Republican Governors Refuse To Abide By SCOTUS Decision

Those wacky Democrats haven't changed at all.

 

According to your right wing buddies, marriage is about procreation. Now it's about religion? Does that mean atheists can't get married?

Wow, so confusing as to what right wing Christians want this whole thing to be about! Procreation. Religion. "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best". "Ozzie & Harriet". Motherhood and apple pie.

The one argument I never see you guys advocate is equal treatment & protection under the law. I thought that was one of your mantras. I guess only when it suits your particular purpose. Right wing social NIMBYs I guess you are.

 

so marriage does not exist out with of religion?

using your logic, if I was a catholic (which as everyone knows is the one true religion ) then all those non-Catholic marriages are not actual marriages since they were not married under the auspices of the one true religion.


It has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. It has to do with equal rights for all.

But that is not stopping the religious objectors to attempt to impose their views on others. hypocritical in the extreme.

 

What you don't understand is that the constitution supersedes any state law or any state constitution.

The state is free to define what marriage is, AS LONG AS THE RIGHTS IT AFFORDS THAT DEFINITION COVER ALL CITIZENS. Clearly the states with laws preventing same sex marriage did not comply with the basic rights and freedoms of all American citizens.

 

If you decide not to choose you still have made a choice. By not taking the case, they Affirmed the choices of the lower courts through inaction. I'm not sure you'll understand what that means, Google is your friend.

 

Clearly you have no idea how the judiciary works.

 

I know what the judiciary said in June 2013 in the U.S. v Windsor ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

 

If only the US held federal referendums/national referendums on Constitutional amendments. This thing would be settled by now!

 

What marriage is. WHO it applies to is a Federal Constitutional matter, given the Equal Protection Clause.

A state is free to decide the benefits or "rights" of marriage, just so long as they aren't denying couples access to it for frivolous/legally questionable reasons. Gender-configuration isn't a reason to withhold hundreds of rights.

 

You're right. But it's because they got the short end of the stick.

But had SCOTUS ruled in the Conservative's favor you can bet your bottom dollar that they would all be cheering the Supreme Court decision and praising the members of the court. Why the governors would probably even be taking off right now to go to D.C. for a few days to kiss the big toe each and every morning of all of the members of the court who would have voted in their favor. But since they lost and received the decision by de facto they didn't want from the court why now they're refusing to obey the Highest Court in the land. And aren't Republicans the very ones who have been saying all along that SCOTUS needs to rule on same-sex marriage so they could settle things once and for all and accept that ruling and get on with things? Well, how about it now? Why are some of your governors such poor sports that they do not see fit to abide by the Court's ruling? What a double-standard that is. If things go your way, you're Praising the court! But if they go the other way, for what you thought they would really be against, oh my goodness, then you have absolutely no room to uphold their ruling. Well, tell you what. You'd better get that chip off your shoulders and get off your high horses, governors. Because it is now the law in your state and you cannot overrule the United States Supreme Court hard as you try. Their ruling stands so best to gracefully accept the ruling that applies to your LGBT citizens in your respective states and get over it already.

 

Equal rights.

Please show me where marriage is a right.

 

Ruled a right repeatedly by SCOTUS in the 20th century. Do your research.

 

Some states and their elected officials are in a difficult position. They were not party to the suits the Supreme Court decided to let stand, so they are not directly affected by the decision. But they are part of the same circuit as the appellate court that eliminated the marriage bans, even if they are not party to the suit itself. And by not making a decision, the Supreme Court really did no more than overrule the bans in the 5 states directly affected. Those states within the jurisdictions of those three (and perhaps now four?) appellate courts can go ahead with the pending cases, even knowing that they have already been overruled on appeal!

Now, why would any state spend taxpayer money pursuing a case they know they have already lost? One clue is that those doing so are ALL Republicans. It's not like they expect to win, or that they expect the appellate courts to change their minds or that they expect the Supreme Court to hear their cases. What they are all doing is running for re-election. Blue states have all already cheerfully accepted SSM, but red states, for political (read: re-election) reasons, can only do so with a gun to their heads.

While approval of SSM is 55-45 nationwide, and much higher among the young (even young Republicans), the nation is far from homogeneous. Alabama and Utah, for example, went about 80% against Obama. In Alabama, you can get yourself elected dog-catcher by trashing Obama, who has nothing to do with local dog-catching. Some Alabama politicans have expressed disappointment that Obama can't run for President a third time, because he's such a valuable symbol of the evils of blueness. If a Republican should be elected in 2016, who would the local yokels attack to win local office?

 

Perhaps at one time foolish, bigoted, and prejudiced people saw homosexuality that way. Science and Medicine has proved them wrong, however. And if you want the links to that I would be more than happy to provide them for you. But the Majority apparently isn't seeing it as too immoral anymore. Just look at these numbers taken from different polls and surveys among many different groups of people and religious folks. This report has been thoroughly researched and brought forward with the results as they stand.

Polling Tracks Growing and Increasingly Diverse Support for the Freedom to Marry
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/resources/entry/marriage-polling

 

It's the mechanism we use in this country to settle disputes as opposed to taking matters into our own hands. SCOTUS has made several rulings that I felt were horrible, but we all agree in principal to abide by their rulings otherwise you'd have anarchy in the streets of the country, at least in theory.

 

Ideally, sure, but that ideal obligates no one to abide by an unlawful ruling.

In reality, history shows that the refusal to obey unjust decrees is what keeps liberty alive.

 

You show me a good reason why states should have that right. I'll ask again; are states God which own all wisdom for man kind, since you failed to answer it the first time?

 

With regard ONLY to this particular Case, SCOTUS would not have ruled in the (social) Conservatives's favor by agreeing to take the Case, at least not yet. Had they agreed to take the Case, it could have been with the pre-planned intent of overturning the lower Courts, which eventually would have led to them ruling in (social) Conservative's favor. But clearly they do not have that intent. Rather, I think they're waiting to see if even a single Appeals Court rules that same sex marriage bans are legal. So far 4 have said no. One (the 6th District) has heard arguments, but not yet ruled. Many think, rightly or wrongly, that if ANY of the Appeals Courts are going to hold the bans to be Constitutional it's most likely to be the 6th, so we'll see.

On the other hand, if every single Appeals Court finds them Unconstitutional, there's no real reason for SCOTUS to EVER take a case, unless they either A: Want to put one final nail into anyone with doubt, or B: Come up with some legal magic to overturn dozens of Lower Court decisions.

 

inter-racial marriage changed that... it IS covered by the Constitution

.

 

I believe it's covered by equal protection under the law.

 

If that's the case, then why doesn't it apply to Civil Unions?

 

Does it afford spouses certain legal rights, especially things like property rights, parental rights, healthcare rights, federal income tax exemptions, etc?

I am not surprised that your simplistic bumper sticker objection ignores the rights derived from a marriage contract (and that is what it actually is, minus any religious fluff attached).
After all, all opinion shapers/makers recognize the fact that a single level of abstraction is about as much logic as many can absorb. (non partisan observation)

 

The state amendments conflicted with the U.S. constitution. That's not allowed n

 

Not if it conflicts with the US constitution. Which bans on same sex marriage does as it violates the 14th amendment.

 

Yea, because denying a segment of the population a basic civil right is keeping liberty alive, lol