Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

gcomeau wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:In my humble, feeble but usually correct opinion, the decision was very very wrong ... but for reasons probably non fathomable to most. The 10th Amendment is very easy reading and it is supposed to mean what it says. Very simple. This was a State Rights issue. Very bad indeed. Just me. Respectfully. HB of CJ (oldest coot)

14th means what it says too.

HB of CJ wrote:What he may have supported was that all Amendments regarding States Rights after the 10th amendment were ALL also wrong. Seems things have been getting worse for a very long time.

How can you do something that is illegal and can not be done? The answer is that the powers that be wanted it so and did it anyway. The South had much wealth that must change hands.

You must also understand that the political climate and emotions running just after the War Of Northern Agression and the following illegal non Constitutional "deconstruction" period following ...

The War was pretty much intended to illegally punish the South for the crime of standing up for the Constitution ... and for States Rights. The parallels today with about 1868-80 are remarkable.

Just me. HB of CJ (old coot)

HB of CJ wrote:So ... since I am not sure about this, an open question: ... Was this recent SC ruling based upon federal court cases being properly appealed from lower courts and the SC had to rule on marriage?

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:14th means what it says too.

Kennedy's majority opinion did not argue support using the 14th. Not quite sure what he used to support this.

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*
Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The petitioners, 14 same-sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased, filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States, claiming that respondent state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full recognition. Each District Court ruled in petitioners’ favor, but the Sixth Circuit consolidated the cases and reversed.


Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

10.
(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.

While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Bowers, in effect, upheld state action that denied gays and lesbians a fundamental right. Though it was eventually repudiated, men and women suffered pain and humiliation in the interim, and the effects of these injuries no doubt lingered long after Bowers was overruled. A ruling against same-sex couples would have the same effect and would be unjustified under the Fourteenth Amendment.