-
@Anya: they're already married!
@MrsSCB: hilarious!!
-
@LovelyPlum: Depends on how you interpret the Constitution. The majority held that it's an issue that falls under the Fourteenth Amendment so no, I don't see it as judicial overreach because it's the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. Alito claims that because the Constitution "says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage" that it's judicial overreach. I don't agree with him, but I can see how if you did agree with that then you'd consider it judicial overreach.
-
@MrsSCB: LOL! Here's your sign....
-
Yes! I'm happy that my brother can fall in love and get married just like anyone else now.
-
@hellobeeboston: I know, I was being cheeky.. because back in the day they said they were waiting until everyone could marry, then it was all whoops we got married in France.
-
@LovelyPlum: I share your exact same sentiments. I am happy for the end result of the ruling but think there is at least some merit to the accusations of judicial overreach.
-
@travellingbee: Right?! That's what people said after Bush won a second time...why would they think that would make sense?
-
@MrsSCB: because being educated is elitist. Sigh.
-
@LovelyPlum: Also, similar arguments were used in interracial marriage cases:
"In upholding the constitutionality of these provisions in the decision below, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to its 1965 decision in Naim v. Naim, 197 Va. 80, 87 S.E.2d 749, as stating the reasons supporting the validity of these laws. In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were 'to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,' and to prevent 'the corruption of blood,' 'a mongrel breed of citizens,' and 'the obliteration of racial pride,' obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id. at 90, 87 S.E.2d at 756. The court also reasoned that marriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control by the Tenth Amendment."
-
For more SCOTUS decision fun: Posts like this always make me laugh, especially after having been an intern in TV news (though not in DC. Probably for the best because I'm not a fast runner, lol). http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/353033-the-2015-running-of-the-interns/
-
@LovelyPlum: I actually would have gone about it differently if I were drafting the opinion. I would have started with the cases dealing with people who are legally married in one state but live/work/travel to other states and are considered unmarried there. The refusal of a state to recognize the laws of another state is clearly unconstitutional. Article IV Section 1 requires each state to give "full faith and credit" to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State" with no exemptions, not for marriage equality or anything else. So if two people have a lawful marriage certificate from state #1, another cannot refuse to recognize it even if those same people couldn't be granted a marriage license in state #2. I would have then moved on to the absurdity of allowing people to be married in state # 2 only if they have the means and opportunity to travel outside the state to become married and then to the main point of whether a constitutional right indeed exists. I don't think it was overreach at all, I just would have laid the foundation differently. I do understand why the majority wanted to deal with the major point and basically said they didn't have to deal with the subsidiary question because of that, I just don't think it made for the strongest possible decision. But clerk for a different sort of judge and no SCOTUS justice will ever ask my opinion, so it's not worth a whole lot, haha.
-
@Mrs. Pickle: SAME!
-
@MrsLonghorn: OMG this couple is so sweet!
-
@lawbee11: that closing paragraph brought tears to my eyes!
-
@lawbee11: I just saw a video, they were the first couple married in Dallas County today.
@MrsLonghorn: So apparently they aren't sticking to the 72 hour rule like they originally stated.
-
@lawbee11: love those pictures!
@mamag: they had announced that they would waive the 72 hour rule, so everyone was already there and ready to go.
-
@MrsLonghorn: Oh! did I misread your original comment. I apologize. Dang reading comprehension.
-
Is anyone else seeing posts today that feel passive aggressive in nature with a strong Christian tone about how they aren't passing judgement as one sin isn't greater than another, they are praying for our country's leaders and will keep all opinions to themselves? These posts almost make me more batty than people that are declaring an opinion I don't agree with. It's annoying to me. I'd rather them just keep their thoughts in their heads
Sorry, rant over.
-
@MrsLonghorn: I'm so happy Dallas County waived the 72 hours! Tarrant County didn't waive (not surprised) and Collin County isn't issuing licenses today. They claim it's a processing issue. Again, not surprised!
-
@MamaG: Those posts drive me nuts! While I am happy for marriage equality, I think there are some issues with SCOTUS potentially overstepping. However, I think the people making posts of that nature are super annoying and missing the point entirely.
-
@lawbee11: I freaking love Justice Kennedy. I had a friend who worked with him and he is just an all around brilliant and nice guy.
Yay SCOTUS! My mom sent my wife and me flowers today.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
100 comments