Indeed.
But Kennedy said he believes that probate judges act “at their own peril” if they choose to obey state courts instead of federal court. He said any couple denied a marriage license could sue in the federal district where they live.
He said the outcome should be clear.
“Whenever state law conflicts with federal law, federal law wins,” he said
If that is true, then why are states allowed to legalize marijuana, when federal law bans recreational and medicinal use of that drug? Or do we make up laws and court cases based not on law or constitutions, but on what liberals decide they want to see happen??
Do we make laws based on constitutions and laws on the books, or do we make laws and policies based on political correctness???
There is no federal law on marriage anymore.
In 2013,the Supreme Court ruled the federal government must accept state definitions of marriage from states which allow homosexual marriages. The court ruled the federal government could not define marriage as a man and a woman. However, there was no replacement definition of marriage put in place.
So how can anyone refer to the federal definition of marriage overriding a state when there is no federal definition of marriage??? Or again, do we just make it up as we go along based on politically correct ideas???
Oh, my! Where to begin?
OK, start here: Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong WRONG!
First point: There is no Federal law requiring recognition of personal services contracts between two people of the same sex as "marriage".
Second point: The only Federal laws that are superior to, or which vacate, state law are laws (passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President) which are made "in pursuance thereof [of the powers delegated to Congress by the States or the People]". No pretended law made by Congress in the future claiming that same-sex relationships are marriages could be a law made "in pursuance thereof", therefore, any such Federal law would be a nullity as regards the states.
Third point: We are not even discussing laws. We are discussing opinions of inferior Federal courts (Article III courts created by Congress). Any opinion of such a court is not a "Federal law", and under no circumstance is Article VI §2 (the "Supremacy Clause") implicated.
Sheesh! Doesn't anybody go to school anymore?
That is emphatically incorrect - Principles of constitutionalism: federalism as a check on federal power