All the states where gay marriage is the law

[bodecea]

God protect the children.

If only God would protect the children....if only he would start doing that.

If Sodom and Gomorrah are a demonstration in biblical literature that homosexuality is a 'grave sin' (as rabid homophobes claim), then every city that had a same-sex marriage should be scorched by god - or turned to salt by now.
Hasn't happened.* [emoji14]opcorn:

*The obvious reason is that they were meant as biblical lessons i.e. select cases that God has no intention of repeating, much like the Great Flood.

Especially since Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't about homosexuality. The fallen angels were offered lots daughter, not his sons. Ignorance abounds among many people.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Wrong as most bible haters are. Gay was a major reason behind God destroying sodom and gomorrah.

Nope...it was inhospitality to strangers.

 

[Political Junky]

70% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal.

WOW! Just WOW...now there's a statistic...how long did it take you to divide 35 by 50?

It's legal in 36 states, not 35. So that makes it 72% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal. Thanks for calling my attention to it. The report I heard was wrong by 2%.

 

[martybegan]

only a few states are left, primarily in the hard core confederate states


View attachment 35627

The ones that have it via court order are not "by law". They are "by decision" or more appropriately, by judicial fiat.

Only the ones that have passed changes to the marriage contract via legislative action have it "by law"

Yep by law- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Just like when the courts have invalidated other marriage laws or for that matter invalidated gun laws.

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

 

[Syriusly]

only a few states are left, primarily in the hard core confederate states


View attachment 35627

The ones that have it via court order are not "by law". They are "by decision" or more appropriately, by judicial fiat.

Only the ones that have passed changes to the marriage contract via legislative action have it "by law"

Yep by law- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Just like when the courts have invalidated other marriage laws or for that matter invalidated gun laws.

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

 

[Syriusly]

70% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal.

WOW! Just WOW...now there's a statistic...how long did it take you to divide 35 by 50?

It's legal in 36 states, not 35. So that makes it 72% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal. Thanks for calling my attention to it. The report I heard was wrong by 2%.

Considering that those states include the first, third and fourth most populous states- probably even higher.

 

[Political Junky]

70% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal.

WOW! Just WOW...now there's a statistic...how long did it take you to divide 35 by 50?

It's legal in 36 states, not 35. So that makes it 72% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal. Thanks for calling my attention to it. The report I heard was wrong by 2%.

Considering that those states include the first, third and fourth most populous states- probably even higher.

Very true, thanks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

70% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal.

WOW! Just WOW...now there's a statistic...how long did it take you to divide 35 by 50?

It's legal in 36 states, not 35. So that makes it 72% of Americans live where same sex marriage is legal. Thanks for calling my attention to it. The report I heard was wrong by 2%.

And that doesn't even factor in population density. When you consider that of the states left that do not yet recognize gay marriage, a good number are sparself populated, like the breadbasket states and some of the gulf states..... then it's actually more than 72%.

 

[Porker]

But if you remove the illegal aliens from those coastal states you would probably only have about 60 %.

 

[martybegan]

only a few states are left, primarily in the hard core confederate states


View attachment 35627

The ones that have it via court order are not "by law". They are "by decision" or more appropriately, by judicial fiat.

Only the ones that have passed changes to the marriage contract via legislative action have it "by law"

Yep by law- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Just like when the courts have invalidated other marriage laws or for that matter invalidated gun laws.

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

 

[Syriusly]

only a few states are left, primarily in the hard core confederate states


View attachment 35627

The ones that have it via court order are not "by law". They are "by decision" or more appropriately, by judicial fiat.

Only the ones that have passed changes to the marriage contract via legislative action have it "by law"

Yep by law- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Just like when the courts have invalidated other marriage laws or for that matter invalidated gun laws.

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

 

[martybegan]

The ones that have it via court order are not "by law". They are "by decision" or more appropriately, by judicial fiat.

Only the ones that have passed changes to the marriage contract via legislative action have it "by law"

Yep by law- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Just like when the courts have invalidated other marriage laws or for that matter invalidated gun laws.

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

 

[Syriusly]

Yep by law- the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Just like when the courts have invalidated other marriage laws or for that matter invalidated gun laws.

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

Court cases have only eliminated bans on same gender marriages.

For example- in California, before there was Prop 8, there was Prop 22- which changed State law to forbid 'gay marriage'- that was struck down as a violation of the California Constitution. So my fellow Californians changed the State Constitution to forbid 'gay marriage'. That was struck down by a Federal Court, and that decision was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no need for a law to 'legalize' gay marriage in California- because Prop 22 and Prop 8 are null and void- which means that marriage is based on the law that is not null and void. And that law- on the books- doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

 

[martybegan]

In a state where it is being forced by the courts, show me the law that states marriage can be between same sex couples.

Again, laws have to be passed by legislatures. courts cannot create laws.

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

Court cases have only eliminated bans on same gender marriages.

For example- in California, before there was Prop 8, there was Prop 22- which changed State law to forbid 'gay marriage'- that was struck down as a violation of the California Constitution. So my fellow Californians changed the State Constitution to forbid 'gay marriage'. That was struck down by a Federal Court, and that decision was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no need for a law to 'legalize' gay marriage in California- because Prop 22 and Prop 8 are null and void- which means that marriage is based on the law that is not null and void. And that law- on the books- doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

But gay marriage is not the "law of the land" there. Being struck down does not repeal the law. Both are still on the books, and both are still law, but unenforceable.

If the SC says States can set the marriage contract as they see fit, all the laws on the books come right back into play.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....according to the Constitution- the laws that prohibited 'gay marriage' are unconstitutional.

Since those laws are unconstitutional, according to the law, 'gay couples' are subject to the existing marriage laws.

So just look up Florida marriage law and ignore any part which would prohibit same gender couples from marrying.

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

Court cases have only eliminated bans on same gender marriages.

For example- in California, before there was Prop 8, there was Prop 22- which changed State law to forbid 'gay marriage'- that was struck down as a violation of the California Constitution. So my fellow Californians changed the State Constitution to forbid 'gay marriage'. That was struck down by a Federal Court, and that decision was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no need for a law to 'legalize' gay marriage in California- because Prop 22 and Prop 8 are null and void- which means that marriage is based on the law that is not null and void. And that law- on the books- doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

But gay marriage is not the "law of the land" there. Being struck down does not repeal the law. Both are still on the books, and both are still law, but unenforceable.

If the SC says States can set the marriage contract as they see fit, all the laws on the books come right back into play.

Agreed- at this point marriage equality only exists in 36 states- and just like the laws against mixed race marriages and sodomy, until the Supreme Court ruled that didn't apply to all states.

And I agree- if the Supreme Court does decide that State prohibitions against gay marriage do not violate the constitution- then it will reverse the judges decisions that overturned those laws(all except Prop 8- that has already been decided by the Supreme Court).

But if the SC says the States have to follow the Constitution- then like laws against mixed race marriages and laws against sodomy- those laws will be on the books for years- likely for decades before being repealed.

Alabama didn't repeal its mixed race marriage ban for 32 years after the Supreme Court found the State couldn't set the marriage contract as Virginia saw fit.

 

[martybegan]

That means the laws cannot be enforced. They are still on the books in most places. Thus gay marriage is only the "law of the land" in places that passed changes to the marriage laws via legislative action. If another court decision comes down overturning any of the previous court decisions those laws go right back into enforcement.

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

Court cases have only eliminated bans on same gender marriages.

For example- in California, before there was Prop 8, there was Prop 22- which changed State law to forbid 'gay marriage'- that was struck down as a violation of the California Constitution. So my fellow Californians changed the State Constitution to forbid 'gay marriage'. That was struck down by a Federal Court, and that decision was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no need for a law to 'legalize' gay marriage in California- because Prop 22 and Prop 8 are null and void- which means that marriage is based on the law that is not null and void. And that law- on the books- doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

But gay marriage is not the "law of the land" there. Being struck down does not repeal the law. Both are still on the books, and both are still law, but unenforceable.

If the SC says States can set the marriage contract as they see fit, all the laws on the books come right back into play.

Agreed- at this point marriage equality only exists in 36 states- and just like the laws against mixed race marriages and sodomy, until the Supreme Court ruled that didn't apply to all states.

And I agree- if the Supreme Court does decide that State prohibitions against gay marriage do not violate the constitution- then it will reverse the judges decisions that overturned those laws(all except Prop 8- that has already been decided by the Supreme Court).

But if the SC says the States have to follow the Constitution- then like laws against mixed race marriages and laws against sodomy- those laws will be on the books for years- likely for decades before being repealed.

Alabama didn't repeal its mixed race marriage ban for 32 years after the Supreme Court found the State couldn't set the marriage contract as Virginia saw fit.

One quibble I have is that gay marriage is not IN the constitution, so even if they say the States can set their own Marriage policy, they are not "unfollowing" it. What they are doing is following the part that leaves things not seen as a right and not given to the feds as left to the States.

 

[Syriusly]

Laws on the books, but that are unconstitutional are invalid- and not the law. Laws against mixed race marriages were on the books in Alabama for 32 years after the ban was struck down. Laws against sodomy are still on the books in many states- even though those laws are invalid.

In all of those cases- the laws that were not invalid remained in effect- all that happened is that the invalid laws were no longer in effect- the ban on mixed race marriages, the ban on sodomy- and now the bans on same gender marriages.

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

Court cases have only eliminated bans on same gender marriages.

For example- in California, before there was Prop 8, there was Prop 22- which changed State law to forbid 'gay marriage'- that was struck down as a violation of the California Constitution. So my fellow Californians changed the State Constitution to forbid 'gay marriage'. That was struck down by a Federal Court, and that decision was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no need for a law to 'legalize' gay marriage in California- because Prop 22 and Prop 8 are null and void- which means that marriage is based on the law that is not null and void. And that law- on the books- doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

But gay marriage is not the "law of the land" there. Being struck down does not repeal the law. Both are still on the books, and both are still law, but unenforceable.

If the SC says States can set the marriage contract as they see fit, all the laws on the books come right back into play.

Agreed- at this point marriage equality only exists in 36 states- and just like the laws against mixed race marriages and sodomy, until the Supreme Court ruled that didn't apply to all states.

And I agree- if the Supreme Court does decide that State prohibitions against gay marriage do not violate the constitution- then it will reverse the judges decisions that overturned those laws(all except Prop 8- that has already been decided by the Supreme Court).

But if the SC says the States have to follow the Constitution- then like laws against mixed race marriages and laws against sodomy- those laws will be on the books for years- likely for decades before being repealed.

Alabama didn't repeal its mixed race marriage ban for 32 years after the Supreme Court found the State couldn't set the marriage contract as Virginia saw fit.

One quibble I have is that gay marriage is not IN the constitution, so even if they say the States can set their own Marriage policy, they are not "unfollowing" it. What they are doing is following the part that leaves things not seen as a right and not given to the feds as left to the States.

Mixed race marriage is not in the Constitution either. Sodomy is not in the Constitution either.

I am not saying that the Supreme Court can't overturn the majority of courts rulings and decide in this case to let the State's laws stands- what I am saying is that just saying 'its not written in the Constitution' doesn't mean the Supreme Court will agree with you.

 

[martybegan]

But until a law is actually passed that counters the law in place, the unconstitutional law is still the law, and the only thing you have is a decision, not an actual law.

States that passed gay marriage legislatively have an actual law changing the marriage contract. Until other states do that, they have no law endorsing gay marriage as legal, all they have is a (wrong) court decision declaring the law "unconstitutional"

Court cases have only eliminated bans on same gender marriages.

For example- in California, before there was Prop 8, there was Prop 22- which changed State law to forbid 'gay marriage'- that was struck down as a violation of the California Constitution. So my fellow Californians changed the State Constitution to forbid 'gay marriage'. That was struck down by a Federal Court, and that decision was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is no need for a law to 'legalize' gay marriage in California- because Prop 22 and Prop 8 are null and void- which means that marriage is based on the law that is not null and void. And that law- on the books- doesn't prohibit gay marriage.

But gay marriage is not the "law of the land" there. Being struck down does not repeal the law. Both are still on the books, and both are still law, but unenforceable.

If the SC says States can set the marriage contract as they see fit, all the laws on the books come right back into play.

Agreed- at this point marriage equality only exists in 36 states- and just like the laws against mixed race marriages and sodomy, until the Supreme Court ruled that didn't apply to all states.

And I agree- if the Supreme Court does decide that State prohibitions against gay marriage do not violate the constitution- then it will reverse the judges decisions that overturned those laws(all except Prop 8- that has already been decided by the Supreme Court).

But if the SC says the States have to follow the Constitution- then like laws against mixed race marriages and laws against sodomy- those laws will be on the books for years- likely for decades before being repealed.

Alabama didn't repeal its mixed race marriage ban for 32 years after the Supreme Court found the State couldn't set the marriage contract as Virginia saw fit.

One quibble I have is that gay marriage is not IN the constitution, so even if they say the States can set their own Marriage policy, they are not "unfollowing" it. What they are doing is following the part that leaves things not seen as a right and not given to the feds as left to the States.

Mixed race marriage is not in the Constitution either. Sodomy is not in the Constitution either.

I am not saying that the Supreme Court can't overturn the majority of courts rulings and decide in this case to let the State's laws stands- what I am saying is that just saying 'its not written in the Constitution' doesn't mean the Supreme Court will agree with you.

and right now that's the major problem with this country.