.. the Supreme Court liberals had to know that they were opening Pandora ‘ s Box when they made the ruling that they did in the so – called “gay marriage” case , U.S. v Windsor . They knew it , all right . They did it anyway .
.. Even with that ruling (and the companion ruling , in Hollingsworth v Perry) , the liberals had to know that it would open a whole new world of legal radical judicial action on the behalf of gay rights . Cases would be brought straight away , in the states where “gay marriage” was banned , either by law , or by constitutional amendment , in order to work to overturn them by pinning them back against the Supreme Court ruling , and their precedents . Even though those precedents left the cases in the purview of state ‘ s rights , and in the state courts . In a significant number of those cases , the state judiciary is much more liberal than the body politic , and can use the conservative ‘ s respect for the judicial branch against it .
.. Also , there would be actions to take the offensive from states that do possses gay marriage , or civil unions , and then get married . Those couples would then return home to their own states , and force them (via legal action) to seek recognition via court ruling . It could be done in state court , however , such a case as this would be better done via the federal courts .
Also , these couples would seek spousal benefits , as if they were a “normal” married couple , and use the same route to push the offensive to push or force recognition .
.. Gay Marriage forces have won an important victory . It is important for conservatives , no matter what their stripe , to counterattack , and strike back . It does not mean that “gay marriage” has to be re – banned . Far from it . The target is the judiciary . Both at the state level , and locally . Most of all , at the federal level . The federal judiciary should be reminded , by law , by removing these cases , by limitation of the judiciary ‘ s ability to hear these cases , as is available under the U.S. Constitution . Impeachment itself should also be considered . The people ‘ s house should act to remind the judges that they are not higher than thou . They are also a co – equal branch of government , and with the Senate (and , eventually , the Presidency) , the other 2 branches will hold the third branch to account for its actions and its misconduct . Also , the number of judicial seats and their distribution should be altered . As the excess number of judges leaves active service , the authorized number of judges will drop , and more conservatives can be added . The new seats in other ciruits can add newer , more conservative judges , and develop a much more conservative tilt to their philosophy and their rulings . Also , the 9th Federal Circuit should be broken up . The 9th Circuit should be limited to the state of California , only . Ergo , a new appeallate circuit can be created , and then become , almost immediately , a conservative bastion .
.. This article from yahoo snooze is a apt example of the front that has been opened in the offensive ….
Gay couple seeks spousal privilege protection in Kentucky murder trial
Tim Ghianni7 hours ago
By Tim Ghianni
NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) – A legal debate over whether one member of a same-sex couple has spousal privilege that would shield her from testifying against her partner is at the heart of a capital murder case in politically conservative Kentucky.
Geneva Case, 49, does not want to testify in a Louisville court against her partner, Bobbie Jo Clary, 37, who is accused of beating George Murphy, 64, to death with a hammer in 2011 and then stealing his van.
Prosecutors say Case must testify because of her value as a witness, since she heard Clary admit to the slaying and also saw blood on the interior of the victim’s van after the killing.
Clary says Murphy used a hammer to sexually assault her, and she defended herself by hitting him over the head.
Clary is also charged with tampering with evidence to cover up the crime. If convicted, Clary could face the death penalty.
Under Kentucky law, a person cannot be called to testify against his or her spouse. Most states have a similar type of law.
But Kentucky is not among the 13 states that have legalized gay marriage. In 2004, it amended the state constitution to define marriage as being a union between a man and a woman.
Susan Sommer, an attorney for Lambda Legal, a national legal organization for the protection of gay rights, said she was not familiar with the details of the Kentucky case, but Lambda believes gay couples should have the same legal protections as other married people.
“Spousal privilege is one part of the tremendous bundle of protections for a committed couple that come automatically with marriage,” Sommer said.
Case and Clary were joined in a civil union in 2004 in Vermont. Vermont first allowed civil unions in 2000, but did not legalize same-sex marriage until 2009.
“Kentucky’s marital privilege law does not give Ms. Case the right not to testify in a murder trial,” said Stacy Greive, assistant commonwealth attorney for Jefferson County. “And the reason marital privilege does not apply to Ms. Case in her relationship with the defendant is because it is our opinion and our belief that they do not have a marriage that is recognized under Kentucky law.”
Greive argues that not only is the union not recognized in Kentucky, but the couple has not presented proof they have a valid marriage under Vermont law. “They have a civil union, if you look at Vermont’s statutes, they distinguish between civil unions and marriage,” she said.
Both Clary’s attorney, Angela Elleman, and Case’s attorney, Bryan Gatewood, said the Kentucky marriage amendment is unconstitutional and the pair should be treated like any other married couple.
The attorneys also say they are cautiously optimistic that this case will lead to the amendment being held as unconstitutional, setting a precedent for change nationwide.
In light of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage, “the climate is right” for the Kentucky amendment to be thrown out, Elleman said.
The high court in June forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where it is legal and paved the way for it in California, the most populous state. The court struck down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, limiting the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of federal benefits, as a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
“I believe the handwriting is already on the wall,” Gatewood said. He believes the Kentucky attorney general’s office, which says it is reviewing the case, will find that the state law is unconstitutional under the same reasoning.
Elleman said it makes no sense to her that Kentucky does not recognize legal unions of same-sex partners but does recognize common-law marriages from other states.
She also pointed to the personal toll on the couple. “The commonwealth is seeking to call her wife as a witness against her, which obviously would cause irreparable harm to their relationship,” Elleman said.
Case called the situation “very stressful” in an interview on WHAS-TV in Louisville. “I wish she could come home,” Case said of Clary. “There’s nothing we can do right now, though.”
Elleman said she is confident her client will be acquitted, “whether her wife will testify or not.”
Clary is being held on $75,000 bond.
The trial is set for August 30. Jefferson County Judge Susan Schultz Gibson is expected to rule on the spousal privilege issue later this month.
Lambda’s Sommer represented a woman in a criminal case in Maryland about two years ago who was asked to testify against her spouse.
In that case, which was not a homicide, the prosecutor opposed the use of spousal privilege since Maryland did not yet have gay marriage. The couple had married in another state. The judge in that case ruled that the woman did not have to testify against her spouse.