Did the ruling require all states to issue marriages licenses to same-sex couples? Or is it merely that they have to recognize a same-sex couple as married if they were married in another state that permits same-sex marriage.
The reason I’m asking is because Louisiana is supposedly not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The reason: “there wasn’t a specific mandate in the decision for Louisiana to issue marriage licenses.” (Cite)
The order requires states to issue SSM licenses for legal applicants AND to recognize legal SSMs from other states. Louisiana is playing a losing game, which they can not win.
Louisiana successfully defended their same-sex marriage ban in a federal district court, and that decision was on appeal in the Fifth Circuit at the time the Obergefell case was decided. As I understand it, Louisiana says that they will issue same-sex licenses when the Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit orders them to, and not before. Probably should be a couple of days.
I don’t know if they ever followed up on this, but Alabama was threatening to stop issuing marriage licenses to ANYONE- gay or straight.
IF that was actually done, people could get married at whatever church they liked, or make whatever family contracts they liked, but the sate would no longer be in the marriage business.
That may be the only possible loophole for any state.
A couple of Alabama counties have done just that. Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling - al.com
Can’t really figure out what purpose they are serving, except causing an inconvienence to both straight and gay couples, who have to drive to another county to get a license.
What is the process for notifying the relevant authorities?
If I sue Joe for $2M and the court tells him “pay it”, my lawyer gets a copy of the judgement, takes it to the local court, and that court follows the judgement and orders Joe to pay, allows me the necessary steps like garnishee and seizing bank accounts to make it happen.
Presumably if he Supreme court bans discrimination by race in school, the next black student wanting to enter an all white high school who is told “no”, then gets a copy of the SCOTUS judgement, and their lawyer gets an injunction, serves it on the school board, and things happen.
How does a judgement like this happen for a state not involved in the court case? Is there a standard method of distribution of the judgement? Would the state attorney general be sent a copy "this SCOTUS judgement od SSM applies to you"and be expected to update every county clerk with a memo? Until then, anyone with a reluctant county clerk has to get a lawyer involved?
I’m thinking “you saw it on the news” is not a proper legal channel for formal notification, especially when it comes to legal matters which can be complex and nuanced?
The on-point phrases from the majority opinion are:
A reading on the first statement would lead me to believe that marriage licenses must be available to same-sex couples on the same terms as opposite-sex couples, but that a State could, in theory, refuse to issue marriage licenses to all.
The second statement seems to hold a slightly different nuance, that States must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as it is a fundamental right. Yet this statement does not explicitly identify the same right for opposite-sex couples.
I suspect the former is more accurate than the latter.
The County Attorney is supposed to advise county employees about their obligations under the law. If a state was not a party to the recent decision, they may or may not be bound by it directly, but they know full well how any court case is going to turn out. Thus, the County Attorney should certainly advise the clerks that they have to issues marriage licenses and recognize marriages from other states as well. Any attempt to take that issue to court, in the face of the recent opinion, would be considered “frivolous” and expose an attorney to sanctions.
Not “saw it on the news” but for many years (and maybe they still are) legal notices are published in the newspaper. SCOTUS decisions are a matter of public record, legal council for state and local districts are expected to be aware of such matters. Thats what lawyers do; they keep aware of changes to the law and that’s why they make the big bucks.
IIRC technically the Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t become final for 3 weeks and it’s theoretically possible for them to reverse it.
IANAL, but I think it would be constitutionally permissible for a state to refuse to issue marriage licences anymore, but they would have to provide a new method (which would need to be the same for same-sex & opposite-sex) for couples to contract valid civil marriages within state borders.
I did see that, technically at the moment, it only applies to the court circuit where the case originated. However, other circuits are required to issue directives for states in their jurisdiction that the ruling is the law of the land. It may take a day or two.
This is my understanding:
[ul]
[li]Louisiana bans same-sex marriage.[/li]
[li]Ban is challenged in federal court.[/li]
[li]Federal judge finds the ban unconstitutional, but she stays her order until her decision can be appealed.[/li]
[li]SCOTUS makes its ruling making same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.[/li] (At this point most judges would immediately enforce or follow SCOTUS’ decision.)
[li]However, technically the ruling must be officially passed down to the the federal district courts via some process before the lower court can lift its stay.[/li]
[li]Judge lifts her stay of the order finding the law unconstitutional and state chief justice is notified and the ban is invalidated.[/li][/ul]
I have heard that this process takes either a few days or a few weeks at most. IANAL so take this with a grain of salt.