But AL has to reach the merits of the case to decide that the GA court erred. And they plainly cannot do that.

Your legal analysis is second to none. I mean, over the last 2 years I think every single one of your predictions was wrong. I think the only value to reading your posts are that the exact opposite of what you want is what ultimately happens. Thank you for your perfectly incorrect record!

Except that they weren't. They lived, worked, were domiciled in AL. They admit that due to more favorable jurisdictions in GA, they rented but never lived in a space in GA. They visited twice, for a required home visit and for the adoption hearing. They continued to live and work in AL, paid their taxes in AL, and never returned.

All of that would be relevant to a GA appeal of the adoption years ago. It is not relavent to an AL appeal of custody and visitation rights predicated by an uncontested GA adoption decree.

For the record, my information is based on my own recollections of reading the stay requests and responses in this case. I am totally open to the possibility that I am misremembering.

Georgia clearly states that the best interests of the child are one such exception. How could it be that the best interest of a child is not served by having the two women raising the child to both have legal rights and responsibilities in a country which believes that children are most often better served where there are two parents actively involved with raising children?

Though you may attempt to answer my rhetorical question, I encourage you not to try. After all, this question has already been adjudicated and the court agreed and granted the adoption. The legal question is not whether the adoption granted by Georgia should have been granted, or even whether Georgia had the right to hear the case at all, rather the question is whether AL can disregard the Georgia adoption decree. ALSC says they are not delving into the merits of the adoption, but they find that GA law does not allow an adoption in this scenario, thus they don't have to consider the adoption when determining custody and visitation. How they can consider this question without considering the merits eludes me.

I predict a 8-1 SCOTUS reversing ALSC. Thomas will be a lone dissenter.

Mike, you (unlike my previous post, which was in reply to DavepCA, this post is in direct reply to you) have some rage issues, and as a professional, I strongly suggest a very patient counselor.

There is no gay agenda. This is an obvious truth. You, yourself, acknowledged this truth. How anyone could read his (Davep's) reference to it and not understand the sarcasm is beyond me.

He acknowledged your statement saying your sound is not functional, and simply stated that if ever (you win the lotto and buy a fully functional system, you find yourself in a library, you are kidnapped by Buddhists who deprive you of your freedom but allow you unfettered internet access on a working computer, whatever...) you have access to check out his video reference, you may find it enlightening. He didn't attack you, it seems his patience for you is infinitely greater than mine.

As a fellow glbt person, I wish you the best. I leave you with but a simple request. Before you respond on this or any other message board, please think if there is any possibility your interpretation of the comment you would like to respond is not actually an attack on you. If there is any possibility of this, maybe, just maybe, the perceived attack really isn't one, and adjust your response accordingly. People here are generally a happy bunch and we have had much to celebrate as of late. Try your best, just a suggestion, not an order, to enjoy yourself. Peace!

While I do not want to encourage Mike's ire, and I certainly don't want it directed at me, I hope he rereads this thread and apologizes. Your sarcastic comment was obvious yet still funny. Hopefully he stops trying to berate his fellow commenters, as he is often want to do. I hope he finds some happiness in his life, as I fear he has too little. Perhaps he and our Texan Jim shall have a date an iron out their psychological disturbances together...

I believe the couple always lived in AL. They established residency in GA for purposes of the adoption, but all the while continued to live in AL. There may have been grounds to dispute the adoption in GA ( soon after the adoption not so many years later) but that was never done. Now, the AL court is illegally trying to intervene in the merits of the adoption, which they cannot do!

I can appreciate a Jurist's desire not to rule on a controversial topic, preferring to let the issue percolate longer. Unlike a legislator, a judge doesn't get to decide which cases to hear ( of course they do have to agree to accept a case, but cases come to them, like it or not, and no matter what they do, it means something, even if they decline to accept a case). They have a duty to judge the case fairly, not to delay justice because the timing is wrong!

Rose, unlike marriage, Divorce and Adoption are clearly judicial proceedings. As others have stated, current constitutional law so favors the mother in this case as to be almost laughable, but for the tragic circumstances (I have 3 sons and cannot imagine being separated from them for a weekend let alone 7 months already!).

Marriages in this country have not always been recognized across state lines (though it only ever has been an issue with cases of bigamy etc when trying to decide which marriage is the legal one, not whether marriages generally should be recognized). Clearly, bigotry and animus have influenced the desire not to recognize our marriages across state lines in the past, and this was unconstitutional. But because marriages are not judicial proceedings, and because there has not been a single simple case where a marriage was not recognized AND a Federal court got involved AND ruled on the issue, there is no precedent addressing marriage recognition across state lines. The recent 6th circuit cases might have been the case to set the precedent, but we won on the first question, so they didn't have to specifically address the second question.

There can be no rule of law whilst Ms Davis openly defies KY law, the U.S. constitution, and a federal court order. Throw her ass in jail, grant revised and lawful licenses, and release her only upon completion of her term in office, least she continue to deny the constitutional rights of her fellow citizens!

My issue is that the 14th amendment grants equal protection. Even he must admit this. As marriage has changed, it's meaning is no longer restricted to 2 different and mutually exclusive gender roles. As a man and woman can marry, either or neither of them working, or doing household chores, coming together to make children, raising children, or not including children in their family, there is nothing inherent in the gendered needs of the marriage. As LGB couples are equally situated for this modern institution we all call marriage, it would be unconstitutional to not allow marriage equality!

OR, marriage still has a legal requirement on a woman that it does not impose on men, or vice versa.

That is the question. that is the only question. Does marriage have unique requirements on men (or women) which requires one of each? if so, (like a requirement to be a breadwinner, a requirement to bear children, a requirement that a woman must submit to a man's will, etc) then the LBG couples are not similarly situated. If NOT, then they are and must be treated equally. It is not a question of which relationship is better, which relationship is holy, which relationship "god designs." Those are questions much bigger than the courts, but the former is not. He cannot see through his own bigotry and prejudice to see this!

The court did not decide which strategy (equal marriage, or unequal marriage) was correct, it took decades, centuries, even millenia to have marriage become what it is today. It took a Civil war in this country to decide that Equal Protection was a thing. But these are settled issues that were not before the court. The court was only asked if gay couples and straight couples were similarly situated WITH RESPECT to our marriage laws. Not if they are identical, not if they were the same in every aspect, only if they were situated equally with how marriage laws work. If so, they cannot be treated unequally. If they are not, then it may be appropriate to treat them differently. As it turns out, there is nothing unique in the law that a woman must do that a man cannot do in marriage, and vice versa. As such, it is discrimination to discriminate against them.

He is too obtuse to see this!