Supreme Court to decide on gay marriage
-
-
Good on America! Hopefully the result will be positive for the gay community
-
They could strike down the ban and in thus doing so strike down all bans on same sex marriage or they could up hold the ban and in thus doing so twenty states would have their bans restored, which would be a very big mess.
-
This makes me very nervous based on the current court's justices. I think Kennedy might be the one who helps to make equality the law from sea to shining sea. Also, John Roberts is so obviously gay.
-
Yes, this makes me a bit nervous as well since the court is ideologically to the right. But with 36 states + DC already I would expect it to pass. By the time June rolls around, you will likely have a decision in the 5th circuit and possibly the 8th circuit so that would bring the total up to 44, I believe.
-
You are not alone in your concern.
I would prefer for the case not to be heard under the current justices, because I do not trust them. We will see what happens, though.
Yes, this makes me a bit nervous as well since the court is ideologically to the right. But with 36 states + DC already I would expect it to pass. By the time June rolls around, you will likely have a decision in the 5th circuit and possibly the 8th circuit so that would bring the total up to 44, I believe.
-
What is interesting is the could rule that the states have the right to restrict granting marriage license to same sex couples, however, they don't have the right to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state.
The court asked the parties to brief these two questions:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
-
What is interesting is the could rule that the states have the right to restrict granting marriage license to same sex couples, however, they don't have the right to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state.
The court asked the parties to brief these two questions:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Other states do not have recognize anything from another state. California does not even recognize the fact you have paid state tax in another state thanks to the multistate compact. California requires you pay California state tax in addition to the other state in even if you are incorporated in another state. California does not recognize driver's licenses from other states either. Washington now allows recreational use of marijuana, but that does not mean you will not get in trouble if you are a Washington resident smoking pot in another state. The main point here is marble cake federalism. http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-government/vocabulary/chapter-3-american-federalism/
The States were given sovereignty over many things to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful. The states can in fact refuse to recognize other states laws.
-
I heard that the Alabama Attorney General recently asked for a stay on the District Court's ruling to allow gay marriage on Feb. 9 and the Supreme Court refused it. That's a good sign right?
-
What is interesting is the could rule that the states have the right to restrict granting marriage license to same sex couples, however, they don't have the right to not recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state.
The court asked the parties to brief these two questions:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Other states do not have recognize anything from another state. California does not even recognize the fact you have paid state tax in another state thanks to the multistate compact. California requires you pay California state tax in addition to the other state in even if you are incorporated in another state. California does not recognize driver's licenses from other states either. Washington now allows recreational use of marijuana, but that does not mean you will not get in trouble if you are a Washington resident smoking pot in another state. The main point here is marble cake federalism. http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-government/vocabulary/chapter-3-american-federalism/
The States were given sovereignty over many things to prevent the federal government from becoming too powerful. The states can in fact refuse to recognize other states laws.
At the present, however, that could all change with the ruling. The ramifications of this ruling can be very widespread.
What California does is tax you on your total income for the year even if that income was made out of state if you are a resident of California.
California does recognize driver's licenses for other states, however, if you become a legal resident of the state you do have to obtain a California license and that is true in all states. The time frame is usually thirty days. If you are just visiting the state you do not have to obtain a California license, your license from your home state is valid.Your comparing one state legalizing the recreational use of marijuana to another state not legalizing it to gay marriage is absurd.
With the passage of time when have devolved/evolved from a union of 50 country states to a country of 50 states.
