Skip to comments.
Judge declines divorce case, citing gay marriage ruling
ChattanoogaTimesFreePress ^
| September 3rd, 2015
Posted on 09/03/2015 6:30:14 PM PDT by Bayard
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Sounds like there's more worms creeping out of that can the SCOTUS opened up by declaring marriage to be a fundamental right.
1
posted on
09/03/2015 6:30:14 PM PDT
by
Bayard
To: Bayard
They need Trump’s attorney. He is well versed in divorce law.
To: Bayard
I LOVE it !
3
posted on
09/03/2015 6:35:02 PM PDT
by
knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
To: Bayard
the Fed govt has federalized marriage. Let it federalize divorce.
4
posted on
09/03/2015 6:36:48 PM PDT
by
RginTN
To: Bayard
"I don't know for sure," said Chattanooga attorney Mike Richardson, "but I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court did not intend to preempt divorce law."Unintended consequences.
5
posted on
09/03/2015 6:37:14 PM PDT
by
exit82
("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
To: Bayard
"State court judges, regardless of their personal points of view, must defer to the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation,"
That's all nice and good but it doesn't negate the Judge's 1st amendment rights. Find another judge.
6
posted on
09/03/2015 6:38:11 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
To: Bayard
Back to the 50s and the private eyes in the hotels, haha!
7
posted on
09/03/2015 6:40:55 PM PDT
by
Beowulf9
To: Bayard
Yep. It would almost be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
To: Bayard
The ruling said it said states had to recognize homosexual marriages, so states that had it have couples potentially married for months if not years.
Do those with civil unions have to go back to get “married” and greater legal rights?
A bigger can of worms - when do people come back and say we were common law same sex married people, seeking retroactive recognition?
Do couples living together that weren’t legally same sex married have to get married to get tax benefits, social security benefits, survivor’s benefits?
If not, how far back can the “I was really married” go?
What happens when someone’s estate is settled and a same sex lover comes in and says we were really spouses, give me half or all of it?
What happens when Mom’s room mate of 20 years comes in after Mom dies and says I was her spouse, give me the house?
9
posted on
09/03/2015 6:47:08 PM PDT
by
tbw2
To: Bayard
And man goes where no man has gone before. Good for THIS judge. More on the court, please. These ‘folks’ want to be treated as equals, WTP must comply. Here comes the judge. Here comes the judge. Score one for this judge. Excellent point,sir.
10
posted on
09/03/2015 6:48:20 PM PDT
by
V K Lee
To: Bayard
>>They had no children together and filed for divorce in September 2014, citing irreconcilable differences.
If they were gay, they could have cited irreconcilable similarities.
11
posted on
09/03/2015 6:51:20 PM PDT
by
generally
(Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
To: generally
irreconcilable similarities
To: generally
Well they both enjoy a good joust.
13
posted on
09/03/2015 7:21:49 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
To: Bayard
"I just think change is hard for people." Your change from Earth to Hell, for example, might be a little disconcerting.
To: exit82
“I don’t know for sure,” said Chattanooga attorney Mike Richardson, “but I suspect the U.S. Supreme Court did not intend to preempt divorce law.”
Wait, so when applying Supreme Court decisions, we’re supposed to look at the original intent of a court that refuses to recognize the original intent of the people who actually wrote the laws?
15
posted on
09/03/2015 7:57:33 PM PDT
by
RightFighter
(This space for rent)
To: Bayard
Gee. What was that fracas a few years ago about “state’s rights?” I’m beginning to think the wrong side won.
16
posted on
09/03/2015 7:57:51 PM PDT
by
LouAvul
(Liberalism, the bane of civilization.)
To: RightFighter
Wait, so when applying Supreme Court decisions, were supposed to look at the original intent of a court that refuses to recognize the original intent of the people who actually wrote the laws?Excellent point.
17
posted on
09/03/2015 8:00:29 PM PDT
by
exit82
("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
To: Bayard
Honestly, judges across the 50 U. S. States should do the same thing. Cram this ruling right down the SCOTUS throat.
18
posted on
09/03/2015 8:19:42 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(It's beginning to look like "Morning in America" again. Comment on YouTube under Trump Free Ride.)
To: wolfman23601
And Reagan’s too come to think of it.
19
posted on
09/03/2015 8:20:02 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(It's beginning to look like "Morning in America" again. Comment on YouTube under Trump Free Ride.)
To: Bayard
Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether..the judge makes an excellent point - if the Supremes can define what marriage is in one case, they should define what it is and isn't in all possible permutations.....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson