A federal judge struck down Alaska’s marriage amendment (approved in 1998) on October 12, 2014, effective October 13. And on October 6, the Supreme Court refused to hear a number of cases where five states were trying to protect their amendments, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in 30 states. On October 7, the 9th district appeals court “overturned marriage bans in Nevada and Idaho.”
On November 6 a federal appeals court upheld the marriage laws of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Since different federal appeals courts came to different decisions, this may force SCOTUS to take up the issue.
Thinking to Believe 
February 10, 2017 at 5:10 pm
I can hardly wait for progress to finally come to the United States of America, States act like sovereign countries and want to discontinue the Federal love affair if they don’t like the Constitution which is a federal document to uphold that fact that the rain falls on the good and the bad alike; that the sun shines on your perspective and my perspective alike; that the air I breathe is the same air you breathe and clean water is as important for the left as it is for the right, that the blood that courses through the Republican body is similar blood that courses through the Democrat’s body.
AND SO
Let’s see if SCOTUS believes the rights of the anti- position supersede the rights of the pro-position for the reason that anti-rights are superior to pro-rights.
I don’t think so. And SCOTUS will be upholding the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion, if they rule that marriage is a “human right” not a “heterosexual right” and at the same time affirm that Homosexuals and Lesbians are as human as the members in the Self Righteous Club who want to deny the rights of other human beings outside that “Special” Club.
But I will not allow that to happen in this day and age of humanity’s continuing evolution of civilizing. The world has come too far in overcoming the tyranny of “Special Clubs” who have held the downtrodden in thrall since the year dot, and to roll back the progressive gains won would be regressive.
Remember, when mankind finally understood(and some still do not understand) that there are no witches, no wizards and no more ‘worthier than thou’ worshippers favored by the Gods that will return to gather worshippers ro bus their righteous club only, to Nirvana. Ain’t gonna happen even though sometimes we take two steps forward and one step back and sometimes we pause in helping the poor clean up the water mess in Flint Michigan but thy will be done on earth as it is in…………….!
LikeLike
February 11, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Being that, “The ruling concluded that states have the right to set rules for marriage.” this sets up a number of complex scenarios for ultimate resolution involving Constitutional Amendments IX, X, XI & XIV.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-x/tenth-amendment-shapiro-and-lawson/interp/15
From the above article on THE TENTH AMENDMENT by Gary Lawson and Robert Schapiro:
In sum, the Constitution’s Framers thought that a bill of rights was appropriate for an unlimited government, but not for a limited one like the national government created by the Constitution. The Constitution accordingly sought to secure liberty through enumerations of powers to the government rather than through enumerations of rights to the people.
The Ninth Amendment warns against drawing any inferences about the scope of the people’s rights from the partial listing of some of them. The Tenth Amendment warns against using a list of rights to infer powers in the national government that were not granted. In referring, respectively, to “rights . . . retained by the people” and “powers . . . reserved . . . to the people,” the Ninth and Tenth Amendments also evoke themes of popular sovereignty, highlighting the foundational role of the people in the constitutional republic.
The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.
In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941). No law that would have been constitutional before the Tenth Amendment was ratified becomes unconstitutional simply because the Tenth Amendment exists. The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.
Nonetheless, beginning in 1976, a line of cases has emerged that seems to give substantive constitutional content to the Tenth Amendment. In 1986, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that a city was required to comply with federal labor laws, and that state sovereignty interests should be protected by the participation of states in the national political process, rather than by judicially-enforced principles of federalism. However, while Garcia has never been explicitly overruled, in subsequent cases the Court has indeed found judicially-enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate states (and their political subdivisions) directly. So it is now meaningful to speak of “Tenth Amendment doctrine.” Those cases all involve action by the federal government that in some way regulates or commands state governments, such as by telling states what policies they must adopt, New York v. United States (1992), forcing state or local executive officials to implement federal laws, Printz v. United States (1997), or conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on compliance with certain conditions, South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment has not been invoked by the Court to protect individual citizens against the exercise of federal power.
Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?
LikeLike
February 11, 2017 at 10:19 pm
It is possibly premature for considering action on the part of the Supreme Court just yet. Perhaps this matter could be taken up by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction Should this Court render a decision then that decision may undergo en banc consideration according to: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT INTERNAL OPERATING PROCEDURES IOP# 13 BASES FOR HEARING EN BANC OR REHEARING EN BANC.
Click to access IOPs122006.pdf
From the above document:
IOP #13
DATE: November 14, 2008
SUBJECT: BASES FOR HEARING EN BANC OR REHEARING EN BANC
1. En banc consideration is required to overrule a prior holding of this or a predecessor court expressed in an opinion having precedential status.
2. Upon the concurrence of the majority of active judges, the court will, for any
appropriate reason, conduct an en banc hearing, rehearing, or reconsideration. Judges who are
recused or disqualified from participating in an en banc case are not counted as active judges
for purposes of this IOP. Among the reasons for en banc action are:
(a) Necessity of securing or maintaining uniformity of decisions;
(b) Involvement of a question of exceptional importance;
(c) Necessity of overruling a prior holding of this or a predecessor court
expressed in an opinion having precedential status; or
(d) The initiation, continuation, or resolution of a conflict with another circuit.
LikeLike