Not one of the plaintiffs’ theories, however, makes the case for constitutionalizing the definition of marriage and for removing the issue from the place it has been since the founding: in the hands of state voters.This is a victory for republican democracy and a defeat for ideologues who want to use the courts as their own private political enforcement agency.
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
Apparently Judge Sutton has reversed Loving v. Virginia, which is remarkable since it was a Supreme Court decision and he is only a Circuit Court Judge. I would not be surprised if the full Sixth Circuit reverses in an en banc appeal.
ReplyDeleteKyCobb,
ReplyDeleteHow does Loving overturn Baker v. Nelson?
I didn't say it did.
ReplyDeleteThe only way Sutton could have reversed Loving by standing on the Supreme Court precedent in Baker is if Loving somehow reversed Baker. What does Loving have to do with this case at all?
ReplyDeleteLoving involved a man and woman denied a license because of color.. a clear 14th Amendment violation. Re-defining marriage is not the same thing, KyCobb.
ReplyDeleteLoving removed the definition of marriage from the hands of state voters.
ReplyDeleteIf a gay couple, legally married in, say, Washington, obtains (or converts) their auto insurance as a single policy for both to take advantage of marriage discounts, is their insurance valid in KY?
ReplyDeleteIf so, isn't this an explicit acceptance, on the part of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, of gay marriage? If not, then how is this not a violation of Article 1 on the part of the Commonwealth?
Art,
ReplyDeleteKentucky doesn't regulate the premiums out-of-state residents pay for their out-of-state insurance policies, even if they have an accident while driving in Kentucky.
> If a gay couple, legally married in, say, Washington, obtains (or converts) their auto insurance as a single policy for both to take advantage of marriage discounts, is their insurance valid in KY?
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that voters in KY are bound by the decisions of the voters in WA?
kycobb, I am thinking that, if KY accepts as valid an insurance policy that explicitly grants status as a married couple, then KY is in fact accepting the martial status of the couple. This would be the case for gay married couples.
ReplyDeleteLee, are you saying that such insurance policies should not be valid in KY? That, should such a driver from WA be stopped in KY, that they be subject to fines and penalties for driving without insurance?