Of course it is.
The plaintiffs asserted that the laws of Kentucky violated Amendment XIV, which says, in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely "arises under [this] Constitution".
The result, of course, is ridiculous - but to hear the case is within the scope of Article III.
No, it does not. Unless one wants to invalidate stuff like Reynolds versus United States and other like rulings; and the First Amendment was not even a consideration per Kennedy. Kim Davis is now denied equal protection of the laws as well as her First Amendment rights thanks to this lawless ruling sans jurisdiction.
So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely arises under [this] Constitution
[[So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely “arises under [this] Constitution”.]]
Not so much- homosexuality is not a right anymore than pedophilia is a ‘right’ - it may be ‘allowed’ but it is not a right protected under the constitution
[[So, the question of whether or not State marriage laws deny equal protection to homosexuals absolutely “arises under [this] Constitution”.]]
Does the question of whether state marriage laws deny equal protection to pedophiles the right to marry underage children “Arise under this constitution’ as well?
Of course not because pedophilia, just like homosexuality, is established as a morally deviant practice- just because m ore and m ore people practice it, and more people accept it doesn’t make any less morally deviant- This country had a set of objective moral laws that are not open to the courts subjective opinion.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”
This can not stand as their defense because pedophiles, bestiality practitioners, polygamy practitioners, necrophilia practitioners etc can then ALL make the same case. If one immoral practice/lifestyle can suddenly be declared not immoral, then ALL must be- because “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;” according to the twisted defense of homosexuals on this issue-
The “equal protection” claim is bogus, no one has been denied equal protection of the law.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
The advocates of this novel definition of marriage are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights. Again, there is no *right* to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States and declare that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States nor is there any such fundamental right
There is no 14th Amend equal protection issue, the USSC should not have taken the case.