Picture if you will...
"In June...two residents of [a state] [names withheld]...were married in the District of Columbia according to its laws." They returned to [their state] and established an abode in common. "...a grand jury issued an indictment charging [them] with violating [their state]'s ban on [a specific type of] marriages. On January 6... [they] pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that [they] leave the State and not return ...together for 25 years."
The two filed a motion in Federal court (from outside of their state, in obedience to their sentence of banishment from it) to set aside the sentence and ruling. Four years later, the Supremes granted them their reversal, on the grounds that the state's rule and the judge's ruling were inconsistent with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Now, imagine these two were both men.
How would you rule? (not that you don't already rule) Consider this one question this week's Thursday Afternoon Poll.
The two filed a motion in Federal court (from outside of their state, in obedience to their sentence of banishment from it) to set aside the sentence and ruling. Four years later, the Supremes granted them their reversal, on the grounds that the state's rule and the judge's ruling were inconsistent with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Now, imagine these two were both men.
How would you rule? (not that you don't already rule) Consider this one question this week's Thursday Afternoon Poll.