopen the judgment and that motion is granted (unless stays are properly obtained before then). In some states, there may be no one with standing interested in seeking to set aside the existing judgment. Same-sex couples in states in which a judgment is on appeal or can still be appealed whose judgments have not been stayed should be able to continue to marry and to have their out-of-state marriages honored by the state until the existing judgment is stayed or reversed.

There's no question that it would be a mess. This is one additional reason why the Supreme Court should reverse the 6th Circuit's aberrant decision and hold that same-sex couples, like all other couples, share the fundamental right to marry and that it violates federal guarantees of equality and liberty to refuse to allow them to marry or to deny recognition to the marriages they lawfully have entered in other states.