Posted on 05/14/2014 12:18:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A U.S. federal judge struck down Idaho's ban on gay marriage on Tuesday, saying it relegated same-sex couples to a second-class status in violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
The ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale was the latest in a string of decisions by federal judges against state bans on same-sex matrimony that, if upheld by higher courts, would sharply broaden access to marriage for U.S. gay couples.
Dale said her decision would go into effect on Friday at 9 a.m. local time, unless put on hold by a higher court.
Marriage rights have been extended to gay couples in 17 states and the District of Columbia in a trend that has gained momentum since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that legally married same-sex couples nationwide are eligible for federal benefits.
That decision, which struck down part of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, has been cited by a number of federal judges, including Dale, in subsequent opinions overturning state bans on gay matrimony.
The Idaho lawsuit was brought in November by two lesbian couples whose out-of-state marriages were invalid in Idaho and two couples who sought to be married in Idaho but were denied licenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
I wonder on what basis any sexual laws are still on the books?
This may be the nightmare case. From Idaho, to the 9th Circuit and then on to Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg and Bryer at the Supreme Court.
This could be the case that is used to destroy traditional marriage not only in Idaho, but in every state.
Idaho would do us a favor if they were to not rush this case to the 9th Circuit.
There was a ban? Don’t bans carry a penalty for those who violate the ban? I just thought that the law provided a legal definition of marriage within the state.
Well, that explains it.
In fact, I see from another source that her full name is: Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale.
These things write themselves.
Idaho is not the only one.
Count them — Utah, California, Oregon, Arkansas and Virginia.
In every case, it was ONE JUDGE who overturned either a law or a referendum declaring marriage as between a man and a woman.
It seems these fascists can justify or outlaw anything that strikes their fancy.
The rule of law is dead in America, and the Constitution has been rendered little more than toilet paper.
And where are all the GOP leaders and their voices on this issue? The ones that always decry about judicial activism, whether on the floor of Congress, at political conventions, or in radio interviews? Have they all become such worthless cowards, unwilling to fully step up to the plate and say “NO!” to all this? Or, are they all like basically disingenous scumbags like Mitt Romney, who mumble about being personally being against fag-marriage, but quiety behind the scenes help facillitate it into existence?
Damn these bastards to hell.
The California case has already been decided by the SCOTUS and Idaho is the only one that will have to go through the 9th Circuit.
What solves this problem? Stop issuing marriage licenses period. You want to get married, go to your preacher.
Yes
Being from and living in Idaho...I will take every effort I can to get this judge OFF the bench....
They would do us a favor by ignoring the judge and carrying on with business as usual. Let the black robed tyrant enforce his dictate.
“Candy” Dale... why not “Candy” ass? What a specious ruling.
There cannot be a “same sex” marriage, by definition. The state code defines marriage, clearly. They should ignore the ruling.
Honestly, since judges like to make up law as they go along, no reason at all. All restrictions on marriage should be struck down if we follow their logic.
I'm only half kidding.
We need state governors with spines now.
“equal protection under the law”
the judge does not understand the meaning of the term as it is in the Constitution
it applies ONLY as the law is applicable to two people in the same manner and yet the law is not enforced or respected “equally” to all to whom that law applies
it does not mean that all laws are written to apply to all persons equally, which would mean the law cannot limit and define whom exactly meets any qualifying terms under the law, which is in fact done all the time in the law
the equal protection clause means only that under its own terms a law is applied equally without regard to race, creed or national origin; that neither law enforcement or the courts can fail to execute, or judge the laws execution, differently for some individuals because of their race, creed or national origin
that’s it
it does not mean that ANY definition of marriage is incompatible with the equal protection clause
it means that ANY definition of marriage cannot be applied differently due to race, creed or national origin - that’s all that “equal protection” protects
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
