I heard more about the ruling.

Ok, but you need to cite a source if the discussion is to progress.

Judges do not have to decide a case as they can simply say that the decision such as interpreting Rhode Island law is out of their jurisdiction and direct the couple to get a ruling in Rhode Island first. The Supreme Court often refers a case back to a lower court to have them clarify a point of law.

Cases will regularly be appealed/referred up/down the chain, but I’ve never heard of one moving laterally.

Judges do not have to decide a case as they can simply say that the decision such as interpreting Rhode Island law is out of their jurisdiction and direct the couple to get a ruling in Rhode Island first. The Supreme Court often refers a case back to a lower court to have them clarify a point of law. That would of been sensible if the question was in doubt but it was not so he made his decision for political reasons. That is how the game is played.

Both liberals and libertarians are cultural liberals.

If, by this, you mean that they believe government shouldn’t attempt to dictate morality, then I suppose you’re right; they do have some common ground.

My point is if marriage is not legal in Rhode Island then the judgment is flawed.

No doubt. However, it is the Superior Court judge’s opinion that that marriage would be legal in Rhode Island. I would assume he’s a pretty well informed man, but if you disagree with him, we need to examine his ruling in detail before we can make any claims that he’s wrong.

It is at best premature as the Massachusetts judge should have made waited until Rhode Island made the point of law clear if it is unclear in the first place.

This seems logical, but the legal system just doesn’t work like that. He can’t sit around waiting for the legislature to make changes. He simply has to interpretate the statutes as they are.

If the executive branch of MA disagrees with him, they can appeal his ruling to SCOMA. If the legislative branch of MA disagrees with him, they can pass clarifying legislation. If the legislative branch of RI disagrees with him, they can also pass clarifyin legislation.

If the summary of the 1913 Massachusetts law is correct then Rhode Island law also applies.

That’s a big “if”. We’ll need to find the answer before we can proceed much further.

Both liberals and libertarians are cultural liberals. They do disagree on the ecomomics which brings them into conflict.

My point is if marriage is not legal in Rhode Island then the judgment is flawed. It is at best premature as the Massachusetts judge should have made waited until Rhode Island made the point of law clear if it is unclear in the first place.

If the summary of the 1913 Massachusetts law is correct then Rhode Island law also applies. Common law holds precedent when the a legal term is undefined.

A Massachusetts judge has no jurisdiction over Rhode Island law so they are play a came here hoping to get another state to comply.

Nor did he attempt to exercise any jurisdiction over Rhode Island. As far as I can tell, this ruling does not legalize gay marriage within Rhode Island.

the whole are has a liberal/libertarian political bias and contempt for the rule of law.

That’s a very strong statement. Especially since liberals and libertarians have very little in common.

An activist judge legislates from the bench and so as long as a judge intentionally changes the intent of the law they are legislating from the bench.

I agree with that definition.

Most states are based on common law which specifies that marriage is between a man and woman.

That’s an interesting point. It may not be relevant though; We’d need to see the 1913 law and the actual ruling before we can be sure of anything.

An activist judge legislates from the bench and so as long as a judge intentionally changes the intent of the law they are legislating from the bench. Most states are based on common law which specifies that marriage is between a man and woman.

I believe there is only one exception but I can not remember which.

A Massachusetts activist judge has taken it upon himself…

I don’t see how this is an example of judicial activism. I would have to see the exact wording of the 1913 law to be sure, but this seems like a pretty literal interpretation. The executive branch of certain states may have traditionally denied same-sex marriage applications, but this is of only minimal legal importance since those states lack legal justification for denying those applications.

The funny thing is, the ACLU knew this was comming.

I don’t think it was that insightful. Anyone with knowledge of the 1913 law could see that it was open to interpretation. It was only a matter of time before someone asked a court for clarification.

Regardless of the all of this, I still do not believe the Federal Marriage Amendment is the right way to go.

It’s refreshing to hear that. The federal government is ridiculously powerful these days. There’s no point in transferring even more power to it when the states can easily handle this one on their own.

we cannot let states make decisions which so blatantly impact other states.

I don’t see how it’s such a problem. If a state doesn’t want its same-sex residents married in MA, all they have to do is pass a law clarifying their position. If MA doesn’t want same-sex residents of other states flocking to their state, all they have to do is reverse the wording of the 1913 law.

So yeah, this impacts multiple states, but each state has a very simple course to undo any “damage”.