Thank you. Everyone seems to ignore the actual ruling. The Supreme Court didn’t “make” law, they ruled that the 14th Amendment of equal protection extended to cover gay marriage. (Discrimination)
Trump is right, this is now a law of the land.
Cruz (and others) are wrong and Cruz should know this. As a constitutional scholar, he must understand the ruling and I think he is pandering for votes with his stand.
I am not a constitutional scholar by any means. Age and strokes have caused me to lose a lot of what I learned in Civics many years ago. I would think though that this should have been expected, that gays would fight based on discrimination, and win.
Isn’t the way to fix this is to bring another case to the court that would reverse this? Since this Amendment has ended discrimination against black, women and handicapped, I don’t see that happening easily.
The Supreme Court made a "ruling" that applies to ONLY the litigants of the case they ruled on. This "ruling" DID NOT change a single law, nor did it invalidate the provisions of a single law on the books of the states not involved in the case. ALL of those present laws remain in effect fully unless brought before the Supreme Court and struck down one at a time.
The federal government has no standing in regards to legislating marriage and neither does the Supreme Court have the authority to make a ruling on marriage. It is not listed in the Constitution and remains to this day, a STATE issue only.
We need to stop assuming that what is presented from liberal framing of issues that their framing is correct. Those who say the "Law" has been changed on marriage need to find where it is allowed in the Constitution for the federal government to have any say so. The equal protection clause does not apply as gays have always had the equal right to marriage as it has always been defined throughout history. They do not have the right to redefine what marriage is.
Some folks here have raised some interesting points.
I particularly liked the concept SergeantDave came up with here. LINK
It seems to me this would be a great tactic to exploit for Davis attorney.