Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: VanDeKoik

Technically, last year’s rulings from the Supreme Court on homosexual marriage were very limited.

They ruled that the federal government would recognize homosexual marriage from states in which it was legal.

And they ruled that nobody in California had standing to defend their marriage law, so by default, homosexual marriage resumed in California under court order.

These rulings did not establish whether there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

It’s possible that there aren’t five votes on the current Supreme Court to declare a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. They may rather dance around the edges of that with technical rulings on the subject instead.


9 posted on 11/07/2014 7:56:56 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Dilbert San Diego
And they ruled that nobody in California had standing to defend their marriage law, so by default, homosexual marriage resumed in California under court order.

More than that, they ruled that the state's own Supreme Court could not certify standing. (IIRC, the CA supreme court ruled that the citizens did have standing.)

11 posted on 11/07/2014 8:05:15 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson