News Same-sex marriage legal across US

[StevieTNZ]

Louisiana has officially dug in its heels. According to the state attorney general's office:https://www.ag.state.la.us/Article.aspx?articleID=1037&catID=5

Once a decision has been handed down, shouldn't it take effective from that time, unless otherwise stated in the judgement?

 

[Evo]

Once a decision has been handed down, shouldn't it take effective from that time, unless otherwise stated in the judgement?

I read that it can take up to 25 days.

 

[jtbell]

Jindal explained that he is waiting for the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled in favor of the same-sex marriage ban, which was appealed to the Supreme Court, to issue its own ruling officially reversing its original ruling.

Bobby Jindal on 'Meet The Press': Louisiana doesn't have a choice on gay marriage ruling (New Orleans Times-Picayune)

South Carolina did something similar last fall when the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. They waited until the US District Court that covers South Carolina issued an official ruling, because that is where their case started originally.

I think it's just a last show of defiance / foot-dragging to keep his supporters happy. It's something of a Southern tradition.

 

[mheslep]

I think it's just a last show of defiance...

Hardly unusual. Post Heller, the decision in favor or individual guns rights, several jurisdictions http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/dc-handgun-ruling-response-is-mixed-and-muddled/?pos=adpb until secondary courts finally got around to direct orders.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Yay :) The United States becomes the 21st country to legalise same sex marriage across the entire nation

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html

I am from Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized back in 2005 (in fact, Canada was the fourth country, and the first outside of Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage), and so I find it heartening that the US has joined the right side in history and moved closer to a more equitable, just society with the Supreme Court decision. And to think this decision coincided with Pride Week -- it's amazing and historic!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Great news! On to the next issue.

 

[Borg]

I am from Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized back in 2005 (in fact, Canada was the fourth country, and the first outside of Europe, to legalize same-sex marriage), and so I find it heartening that the US has joined the right side in history and moved closer to a more equitable, just society with the Supreme Court decision. And to think this decision coincided with Pride Week -- it's amazing and historic!

You might want to close the border for a couple of weeks.
http://41.media.tumblr.com/cffcb9aede314aa38e9a76c405725d57/tumblr_nqka4vxwCR1ryqi3lo1_500.png

 

[EM_Guy]

There are various reasons that people are for the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. And there are various reasons that people are against the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. If we are honest though, we would acknowledge that the Constitution is silent on the issue. What we have observed recently is that 5 people on the Supreme Court have no judicial restraint. They legislate from the bench. So, besides the fact that in my view, people are celebrating and institutionalizing a perversion, people are also celebrating the unconstitutional Rule by 5. Supreme Court justices are citizens, and as such, they have a right to vote - just like the rest of us citizens. But they should not be politicizing the court.

It is lamentable to me that so few of those who agree with the politics of the 5 also approve of the same 5 exercising no judicial restraint.

 

[russ_watters]

There are various reasons that people are for the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. And there are various reasons that people are against the legalization of so-called same sex marriage. If we are honest though, we would acknowledge that the Constitution is silent on the issue. What we have observed recently is that 5 people on the Supreme Court have no judicial restraint. They legislate from the bench. So, besides the fact that in my view, people are celebrating and institutionalizing a perversion, people are also celebrating the unconstitutional Rule by 5. Supreme Court justices are citizens, and as such, they have a right to vote - just like the rest of us citizens. But they should not be politicizing the court.

It is lamentable to me that so few of those who agree with the politics of the 5 also approve of the same 5 exercising no judicial restraint.

While I haven't read the decisions yet (so I don't know the exact logic used), I'm much more concerned about this issue as pertains to the Obamacare ruling. I can see a potential here for an Equal Protection Clause or Establishment Clause justification. The issue of enumerated powers is trumped by the issues of rights.

For Obamacare, the SCOTUS used the "we knew what you meant" justification: try using that to get out of (or enforce) a contract! People may think it is just expedient for the SCOTUS to fix the law, but that is a can of worms that imo should not have been opened.
[SCOTUS typo fixed]

 

[nsaspook]

I love America, happy 4th: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2015/07/02/countrys-first-gay-divorce-firm-opens-in-philadelphia/

Lawyers!

 

[russ_watters]

Ahh, the City of Brotherly Love!