Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Fuck. "gallow" should have been "follow".

 

Actually, "gollow" should have been "follow".

The count is 0-and-2.

 

There may not have been a low forbidding it, but it looks like it marriage, as defined by the California Family Code did not allow for same-sex marriage:

"What we're asking for in our declaratory relief action ... is simply that the three sections of the California Family Code, which exclude same-sex marriage, be declared unconstitutional," Herrera said

CNN.com - San Francisco challenges state's same-sex marriage ban in court - Feb. 19, 2004

 

Newsome believed that, as mayor, he had the legal authority to protect the Constitutional rights of same sex couples who wished to marry within his jurisdiction. He believed he was acting consistently with the law. A court action was brought by a group who disagreed and the State Supreme Court held he had exceeded his authority. Newsome followed the court’s determination that he was incorrect about his authority and the issuance of licenses to same sex couples was terminated.

The Kentucky clerk, despite knowing the U.S Supreme Court has held same sex couples have the Constitutional right to marry, refused to perform a purely ministerial act to allow same sex couples to exercise that right. SCOTUS refused to support her belief that she could deny others their ability to exercise their Constitutional rights because her religion opposes gay marriage. She continued to refuse to perform ministerial obligations of her job required for same sex couples to exercise their Constitutional rights.

 

Really, you want a constitutional law debate?

The Family Code is only a statute, even if enacted, it is still subject to judicial scrutiny for compliance with the US Constitution, and the California Constitution. When in conflict, the Constitution controls. Until the court's decided, SF was NOT violating the law. Once the final decision came from the Court, SF acted accordingly.

 

I'm not looking for a constitutional debate. But, let's not pretend that Newsom's job was to determine, without going to a court, that the Family Code was unconstitutional.

He didn't have the authority, under California law, to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but he did.

 

Starman said: ↑

They're wrong.

No, they're wrong. Marbury vs. Madison, 1803, etc etc.

Whether or not the principle of judicial review was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, it was inferred by the USSC and has been regarded as settled law for 212 years.

This is one of the dumbest of the nitwit teabag "legal theories."

 

Political beliefs > religious beliefs

 

I agree that it's a moot point.

 

What if she were a radical Muslim, and her religious belief demanded she shoot every infidel that came in?

 

Those radical Muslims who forced those airplanes to fly into buildings were just practicing their religious freedom.