States to Supreme Court: Figure Out Gay Marriage for Us, Please


On Wednesday a federal judge in Louisiana upheld the state's ban on gay marriage recognition. On Thursday, a federal appeals court panel unanimously struck down Wisconsin's and Indiana's bans on gay marriage. It's been that kind of week.
Now, in two separate briefs, groups of state leaders are asking the Supreme Court to deal with it for them. From the Associated Press:
Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a "morass" of lawsuits, but didn't urge the court to rule one way or another.
Celebrations Thursday over the latest legal victory for gay couples seeking to get married were tempered knowing that the bigger — and final — battle rests with the high court.
Same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Bans that have been overturned in some other states continue to make their way through the courts. Since last year, the vast majority of federal rulings have declared same-sex marriages bans unconstitutional.
As Damon Root noted on Wednesday, the ruling in Louisiana was the first time in this current parade of cases where a federal judge has upheld a gay marriage ban, stating that changes in the law should come through democratic means. That's a preview of what Supreme Court justices who favor letting states decide are likely to say in their ruling should they take a case. Whether they'll be in the majority or minority is another question.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Doesn't full faith and credit demand a marriage license in one state be recognized in another. Come to think of it, reciprocity on gun permits would be nice, too.
(That first sentence should end in a question mark.)
Gun permit reciprocity WOULD be nice. Then people could be all like: Ha ha fuck you New Jersey you have to give me a permit!
True FF&C means that NJ recognizes your Texas CCW, just like it recognizes your Texas DL.
If you have to get another license in another state, its not FF&C.
No. It doesn't
A marriage license is a state giving permission to marry. Once married, you are in a relationship that the state recognizes. The license is permission by a state to enter into that relationship.
Once a couple is married in one state, other states are supposed to give full faith and credit, but one state can't bind another state to grant permission to acts that would otherwise be illegal.
For example, lets say the state of Nevada allows two people to form an LLC that does consulting work. The state of MA does not, requiring all consultants to for LLP's.
The state of MA would be expected to treat the Nevada corp as a legitimate entity if the consulting firm was involved in a lawsuit before its courts.
But, if the guys submitted Nevada incorporation paperwork to the MA Secretary of State, he would be under no obligation to accept it and to issue the charter naming them an LLC.
A marriage license is a state giving permission to marry. Once married, you are in a relationship that the state recognizes. The license is permission by a state to enter into that relationship.
When I got married I was issued a license, then a minister performed the ceremony and registered my marriage, at which point the state issued me a certificate saying I was married. It seems like you're forgetting about that all important second action by the state.
The state of MA would be expected to treat the Nevada corp as a legitimate entity if the consulting firm was involved in a lawsuit before its courts.
But, if the guys submitted Nevada incorporation paperwork to the MA Secretary of State, he would be under no obligation to accept it and to issue the charter naming them an LLC.
Also, marriage is more like your first example than your second. When I moved to a different state I didn't have to submit my marriage certificate to the new state and get a new one issued. The new state just recognizes that I'm married because another state says so.
A marriage license is a state giving permission to marry.
I disagree. It's a contract between the two being married and the state, wherein the state will enforce benefits and penalties on the couple's behalf. People can get take a wedded partner without the need for permission.
FF&C is a tough none, because sovereignty.
Generally, licenses issued in one state are recognized in another, unless they aren't.
Professional licenses? Not portable. You have to get one from every state you do business in.
CCW licenses? Semi-portable, depending on the state.
Driver's licenses? Portable.
Marriage licenses? Portable, within the zone that both states recognize as valid (that is, one-man, one-woman).
See? Perfectly logical.
I went to a straight wedding over the weekend. It sucked.
WHO THE FUCK GETS MARRIED DURING COLLEGE FOOTBALL SEASON?!?!?!?!
Hockey fans?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....tival.html
I don't follow these things very much and have never seen the movies. Could someone please explain to me why Kristen Stewart, who constantly looks like she is stoned, is the big star out of those twilight movies and not this Ashley Green woman? I had never heard of her until today. She is a goddess. How is she not a bigger star. She makes Jennifer Lawrance look like a homely wall flower. What the hell is wrong with Hollywood these days that they can't make a huge star out of that woman?
She's hot but I'm more partial to Alexandra Daddario from that photo album. Kirsten Stewart is not hot, and I hate everything about her look.
Alexandra Daddario is hawt.
Me too. I thought Hollywood is supposed to be glamorous. There is nothing glamorous about Stewart. She looks like a former prom queen who moved in with her meth dealer boyfriend right after graduation.
and Daddario is pretty but Green is in, at least in my opinion, a different league. Green is a true classic beauty.
I hate foot tattoos they exude white trash.
Especially Dolphins or other wildly asymmetric designs.
All tattoos are white trash. But everyone under 30 doesn't get that.
And yeah that foot tattoo is like putting a Mexican flame job on a 250 GTO. But since the all get them now what are you going to do?
You don't put a bumper sticker on a Bentley either.
This guy did.
ewww.
All tattoos are white trash.
Some (hell, maybe every) NBA player would like a word.
If having a tatt makes me white trash, then I guess I'm white trash.
I have the same attitude towards tattoos as I do towards abortions: if you don't like them, don't get them.
If I hate them it should be good enough for everyone to get in line. BAN IT!!!
White trash is a state of mind not skin color. And yeah you have a little white trash in you.
Moody and morose sells to teenage girls, which are the target demographic for Stewart's movies.
Twilight is allegory for their menstrual cycle? Good lord it all makes sense now.
My wife watched them. I tried to join her but couldn't bear it.
I stuck it out. Those movies were terrible, but my wife loved them. Also, both of the love interests were horrible: that Edward guy was a dick and Jacob fell in love with a baby. Fuck that shit.
Also we need a millennial poll to settle who is hotter.
OT: No good deed...
http://thinkprogress.org/elect.....h-control/
That whole article was stupid, but this part stuck out to me.
The price of OTC meds is generally *much* lower than the price of prescription drugs.
Is she really this retarded? Or is she merely being really, really mendacious?
Well I genrally operate on people responding to incentives. What makes more sense from her position to drive away roughly 70% of the paying customers or to continue to support the the status quo and justify her current position by deluding herself with bullshit.
It's not ahem "free".
or it won't appear to be free.
Can someone decipher this for me? It makes no sense.
Read the comments from the link. The fact that these people are confident enough to say these things un-anonymously on Facebook is quite frankly scary and retarded at the same time.
It will become harder for government to make a case for being deeply involved with women's reproductive decisions, which means it will be harder to erect the eugenics programs that the progressives have been jonesing after since the Nazis made it a little unfashionable.
Given that being religious and conservative seems to correlate to higher birthrates, the left is in some serious demographic trouble unless they can even the playing field.
"We certainly welcome new partners who are genuinely interested in expanding women's health, as long as they aren't Republicans or anything."
And by zod the comments were awful.
"Figure out gay marriage for us, please".
Translation:
"The better class of people don't like the way our peons keep voting. Please tell the peons once and for all to fuck off".
Democracy is sacred except when the people vote incorrectly.