(March 21, 2014 at 9:44 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I am wondering how these courts are declaring various state bans on recognizing same sex marriages as unconstitutional?
Because here in Australia our version of the Supreme Court (the High Court), struck down a bill legally recognising same sex marriages made by a territory. Citing a section in our constitution giving the only the commonwealth government the power to make laws concerning marriages.
The prevailing case is Romer v Evans. A 1996 Supreme Court case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
Quote:The Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not pass the rational basis test, under the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers,[1] and for the Supreme Court ruling striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor (2013).
Significantly in Michigan the judge did not stay his own ruling pending Appeal. That means that, as in California, there will be many gay couples married before any Supreme Court decision could be made. At this point, however, the SC does not even have to take the case. It merely has to allow the lower court decisions to stand.
