*NonOfficial* Ongoing states striking down same-sex marriage ban thread

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

TheSiege

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2004
3,918
14
81
Utah is now appealing to the Supreme Court.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=30642851&ni...-us-supreme-court&fm=home_page&s_cid=topstory

SCOTUS Ruling on 10/06/2014
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage/16546959/

Figured I would make a single thread for all the states.

Allowing same sex marriage
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas), as well as two territories (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), prohibit the licensing of same-sex marriages and their recognition from other jurisdictions.

Arkansas, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Texas have one or more state or federal court rulings striking down their same-sex marriage bans that have been stayed pending appeal.

Louisiana, a state court judge's decision striking down the state's ban, affecting 3 parishes, has been stayed pending appeal.

Missouri is all confusing...

Its only a matter of time before the Supreme Court decides its unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
T

TheSiege

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2004
3,918
14
81
A federal judge ruled Monday that Utah must recognize same-sex marriages performed in the state during the brief time it was legal in late December and early January.
 
yllus

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
same-sex_marriage_gif.gif
 
SlickSnake

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
Nice topic, thanks!

Glad I finally got hitched after 30 years last week! Woohoo and stuff! :thumbsup::cool: :whiste: :thumbsup:

On a side note, Arkansas stayed their gay marriage ruling. Estimates are at least 2.5 months before they allow it again, partly because they have a 2 month vacation. :thumbsdown: :mad::twisted:

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...tays-ruling-overturning-same-sex-marriage-ban

And Oregon is now allowing same sex marriages as you pointed out, and claims it will not appeal the ruling! :thumbsup: :awe::biggrin:

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Court-denies-request-to-stay-Oregon-gay-marriage-5488210.php
 
Last edited:
Nebor

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
How does the nonofficial thread vary from the official thread? Do I have to wear pants in here?
 
SlickSnake

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
Nebor said:
How does the nonofficial thread vary from the official thread? Do I have to wear pants in here?
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on if you feel embarrassed not wearing any pants. I would imagine, the bigger you are, the less embarrassed you would feel. ;)
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
Hmm...

Gays are tax paying citizens, and really are deserving of the same rights we are.

Too bad the Civil Rights movement didn't move this fast -- I guess that as long as race affected only blacks, no one really cared.
 
V

Victorian Gray

Lifer
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Retro Rob said:
Hmm...

Gays are tax paying citizens, and really are deserving of the same rights we are.

Too bad the Civil Rights movement didn't move this fast -- I guess that as long as race affected only blacks, no one really cared.
Click to expand...

Awwww, that's so sad.
 
R

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,151
108
106
MrPickins said:
:thumbsup: I have a lot of respect for you for saying that.
Click to expand...

What really got me thinking is reading Ken Ham Fundamental-tard Facebook page, full of bigots who think they should be able to take advantage of marriage extended to ALL US citizens, and gays shouldn't.

The sheer amount of bigotry is shameful as they think they're obligated to ban gay marriage.


That is so stupid.
 
T

TheSiege

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2004
3,918
14
81
nehalem256 said:
So if its so obviously unconstitutional why didn't the Supreme Court make that conclusion last year when they had every opportunity to do so?
Click to expand...

I never said obviously. And if you read their ruling, the SCOTUS said they didn't have standing to make a broad ruling. Simple as that.
 
shira

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
nehalem256 said:
So if its so obviously unconstitutional why didn't the Supreme Court make that conclusion last year when they had every opportunity to do so?
Click to expand...
Well clearly, by your reasoning, ANY time a case is decided one way by the Supreme Court - or if the court fails to make a ruling a certain way when it could have, that means the court can NEVER change its mind. Because the initial ruling (or the failure to make a ruling) MUST have been correct. Take for example Pace v. Alabama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama

Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional.
Click to expand...

So your position is that that original ruling must have been correct, and Loving v. Virginia was therefore incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

So your view is to keep those blacks and white apart, right?

But of course you know that the real reason that the court might well decide (5-4, most likely) that laws against same-sex marriages are unconstitutional is that there are ONLY four brain-dead conservatives on the court (or is using "brain-dead" and "conservative" in the same sentence redundant?). So four liberals + Kennedy could well make a landmark ruling. Hell, John Roberts might even go with the liberals and make it a slam-dunk 6-3 ruling.
 
sportage

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
The thread is fine but really needs another section where legal SS marriage is or will be under attack. Forget about 5 years of legalized SS marriage. Forget about all of those hundreds/thousands now legally married. Forget about the huge costs for a state to once again challenge legalized SS marriage in court.
The state to add under that category of "we don't give a damn about law, courts, people" is IOwa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom