That is oddly specific. Were they worried a neutral wording might result in people being denied firearms licenses?
They are probably trying to make sure it can in no way be applied to currently-protected classes. They are aware that it will get immediately challenged and struck the fuck down if it can be.
Scotusblog had a symposium post a few more the ago that made a jurisdictional argument. The gist was that federal courts have no jurisdiction regarding marriage because it falls under family law which is under state not federal jurisdiction. I think some of the states have even tried to use that argument before the courts.
The "full faith and credit" clause is the simplest way to argue against that. States don't get to ignore the marriages performed legally in other states.
If the Supreme Court decides that LGB people don't count as a protected class under the intent of the Fourteenth amendment, I could see a ruling that requires states to recognize marriages performed in other states (which used to be the general rule in any case), but which doesn't prevent states from refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In any case, fingers crossed for a hilarious dissent from Scalia.
What Linkigi said. As court documents a same sex marriage license would have to be recognized but that would not force the state to issue marriage licenses for same sex couples.
I suppose someone could try to argue that they are a different type of license from a "traditional" marriage license (think drivers license endorsements and concealed carry permits) and would require relicensing by the state but I cannot see that argument going anywhere because states have never required someone to remarry in their state for a marriage to remain valid.
An interesting argument I've heard is that same sex marriage bans amount to gender discrimination. You apply for a marriage licence and it could be rejected depending on your gender.
One of the couples in the SCOTUS case is actually friends of clan TvH. As dad likes to say, our family and friends tend to live in the footnotes of history.
Anyway, if gay rights are the new civil rights movement like I hear people say it is, I like to imagine what the new Little Rock Nine will be. I like the image of Obama sending the military into some Bible Belt state to marry people.
An interesting argument I've heard is that same sex marriage bans amount to gender discrimination. You apply for a marriage licence and it could be rejected depending on your gender.
I have heard that one too. In essence the ban has nothing to do with sexual orientation but with the sex of the two people. Sex is a protected class. I can see SCOTUS going 5-4 on a sex discrimination basis.
I'd bet more than a nickel that it will be 5-4 at a minimum, more likely to be 6-3. Kennedy wants everyone treated the same, so he'll be in favor of killing the bans. Roberts, likely, doesn't want to be on the wrong side of this debate for legacy reasons, so he could end up joining Kennedy and the 4 "liberals" of the court, or writing his own concurrence.
Going with gender discrimination rather than pushing out a new protected class based on sexual orientation also provides the desired solution without a ton of ripple effects.
I was just rereading the decision in Loving v. Virginia. My simple reading is that the vector used by SCOTUS to counter the states claims of family law being outside of federal jurisdiction is that they were not going after family law but the criminal statutes Virginia had on the books to criminalize interracial marriage.
In the case of samesex marriage I do not know of any criminal statutes on the books of the states. The states are simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of the marriages rather than actively punishing people for being married to a same sex partner.
So, Alabama has its ban overturned and has their stay denied. Alabama judges respond by not opening their marriage license offices. Samesex couples file contempt charges against judge. Federal judge (that overturned ban) says no contempt.
Is this one of those "since no one is getting a marriage license everyone is being treated equally under the law" situations?
Just read an article on the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court on whose orders those offices are closed. He is a complete lunatic who was already impeached once, but managed to get back on the bench mostly due his election coinciding with a Republican Primary and Rick Santorum drawing in every whackjob in Alabama (at least that's what I have seen on reddit).
Can they break their contract early? I think they are committed until 2020.
I haven't looked at their contract personally, but I would think that any law that would significantly impact and materially affect GenCon's attendees would be a justifiable reason to break their contract. Most contracts contain clauses that mention and allow something like this.
So Obergefell v. Hodges just got out of oral arguments a few minutes ago. It's looking 5-4 in favor of marriage (as it has since Windsor), but I'm interested in what basis they use for the ruling. And, of course, Scalia's frothing dissent.
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.
Fuck you, you backwards fucksticks. Gay marriage is the law of the land.
I look forward to the coming wave of salty salty tears.
Comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/us/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-gays-nationwide-can-marry.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews®ion=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=28822058&pgtype=Homepage&_r=2
In any case, fingers crossed for a hilarious dissent from Scalia.
I suppose someone could try to argue that they are a different type of license from a "traditional" marriage license (think drivers license endorsements and concealed carry permits) and would require relicensing by the state but I cannot see that argument going anywhere because states have never required someone to remarry in their state for a marriage to remain valid.
Anyway, if gay rights are the new civil rights movement like I hear people say it is, I like to imagine what the new Little Rock Nine will be. I like the image of Obama sending the military into some Bible Belt state to marry people.
And in both significantly less important but more bizarre news, this lesbian couple was able to marry in Russia because one of them is trans.
http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/all-single-use-bathrooms-in-austin-texas-are-now-gende-1680151345
In the case of samesex marriage I do not know of any criminal statutes on the books of the states. The states are simply refusing to acknowledge the existence of the marriages rather than actively punishing people for being married to a same sex partner.
Is this one of those "since no one is getting a marriage license everyone is being treated equally under the law" situations?
I look forward to the coming wave of salty salty tears.