I assume the liberty part is the right to choose freely, assuming the interpretation from the SC used that premise, although we really don't know what their mindset was, correct ?

 

From an equal law perspective, I assume that is because the State of Kentucky requires a legal document to be legally married in the State ?

 

As far as I know, there is no challenge to the State of Kentucky's language in their existing marriage law or the amendment cited, is there ? If that is true, or at least it has not been recalled by the voters, then we have a legal quandry, depending on your perspective of governing law. While the SC may be the "supreme" law of the land, we continue to see States exercise the will of their voters. So I'll be curious what penalty Mr. Bunning hands down today, but I doubt the discussion resolves the issue.

 

A law doesn't have to be recalled for it to be struck down. The highest law of the land in the United States is the Constitution, it is the final authority. Kentucky's amendment banning same sex couples from legal marriage conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and as such is inherently illegal and was ruled to violate the Constitution based on those grounds.

 

As to your other comments, I will address them if I have time later as I am heading into work.

Due Process Clause as outlined by the 5th and 14th amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which clearly says that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

 

Given that Kentucky's amendment to its state constitution clearly abridges this right and furthermore according to the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," which by preventing people the right to marry whatever consenting adult they choose is a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

Don't let case law get in the way of a good Bible thumping. Why should people bother to look through 100's of pages and years of reasoned thought regarding Equal Rights when they can just say, "My Bible says this...?" It's much easier to just dig in heels.

It begs the question of jurisdictional authority. Jack is way, way silent on this one and letting Bunning carry the load. At some point I think they have to jump into the muck on this one and take some action

 

What action? The Supreme Court has ruled and overturned a 21 year old law. It's done. People need to let it go.

What action? The Supreme Court has ruled and overturned a 21 year old law. It's done. People need to let it go.

 

I'm really trying to keep up with what the law actually is. So here is my understanding.

 

Kentucky has some law on the books regarding marriage. A few years ago there was a public vote to ban gay marriage in the state. The SCOTUS ruled that ban unconstitutional so it no longer is valid.

 

If the above is accurate, what is the wording of the original marriage law in KY that allows gay marriage? Does it just not define it must be a man and a woman? I'm really just trying to figure out why the position that there is no longer any marriage law.

What action? The Supreme Court has ruled and overturned a 21 year old law. It's done. People need to let it go.

 

State of Kentucky my friend...I care not that the 9 who currently sit have rendered their decision. The State needs to manage their own house

State of Kentucky my friend...I care not that the 9 who currently sit have rendered their decision. The State needs to manage their own house

 

The state can't do anything about it. Not the way that the DOMA statute is written in Kentucky right now, anyway.

A law doesn't have to be recalled for it to be struck down. The highest law of the land in the United States is the Constitution, it is the final authority. Kentucky's amendment banning same sex couples from legal marriage conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and as such is inherently illegal and was ruled to violate the Constitution based on those grounds.

 

As to your other comments, I will address them if I have time later as I am heading into work.

 

So States have no recourse, in your opinion, to challenge based on a soveriegn position ? I'm not arguing anything, but your defensiveness is obvious. I don't necessarily agree with everything that the US Supreme Court has ruled on, and that's ok, because I believe that discussion is what makes America different from other countries.

 

I'm not trying to deny anyone anything...I personally couldn't care less about the law itself, it's an interesting argument when you bring a State's vision into play, in particular when there may be a majority or plurality that think different.

 

I'm pretty sure that every decision that was ever rendered by the US Supreme Court has not stood forever, so I doubt this discussion ever has a finite ending. Inherent illegality is not a definitive end to any law in America. Opinions are rendered all the time that change the way the flag waves, it's the way America is wired.

 

That's all...no more, no less, no agenda...just discussion

The state can't do anything about it. Not the way that the DOMA statute is written in Kentucky right now, anyway.

 

No argument, it's the "right now" part that is hanging out there....

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing for, against or anything...I don't care, it's just academic discussion

I'm really trying to keep up with what the law actually is. So here is my understanding.

 

Kentucky has some law on the books regarding marriage. A few years ago there was a public vote to ban gay marriage in the state. The SCOTUS ruled that ban unconstitutional so it no longer is valid.

 

If the above is accurate, what is the wording of the original marriage law in KY that allows gay marriage? Does it just not define it must be a man and a woman? I'm really just trying to figure out why the position that there is no longer any marriage law.

 

To really understand, you need the background of the Civil Rights Cases and how the court began defining what was protected by the 14th amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Prior to that, the Constitution and Bill of Rights only protected citizens from the Federal Government. Starting in the 1870s, the SCOTUS began using the 14th amendment to grant certain protections at the state level.

 

Ok, now, to your question. As to the old law, I don't know. All I know is that if the old law states that marriage can only be b/n a consenting adult male, and consenting adult female, it would have been worded almost exactly like the one that was just ruled Unconstitutional.

 

All the SCOTUS did was strike any clause in a state's statute that said marriage is only b/n a man and a woman. Everything else is the same. It didn't invalidate all of the laws regarding age of consent and such.

No argument, it's the "right now" part that is hanging out there....

 

To be clear, I'm not arguing for, against or anything...I don't care, it's just academic discussion

 

I know. The issue is that KY's law basically was exactly like the DOMA. Once that was struck down as Unconstitutional in 2009, it was only a matter of time before the state laws were struck down. Additionally, any new law that KY puts forth that leads to the outcome that only 1 straight man can marry 1 straight woman will be struck down. Gay marriage is here to stay.

State of Kentucky my friend...I care not that the 9 who currently sit have rendered their decision. The State needs to manage their own house

 

The Supreme Court doesn't matter? I really can't comprehend this line of thinking that has permeated the boards since yesterday or so. Like I'm genuinely shocked.

 

Tell me how this is different? Game 162 next year, Reds need to win to make the playoffs. Bang bang play at the plate, they lose. New manager Barry Larkin challenges the play, call stands. After the game, the Reds even appeal the game to Major League Baseball to no avail. Rather than heading home, rather than realizing there are literally no other options, Castellini says my team is more important than the whole league and heads to Chicago for the wild card game. My team, my rules, doesn't matter that the league ruled on the game and Pittsburgh has the better record, right?

The Supreme Court doesn't matter? I really can't comprehend this line of thinking that has permeated the boards since yesterday or so. Like I'm genuinely shocked.

 

Tell me how this is different? Game 162 next year, Reds need to win to make the playoffs. Bang bang play at the plate, they lose. New manager Barry Larkin challenges the play, call stands. After the game, the Reds even appeal the game to Major League Baseball to no avail. Rather than heading home, rather than realizing there are literally no other options, Castellini says my team is more important than the whole league and heads to Chicago for the wild card game. My team, my rules, doesn't matter that the league ruled on the game and Pittsburgh has the better record, right?

 

What ???? I followed your first paragraph. People object to decisions by the Supreme Court every day so I'm not sure what your comprehenision issue is or why you are shocked.

 

Your Reds analogy is just ridiculous because every one knows that Barry Larkin has no interest in managing, he's a broadcast guy.....