posted
Well, it's not all that surprising. What's interesting is that they aren't contesting Section 2 of DOMA, which says that the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply to SSM. Utah doesn't have to recognize same sex marriages entered into in Massachussetts. They're contesting Section 3, which says that marriage is defined as one man and one woman for all federal purposes. And they're right: that was totally overstepping. Back when some states allowed interracial marriage and others didn't, the federal government didn't get involved, and they shouldn't have done so here.
Has SCOTUS ever denied cert to a suit brought by a state?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sure, it would be, but take what victories (or possibilities for victories) you can get. It's a process after all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The challenge seems interesting because so far as I remember the United States Constitution says nothing about what might be loosely described as family law, suggesting those who wrote it thought such decisions as setting the minimum ages for marriage or whether first cousins should be allowed to marry should be left to the states. But extending federal benefits to same sex marriages might also be considered as giving an undue federal preference to such states as Massachusetts which have legalized them. And the SCOTUS defies prediction, in part because the present justices may not want future generations to remember them chiefly for something like the Dred Scott decision, which permanently damaged the reputations of those involved. History suggests that when public sentiment is changing rapidly, the SCOTUS treads with great care. So at a guess the SCOTUS may in the end rule on this case, but find some means to avoid settling this issue once and for all. But who really knows with the SCOTUS?
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm confused. Can just any random astrologer with no obvious grievance send cases to the Indian High Court? Or is he claiming to have actually been harmed in some way by the lifting of the ban?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The supreme court there can apparently take petitions in certain circumstances. I don't think the astrologer (he's supposed to be some kind of TV personality) is claiming personal harm.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
