Discussion for article #223079
Well, folks, heeeeeeeeeeeeere we go again!
1 Like
If you have to live in SD shouldn’t you at least have the right to be happy and marry the one you love? /partial snark/
2 Likes
With the filing of this suit, and the one in ND, the only remaining ban still to be challenged is MT. I would think it would only be a matter of time before a suit is filed there as well. At that point, marriage equality will be either in effect or in various stages of the challenge process in all 50 states.
Is it possible that you could have a situation whereby a lower court judge has ruled in every case, each in favor of the plaintiffs to force the state government to perform or recognize marriage rites for all, before the Supreme Court has had a chance to weigh in on the appeals?
1 Like
“This will probably get decided by one judge. One swing judge will decide this for 300 million people.”
This is so ignorant, and depressing. No, Other courts as well as millions of citizens have ALREADY decided for 19 states, plus DC what the law actually allows. Do people like this ever wonder what it would be like to ask the population of their own states, presumable strangers, for their approval and permission to allow HIM to get married? I can’t see how people claim to be strict Constitutionalists, while ignoring the 14th Amendment entirely!?
Even if you think SSM is just terrible, anyone should be able to figure out by now that it’s a waste of a state’s money and resources to try to fight it in the higher courts.
Sign your state is run by idiots: They fight it anyway. Because your state’s roads and education system have every dime they need.
Sure. let’s all take the Ted Olson approach and deep-six presidential vote counts, referenda, elected representatives, and all that nonsense. Ted’s black-robed dictator friends will tell us what’s good for us. And, if Ted’s fashionistas happen to nullify gun laws, gut the Voting Rights Act, throw out campaign finance reform? Ah, well, you win some and you lose some …
Montana’s ban is already challenged. ND is the only one left.
What a waste of time, money and resources, state by state, hearing the same tired arguments overturned time and time again. Take religion out of the courtroom (as it should be) and it is impossible to demonstrate any compelling state interest in denying the right to marriage based on the gender of the marriage licensee.