IMO the Windsor decision is the straw that broke the camelís back for the anti gay movement.<quoted text>First off the extort a full TEN percent of Mormon's income. That's a HUGE amount of money from a family budget. Then they spend it on political causes as they interfered with California's elections to get Prop H-8 shoved through. But,their spending was in VAIN,for now California is back on track and gays are getting married round the clock. It's time that their home state caught on. I won't be surprised that if in 5 years,or less, ALL states will allow same sex marriage. It's the new way.
I read in the LA Times yesterday about the Millenial children, those born between 1980 and 2000,. for them single sex marriage is a non issue. They are now the biggest demographic in the USA and will be taking the reigns soon. The earlier born are over 30. Deal with it, haters.
What is happening in Utah now is the beginning of the end for the anti-gays and their cause. The Windsor decision will eventually be applied to all other State bans against SSM.
Under Windsor SCOTUS made it clear that gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection under marriage laws.
Ask the NRA what happens when a State tries to deny a citizen a Federal Right.
As for Federal recognition by U.S. AG Holder,
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
- Chief Justice John Marshall; Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
as for voting on a Federal Civil Right I think this case may end up being part of the final outcome as well.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
And my thanks to Snyper reminding me of this.
"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 78