BREAKING - Supreme Court to tackle same-sex marriage
December 7th, 2012
03:18 PM ET
1 minute ago
CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears
Washington (CNN) - The Supreme Court will tackle the contentious issue of same-sex marriage and hear two constitutional challenges to state and federal laws dealing with the recognition of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed.
The one-page order issued Friday by the justices will make this issue one of the most important in the court's history, and comes weeks after voters approved same-sex marriages in three states.
Oral arguments in the high court appeal will likely be held in March, with a ruling by late June.
Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it R1?
The conventional wisdom is that it will come down to Justice Kennedy as the Swing vote.
Homosexuality was technically illegal in the USA until 2003. Don't get your hopes up. The USA is still Jesusland!
Kennedy has written both of the major pro-gay decisions in the Court's history.
Holy Shit. I am nervous and excited. This has million possible outcomes.
They could rule narrowly only for the prop 8 situation, or they could make some national ruling on same-sex marriage which would potentially be devasting or great.
[quote]Homosexuality was technically illegal in the USA until 2003.
Incorrect. It varied from state to state.
Please, two people wanting to share legal obligations; ie marriage. A no brainer. It'll pass.
The only reason for it not to pass is personal feelings, which is not judicial.
Time to move forward, they will look ridiculous if they uphold DOMA and strike down Prop 8.
[quote]ScotusBlog: "Court has taken up virtually all of issues about gay marriage, but has given itself a way to avoid decisions on the merits."
Totally foolish miscalculation by gay rights groups who prematurely pushed this on a hostile Supreme Court. Ted Olsen is not our friend.
I was hoping Obama would get a Justice or two on the bench before this came up.
However, Boise and Olson are rock stars and know what they're doing. If the arguments by Prop 8 side are as incompetent as they were during the CA trial - this ought to be good.
Prop 8 is doomed under Romer v. Evans. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional and should be overturned unanimously. It will be interesting to see how the champions of federalism on the right will justify Congress's trampling over states' regulation of marriage. They did manage to find banning medical marijuana a legitimate federal issue.
Oh, R7! You ALWAYS make me laugh!!
Let's see if those that are strict constitutionalists vote based on the Constitution or the bible.
R11, the only justices that are likely to retire under Obama's current term are already liberal judges that will vote in favor of equality. Scalia could have possibly retired if Romney was elected, but over his dead body would he do it during Obama's term.
Kennedy will likely be the swing vote, but it should be interesting to see if he sides with the liberal justices following the repercussions that Roberts had after he upheld Obamacare.
Maddowblog has some good points...
[bold]SCOTUS to hear marriage equality[/bold]
By Laura Conaway - Fri Dec 7, 2012 2:26 PM CST
The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear cases related to marriage equality. One concerns California's Proposition 8, in which voters banned same-sex marriage. The court will also review the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.
The terrific folks at SCOTUS Blog are making a deep dive into this. Lyle Denniston liveblogs:
[quote]the Court has offered to rule on Prop. 8 and on DOMA Section 3, but it also has given itself a way not to decide either case. That probably depends upon how eager the Justices are to get to the merits; if they are having trouble getting to 5 on the merits, they may just opt out
DOMA Section 3 is the part that says the federal government may only recognize opposite-sex marriages.
Today's announcement makes for a moment of great risk and opportunity for supporters of marriage equality. On the one hand, the court is giving them a chance, but there's no guarantee that the deeply divided court will rule for their cause. We are also at a moment when marriage equality has finally begun to win at the ballot box, which makes proponents of the judicial solution that much more nervous about convincing the court that sexual minorities are politically powerless.
What's not at issue is that DOMA, in particular, causes people in same-sex couples to suffer more than their straight counterparts, even when their states recognize marriage equality. Your letters after the jump.
My late uncle and his partner were the sweetest couple for over 15 years. They had a rich, happy, monogamous relationship. Even though they registered as domestic partners in their SF hometown, when my uncle passed, his spouse lost the following:...
1) rent controlled apartment;
2) survivor benefits of social security;
3) survivor benefits of pension;
4) waiving of estate taxes
My uncle's spouse had to relocate out of state to find an affordable place to live on own his limited pension and social security benefits. He had to leave his network of friends, doctors, family and community and religious support systems. He was able to find a gay-friendly city in Portland, Oregon.
[quote]I know it happens. In Iowa, neighbors of mine were a lesbian couple. One of them was killed in a car accident, her family came in and took the kids, the furniture, the car, and had power of attorney over the house. Obviously these two should have had a will, but they were young and healthy and didn't think about accidents. So the surviving partner had nothing.
I am simply breathless in anticipation of Maggie Gallagher's response.
"in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining fourteen states (Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Virginia)."
So homosexuality WAS illegal in the USA up until 2003.
I don't want to marry. Me and my bf live together and are in an open relationship. It works for us. I don't think we'd feel nearly as free to fuck around if we had a license, and that would definitely stifle our relationship.
Not all straight people want to marry either, R19. But they have a CHOICE, and gay people do not. Gay people at least deserve to have the the same choice.
Then don't r19.
Well bully for you R19. After all, this whole struggle for equal rights is all about you and your idiot boyfriend and what you two want out of life and to hell with everybody else.
True, R19, because gay marriage being allowed would instantly FORCE you to marry your partner.
[quote]I don't want to marry. Me and my bf live together and are in an open relationship.
R19 = Sen. Lindsey Graham
Interesting comment from R19 considering this Joemygod story.
"New URLs Purchased By NOM: gasyagaainstgaymarriage.org, gaysagainstssm.org, gayagainstssm.org and gayagainstgaymarriage.org
NOMexposed today revealed that Brian Brown's crew has purchased the above URLs in an apparent plan to sow infighting among LGBT people. Earlier this year secret NOM documents exposed the hate group's plan to incite anti-gay hatred in the black community."
Maybe the campaign has started.
Thanks for posting, R25 - now we know what R19 is up to.
I'm just saying that marriage is not for all gays. Me and my bf are friendly and hang out regularly with other couples, and none of them want to marry either. We've discussed this. We love our bfs, but as men we need sexual gratification outside of the relationship. A marriage license would be too limiting and would probably make us feel guilty every time we hooked up outside the relationship. So go ahead and marry if you want. That's terrific, but for all of you in open relationships, I just hope you don't wind up regretting that little piece of paper the first time you have sex with someone else.
I hope oral arguments don't involve lesbians. Blech.
Just FYI, as this article notes, the Court went well out of its way to pick a case that Kagan wouldn't have to recuse herself from. Also, the fact that the Court took *both* of these cases is a pretty clear sign that they want every major outstanding issue regarding gay marriage to be covered (and likely won't issue narrowly on either matter).
[quote]Scalia could have possibly retired if Romney was elected, but over his dead body would he do it during Obama's term.
That can be arranged.
STFU, r19. Your bullshit is transparent. I'd feel bad that your side was reduced to something so lame, if you weren't such awful people.
R19 do you have a point?
I hate liver, are you saying that because I hate liver I can have it outlawed?
r33, love, I was just commenting on what me and my bf want. Feel free to do what you want, but I wanted to demonstrate that not all of us want to marry. We should have the right, but that doesn't mean we all want to take that step. We're very well off financially, so we don't need the tax benefits that come with marriage. We like things just the way they are and I assume a lot of gay men do as well. Like I said, of all the couples I know, and I know a ton, not one of them wants to marry.
[quote]So homosexuality WAS illegal in the USA up until 2003.
You contradict your source which says it was legal in 36 states and illegal in 14.
Can it r19, we don't give a shit about you or your life.
R19 is the new PPSM.
The DL Scold
Not wanting to marry is not the issue here though r19. You don't have to get married, but any gay who wants to should be able to.
[quote]We should have the right, but that doesn't mean we all want to take that step.
...which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. R19, 'fess up: you're a confirmed narcissist, right? With a need to make everything about YOU?
[R19] >>Me and my bf live together ...
[R34] >>just commenting on what me and my bf want ...
What's to hear in the Prop 8 case? Not one but TWO lower Courts deemed it Un-Constitutional.
Seriously, if they vote in favor of denying marriage rights, I say we ALL call in sick and then riot.
Considering how often Kennedy has been voting with the conservative wing of the bench of late, I'm beginning to wonder if Lawrence vs. TX was an anomaly.
It also makes me nervous about his being the swing vote.
And not every black person wanted to ride the bus or eat lunch at Woolworth's, fake-gay freeper at r27. Not every woman wanted to vote. Discrimination and depriving minorities of their equal rights is STILL an egregious wrong.
Tell your bosses back at NOM that this new strategy is a big fail.
R43, this is the problem with having a Republican-dominated Supreme Court - it allows no room for error.
R19, I don't expect my straight siblings to marry people of the same sex to prove their support for gay marriage, but they show their support anyway. And I am grateful to any straight person who supports full rights for gays but I don't expect them to enter into gay marriages to prove it. Your comment is irrelevant.
r19/r27 just SCREAMS freeper fake.
Tell your NOM bosses 'the gays' wouldn't buy it. TIA.
Why do people feed trolls? Can't we just stay on topic?
[quote]What's to hear in the Prop 8 case? Not one but TWO lower Courts deemed it Un-Constitutional.
If we're being technical, the appellate court ruled on the case on substantially narrower grounds than the SF district judge did.
[quote]Considering how often Kennedy has been voting with the conservative wing of the bench of late, I'm beginning to wonder if Lawrence vs. TX was an anomaly.
It wasn't an anomaly. He's written TWO important gay-rights cases, Lawrence and Romer, and both of them were cited by Judge Walker in the original Prop 8 case as two of the main bases for his argument that gays deserve equal protection under the law up to and including marriage equality.
R27, just because you, your boyfriend, and your buddies are non-monogamous hedonists does not mean all bisexual and gay men are like you. Many of us are lifelong monogamists and traditionalists.
R19 is a whore.
FWIW, those domains are currently listed as being parked by GoDaddy. We'll see what becomes of them.
Who said anything about us being hedonists? It's not like we're fucking someone different every night of the week. Sometimes we get the itch to stray, and when we do we tell the other one. It's called a mature, evolved relationship where we recognize that even though we love and are commited to one another, occasionally we need sexual gratification outside of the relationship. I don't know where you guys live, but I live in NYC and every couple we know have this type of relationship to an extent. Besides the tax benefits, I have no idea why someone would want to enter into a heteronormative relationship bound by its puritanical ideas about sex and love.
GoDaddy rings a bell as being owned by a freeper. I think it had to do with the net neutrality thing last summer.
I don't even need to hear the facts of the cases. I'm ready to rule right now.
And let me remind you: unlike the other justices, I have 2 votes. Mine, and Clarence's.
"but I live in NYC"
r53, LOL. You are not convincing in the least, but as long as you're here: Do you mind if i ask how much NOM pays you? Is it by the post? An hourly thing? Or are you just a wildcard freeper who trolls on your own free time?
why can't we just call it civil union? It's the word "marriage" that's pissing off people
^^ For the same reason, why we don't have a different word for a woman's vote and that blacks don't have to drink from separate fountains. Equality is equality is equality.
PS Pretending to be gay on the internet leads you down a path that will eventually cause you to act out your closeted gay feelings btw.
R58, because a lot financial issues depend on it being called marriage, and why should we have to use a different word. To do so legitimizes homophobes' assertion that we are not equal.
Why can't we just call it 'separate, but equal' R58, because we know how well that worked.
[quote]What's to hear in the Prop 8 case? Not one but TWO lower Courts deemed it Un-Constitutional.
You might want to look into the concept of "appeal."
R19...MY BF AND I! Jesus, go to school.
Elizabeth Birch and the new president of HRC were just on Chris Matthews' show, and they said you'd have to live in a state that allows gay marriage to get federal benefits like Social Security, etc. It was confusing to follow, but there has to be another ruling by the SC to force all states to recognize gay marriages.
They all seemed extremely excited about the SC's decision to hear the case and acted like it was going to pass because of Kennedy's past rulings.
I'm not calling for less rights , I'm just thinking that a less polarizing name would get us equality faster
Justice Kennedy, who is the swing vote on the court, wrote the majority argument in favor of striking down the anti-sodomy laws in Texas.
I have heard that theory also, R64 - that only those in "marriage states" can get federal recognition, but I can't see that being enforced, without a resulting administrative nightmare.
[quote] I'm just thinking that a less polarizing name would get us equality faster
Well, you're wrong. Always come to the table with your highest demand. Beg for scraps and you get nothing. Oldest rule in the book.
The ruling comes during Gay pride month and a week before NYC gay pride march. Of course it will be great news.
I just don't have high hopes that the Supremes will swing our way. Our only hope is that John Roberts (who knows how to hold and present a plate full of cake like a gay man) will vote with his true heart on this one.
Elizabeth Birch did say that if you got married in CA and then moved to Utah, it's still unclear if you're marriage would be recognized with full federal benefits. Like Chris Matthews said, this is going to be THE story over the next year.
R60, technically the word should not matter. You can in theory give all the rights regardless of the title. The problem legally has always been federal law, DOMA, and not recognizing civil unions on a federal level as equal to marriage.
But socially, the word has HUGE implications. We saw companies, hospitals, and government employees saying they weren't the same. It's NOT just a symbol, but has a huge effect on a public that doesn't understand equality, just like segregation did.
As to the case...
MY BEST HOPE: If Ted Olson can connect Kennedy and other Republicans on the court ... or if enough Republicans come out and support this issue knowing it will reshape the electorate, at least one conservative will side with the liberals and do the right thing.
Kennedy needs to know his legacy, and with the Cheneys and other Republicans coming out for same-sex marriage, this should be a no-brainer for him.
MY NEXT BEST HOPE: Kennedy at best had better not fuck this up if he doesn't want to vote in favor of same-sex marriage but decides whatever does on very narrow grounds not to fuck up litigation for decades, so that it's a 4-1-4 vote at worst.
MY WORST FEAR: Kennedy sees this as a state's rights issue, voting against DOMA and overturning Prop 8 on the grounds that the people have the right to amend their constitutions as long as it's not as sweeping as it was in Romer.
And how sweet would it be if the US beats the UK and France to same-sex marriage.
I can't decide between Vera Wang or Oscar de la Renta?
The Ninth Circuit said it best, R58, and in a way that any self-respecting gay man should appreciate:
[quote]"Had Marilyn Monroe’s film been called ‘How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire,’ it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different."
What reprecussions, R15? He's a justice for life. That's the whole point.
Vivienne Westwood, r74.
Justice Kennedy ruled that Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
[quote]Fucking illiterate retard.
PPSM, using the term 'retard' is as bad as using fa**ot or ni**er. Please think before you speak. Please stop using cruel, derogatory terms.
What's wrong with saying "less rights"?
I was very surprised about Prop 8 going before the Supremes. I thought they would tackle only DOMA.
Then all those supermarket signs that read: "10 items or less" must be wrong.
I think people have the right to pursue happiness. I think people should be free to create a legal contract between each other. But marriage is between one man man and one woman.
It is about time this silly issue is resolved. Hopefully along the lines of States can not allow homosexuals to "marry" but maybe some other form of civil contract. (The best result would be for the Court to say that no one can marry and the government has no business being involved in marrage at all but that won't happen.) Civil unions or some other civil solution should be enough to mollify the militant homosexuals and hopefully be enough for more politicians and bureacrats to "come out" to their constituencies so that they no longer are able to be blackmailed into voting on certain laws, spying for other countries, or other security risks. Right now perversion and moral turpitude are used by both Parties (and private and foreign interests) to advance agendas because politicians and bureaucrats can be blackmailed or forced to give up secrets or information.
[quote]But marriage is between one man man and one woman.
That is nothing more than a way for straights to be able to point at us and say "We're not like them - we're different". The commitments that are at the heart of marriage are the same, whether straight or gay.
You're on the wrong side of history, R90.
Your descendents (if you have spawned) will think of you the way we now view those in the 19th Century who believed blacks deserved to be slaves because they were "descended from Ham." With pity at best, utter scorn at worst.
The tide of public opinion has already turned on this issue, and your bigotry will die with you.
I think r90 is sadly right. I think gays are going to end up with separate but equal civil unions.
"Sanctitiy of marriage" is such a load of horseshit. How many straight people have been married multiple times? What about the quickie marriages in Vegas? How many straight people marry for reasons other than love but for financial security etc.? It's ridiculous.
I'm so glad gay marriage is going before the Supreme Court. I have a feeling they'll rule in our favor and get this issue over with. The debate has been going on for years and everybody is sick and tired of it. Just pass the damn thing and let us get on with our lives.
If gay marriage is passed by the Court, it will also have a positive impact of no longer being able to be used as a wedge issue during election seasons. Republicans won't be able to trot it out to stir up their ignorant base the way they do now.
I've flagged r90 for calling homosexuality a "perversion," ban the freeper.
I think R90 and R93 are freep spies/concern trolls.
[quote]Kennedy at best had better not fuck this up if he doesn't want to vote in favor of same-sex marriage but decides whatever does on very narrow grounds not to fuck up litigation for decades, so that it's a 4-1-4 vote at worst.
Um, there are no "ties" in a Supreme Court decision, nor can you "abstain" from voting unless there's a direct conflict of interest and stated long before oral argument commence. You can disagree with the opinion or dissent in part, but you MUST choose one side to agree with nevertheless (and you're welcome to write a concurring opinion stating the matters on which you do and don't agree with the other justices).
People are pinning their hopes on Kennedy without realizing that Chief Justice Roberts seems to be very concerned with his legacy and the legacy of his court. With the acceptance of gay marriage rising, should this court rule against SSM, his court would be remembered harshly. Within a few years, he'll be the CJ of a laughingstock.
Obviously, R77. But Roberts pissed off conservatives by upholding Obamacare. If Kennedy wants to stay in good graces with social conservatives before he presumably retires in a few years (being 76+), he would overturn both cases.
I doubt that's the case, though. Like others said, he overturned the sodomy case in Texas and is known for being quite libertarian.
[quote]Did any of you people graduate from the 8th grade?
I did, but I did have some trouble with the Gunzintas.
I think it's telling that the thread on how often Anderson Cooper washes his fucking jeans has more replies than this one.
The gay community really disgusts me at times.
[quote] why can't we just call it civil union? It's the word "marriage" that's pissing off people
I don't have a problem with that. If you change ALL unions to civil unions, gay or straight, and make THAT the status that conveys legal rights.
Give the word 'marriage' back to the churchies and strip ALL legal rights the word conveys, including the rights of the clergy to sign the civil union or "marriage" certificate.
Why just gay marriage? What the special treatment? Let's allow everyone to marry whoever they want, whatever they want, how ever they want. Matter of fact, let's ban the word marriage and call it something new.
Then we'll have this incredible world where people can have all types of marriages and produces all types of "families" with all types of animals, gender 'blends', etc....
Just because homosexuals and others who want to step outside the bounds of natural heterosexual union want to hijack the age-old institution of marriage as it has always been known, denial of that arrogation does not constitute any imposition on your rights and protections. It seems by your own actions you make yourself a second-class citizen if you say you want children and willingly enter into a relationship which necessitates the involvement of heterosexuals (and the government that deprives?) to make it happen.
You're not even trying, R104.
With all you calling them Repulicunts, etc. I hope they uphold Prop 8 and DOMA. You push people too far and they will lash out. I used to emphatically be on the side of gay rights, until this past election. You voted to send this country into financial ruin, so why give support to those that don't give a crap about anything but themselves.
R107 = RepubliCUNT.
How on earth did you get here, r107?
R107, please go bathe in gasoline and then throw a lit match on yourself.
No need to wonder anymore, here is the answer.
They will overturn DOMA and uphold states rights to ban gay marriage.
R105 was excited to find a copy of Roget's Thesaurus buried in the garden - he and the other cult members hadn't seen a non-Biblical book in years.
Editor! This thread is smelling WORSE than my pussy. Time to F&F most of the posters and redtag as FREAKS! I demand immediate action!
Although they may give it back to the states to decide, which would create a crazy patchwork of conflicting laws in the same nation, I fully expect the crazy libs (that's redundant, I know) on the S.C. such as Kagan and So-to-may-or ("The wise Lah-teen-ah") to vote in lockstep with their liberal overlord Barry. Roberts has turned into a wild-card vote because of his flip on ObamaCare, so it's anyone's guess how he'll vote.
We are doomed.
We have all fallen for temptations of the flesh, while I disagree with same sex marriages, relationships, I also know that I have been defiled in different ways and was abominable to Yahvah God, it is by the blood of Yahshua the Messiah that we are cleaned.
Do not make it a personal mission to tell others it is disgusting.
We should show how Yahvah God detests this just as he detests all sin.
Show how one can be cleansed and given a new incorruptible seed...
Remember as wise as serpents as gentle as a dove.....
You will be called much by those that are in the dark.
" I USE MY DEAD GRANDMA'S LEG AS A DILDO "
omg. Who opened the big ol' bag of crazy?!
What is going on?
Really, I thought I'd seen it all.
This thread is amazing.
Is this thread coming up as a top hit on Google or something? What is with all the bible thumping freepers posting on a GAY message board? Or is it some of the usual suspects trolling? Bizarre.
It's too soon.
We're going to lose.
Oh so clever I am devastated! Ouch!
I am far from a bible thumper, have been on Datalounge since it's inception. But what you Obamites have done has pushed me (and others like me away. You don't care about the collective Country, you only cared about your agenda. Screw the unemployed, screw businesses and screw the economy. You treat the right with contempt, yet ask them to side with gay rights? Payback is a bitch.
I hope when it comes you remember just why it happened.
"I EXPRESS MY DOGS ANAL GLANDS WITH MY TONGUE"
What on earth would siding with the Republicans do to get the country on track? What exactly would Romney have done to bring about any sort of turnaround? Please tell us, because Mitt sure wasn't talking. And why should anyone support a party that is determined to deny them equality as American citizens? What in the hell would that do for anyone?
Shut up Chris
My wet, fat breasts have the fibro shakes!
r122 could be Dick Fitz. Years ago, a right-wing nut with that name posted here. Then he left, only to reappear again under an anonomyous handle--except for the time when he revealed that he had been posting for a long time without the name he had used.
Ignore the right-wing trolls. What I find interesting is how juvenile their posts are. They clearly have nothing to bring to the table but their ignorance and anger. Really, they are not worth the time.
Exactly Ranger. They can't deal with the fact that the time's they are a changing.
For instance, I just read that amongst 18-29 year olds, 78% approve of same-sex marriage. That's pretty astounding. 53% of all Americans do too.
Last week the LA Times reported that according to a PEW Forum Study, a majority of Protestants and Roman Catholics now favor SSM. That's huge.
The bigots and the willfully ignorant cannot turn back the tide.
I was feeling a bit queasy about this, but then I remembered how the pro prop 8 lawyers just collapsed when it was their turn in the 9th court...
I was reading the SCOTUS blog and I think we may all be forgetting how technical and tedious the court (and the law) can be. If the Court thinks the defenders of DOMA and Prop 8 may not even have standing to defend their case, well it could signal that the Court isn't interested in making any ruling with national implications.
[quote]you'd have to live in a state that allows gay marriage to get federal benefits like Social Security, etc. It was confusing to follow, but there has to be another ruling by the SC to force all states to recognize gay marriages.
Well, yeah. It would be great for the Court to make a sweeping ruling saying the Constitution requires marriage equality everywhere in the country, period. But that's probably unlikely.
I think the prospect of the USSC holding DOMA unconstitutional is very good, at least as to the denial of federal recognition of legal marriages from those states that allow them. As to whether the other half of DOMA, that says no state has to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, is going to be struck down or not...it depends on how sweeping of a decision a majority might go for. There's a good states' rights argument for requiring the feds to respect the states that could point to overturning "federal DOMA" and upholding the option for some states not to recognize other states' marriages on public policy grounds.
What the Supremes might do on the Prop 8 case is anyone's guess. I like that the superduo of Olsen and Boies will take their winning arguments to the Supreme Court, and I'm hopeful that granting cert means the Court might be looking to make sweeping rulings in our favor.
Could it be that Roberts wants his tenure to be seen as one of historic justice?
I kinda think Roberts is going to side with us. Just a hunch.
We're going to win this, 6-3.
Freeper jesuscunt trolls will have to go back to burning crosses on their own lawns next July.
Eat shit, churchies! You lose yet again!
From your mouth to SCOTUS' ears, r133....
Pride events will benefit of it either way. Either the gay community will celebrate or it will demonstrate its power in numbers and the streets will be packed with members of the gay community and its supporters.
pride events? hardly the most important thing to worry about in this case...
Roberts does seem to have a sense of history and how his Court will be viewed. It's hard to assess his flip in the health care decision (Sebelius) any other way.
If he does, I doubt he'll side with the liberal bloc again. As in Sebelius, he'll find a way to paint himself as the centrist, arguing some states rights approach. If Kennedy writes for the majority as he did in Lawrence, it could be 5-1-3, just like Lawrence. I can see Roberts flipping on Prop 8 and making that one 5-4.
Can we recap the health of the current Supreme Court justices? Any shot of a conservative one conveniently dying between now and June? Scalia is getting up there in age, and all that bile can't be healthy. Thomas is distressingly young.
first date is date entered Supreme Court, 2nd date is birth year:
* Antonin Scalia, DC\t1986–\t \t—\tN.J.\t1936\t—\tRoman Catholic
* Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif.\t1988–\t \t—\tCalif.\t1936\t—\tRoman Catholic
* Clarence Thomas, DC\t1991–\t \t—\tGa.\t1948\t—\tRoman Catholic
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC\t1993–\t \t—\tN.Y.\t1933\t—\tJewish
Stephen G. Breyer, Mass.\t1994–\t \t—\tCalif.\t1938\t—\tJewish
* John G. Roberts, DC\t \t2005–\t—\tN.Y.\t1955\t—\tRoman Catholic
* Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J.\t2006–\t \t—\tN.J.\t1950\t—\tRoman Catholic
Sonia Sotomayor N.Y.\t2009–\t \t—\tN.Y.\t1954\t—\tRoman Catholic
Elena Kagan N.Y.\t2010–\t \t—\tN.Y.\t1960\t—\tJewish
[quote]If Kennedy wants to stay in good graces with social conservatives before he presumably retires in a few years (being 76+), he would overturn both cases.
Why on *earth* would a Supreme Court justice need to stay in anyone's "good graces"? That's the whole *point* of a lifetime appointment with no "angry voters" to deal with: you can say and rule whatever the fuck you want.
The Supreme Court will dismiss the Prop 8 case for lack of standing, allowing California to immediately institute gay marriage.
They will strike down DOMA, but in such a way as to not make gay marriages from legalized states valid across all of America. You can bet that Roberts and Kennedy are brainstorming right now about how to accomplish this, since it's the mealymouthed, namby-pamby 'middle ground'.
[quote] Hopefully they save these cows next!
I don't think that they plan to issue a ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationally, but they'll leave the door open for a future Court panel to do so, after the country has had more time to digest the idea.
So R143, you think it's okay to do that to cows? Do you do the same thing? Is that not depraved?
If they uphold Prop 8, what will happen to California gays who are already married?
[quote] So [R143], you think it's okay to do that to cows? Do you do the same thing? Is that not depraved?
R147 just hates the truth.
R148 = bigot
"There are good marriages, but no delicious ones."
-- François VI, Duc de La Rochefoucauld
R149 = bigot
Court's gay-rights debate pits Scalia against Kennedy
By David G. Savage
Kennedy, the libertarian, and Scalia, the social conservative, clash over the court's role in moral controversies. In the past, Scalia has accused Kennedy of having "signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
Thanks for posting, r154. I hope Kennedy does the right thing, but honestly both Scalia and Kennedy sound vile.
I think it's outrageous that my civil rights are basically being put in the hands of one or two people, the swing votes on SCOTUS. What life will look like for gay people for the next 50 years will largely depend on the whims of these out-of-touch weirdos.
agreed, r155. i am so nervous.
A positive decision will force the hands of bigoted states like Tennessee, Alabama and Texas.
A negative decision will militarize Americas Gay Community.
It is a win - win situation.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This is why everyone in the judiciary & the legislature involved in blocking gay marriage knows they're wrong. And this is the Constitutional basis for making interracial marriages legal in ALL states. Check out Loving v. Virginia sometime.
I'm nervous, too, r156.
But remember the SCOTUS can't actually take away equality that's already been won in the 9 states where it exists. And our community has survived far worse than a loss at the Supreme Court. We'd mourn for a few days, and then pick up the pieces and continue with the movement forward. That's just how we roll. It's who we are.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst... That's how I'm thinking of it. Hang in there.
R158, you're completely wrong. The Full Faith & Credit Clause has always had a big, gaping public policy exception when it comes to the recognition of marriages performed in other states. In other words, states have *never* been compelled to recognize out-of-state marriages that are contrary to their own public policy, which is why so many states rushed to enact laws "affirming" marriage as only between men and women. Loving was based on the Due Process Clause.
If section 3 of DOMA is struck down (allowing federal benefits to be extended to couples validly married under state law) and the Prop. 8 case is limited in its result (either for lack of standing or because the rationale follows that of the Ninth Circuit), states will still not be compelled to recognize marriages performed outside their borders. Only if the Court decides the issue on Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses will the result compel recognition of SSM nationwide.
As I understand it, DOMA was written without a severability clause. So if one part is found unconstitutional, the WHOLE THING goes down. That may prove to be our ace in the hole, so to speak.
[quote] states have *never* been compelled to recognize out-of-state marriages that are contrary to their own public policy
Other than gay marriages, are there any other marriages performed in one US state not recognized in another? I'm not disagreeing, I'm wondering.
I'm sure there have been some particular individual cases, but it seems like a special exception has been carved out for the gays. Has it ever really been where a state was like "We NEVER recognize X-type of marriages performed in such-and-such a state." The only other case I can think of was interracial marriages, and we all know how that turned out.
I just don't know that there are any class of couples outside of gays in the US who marry in one state and then are legal strangers to each other when they cross a state border. A legal situation unique to the gays, isn't it?
[quote]states will still not be compelled to recognize marriages performed outside their borders.
True, but imagine the mess if DOMA 3 is struck down. If I live in NC but get married in NY, will the feds say they won't recognize my marriage because I don't live in an equality state? I can't imagine that would stand for very long.
And if the feds recognize my marriage but, but NC doesn't, it will create another mess. NC income taxes, for instance, are based on the federal return. NC will have to quickly change how taxes are calculated to exclude married gay couples.
The drip, drip, drip of unfairness that the non-equality states will have to perform will bring more people to our side much sooner than later. Not to mention lending more heft to court cases seeking equal protection.
[quote]NC income taxes, for instance, are based on the federal return.
True, but it would be a problematic mess only for married gays, a class which our government, courts, legislatures, and populace have a long history of not caring much about.
I don't think the fine points of the problems of a lop-sided decision would be much hindrance to the Supremes, though you do have a point about how confusing--not to mention how subject to future litigation-- such a decision would be.
Wow. Intelligent commentary here.
I think R141 has it, though they might even throw out Windsor on standing. The BLAG has a better standing argument than the intervenors in Perry, but precedent says the Congress, rather than legislators, may have standing. It's not sexy, but it would be a winner. The conservatives hate giving standing to anyone, and Ginsburg, a former civ pro professor, agrees with them on these issues often.
If they reach the merits in Windsor, Section 3 is dust. Severability is not an issue, as the clauses are wholly independent. That means states are free to disregard, for now, marriages contracted in other states. Of course, that's going to be a total shitshow down the road.
Birch was wrong on Hardball the other night. If you get married in NY & move to TX, the absence of Section 3 will mean that the Feds will recognize your marriage & you will have all federal rights. You won't have TX rights.
I've been emailing people all weekend trying to figure out what a win in Perry based on standing would mean. There are online commentators, and even news reports, claiming that the 9th's decision would stand, which I believe is wrong. I don't even think Judge Walker's ruling would stand. I think the district court would have to enter a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs (as Brown & Harris will not reply to the complaint). This would throw out Prop 8, but leave no precedent for any other court. I may be wrong, but I'm checking with my litigation gurus.
r163, I believe states have refused to recognize marriages performed in other states based on age. So, for example, if a 12-year-old gets married in Virginia and then moves to Nebraska, Nebraska will refuse to recognize the marriage because 12-year-olds can't marry in NE.
Jesus, I ♥ r167 That post made me a little bit tingly in my leg, as Chris Matthews might say.
No joke. Complicated arguments are forthcoming; that post put it together in a way that I hadn't seen so far
[quote]Other than gay marriages, are there any other marriages performed in one US state not recognized in another? I'm not disagreeing, I'm wondering.
In the past, if some redneck state permitted a man to marry his 13-year-old first cousin (once removed), other states might have used the public policy exception. However, the argument has been discredited by it use to perpetuate racism and is not likely to be respected today.
[quote]The Supreme Court will dismiss the Prop 8 case for lack of standing, allowing California to immediately institute gay marriage.
This makes no sense. Why would they take the case only to get rid of it on a technicality? And if the plaintiffs lack standing, Prop 8 remains in effect so a dismissal would not lead to gay marriage.
[quote]They will strike down DOMA, but in such a way as to not make gay marriages from legalized states valid across all of America. You can bet that Roberts and Kennedy are brainstorming right now about how to accomplish this, since it's the mealymouthed, namby-pamby 'middle ground'.
Again, this makes no sense. On what basis would the federal government be compelled to recognize gay marriages but not other states?
This is the part that I do not understand, R171. I thought if the Supreme's passed on hearing Prop 8, the lower court rule would stand and marriages could resume in California now. Why are they going to hear the case?
If the plaintiffs are ruled to have no standing, the original decision at the district court would be nullified. If there is some reason to dismiss the appeal to SCOTUS on the basis of standing (I'm not sure of the route to the Court), then the prior rulings would remain in effect, But the Court could have simply declined to hear the case to the same effect
[quote]And if the plaintiffs lack standing, Prop 8 remains in effect so a dismissal would not lead to gay marriage.
That's not clear. The standing issue might just as easily be directed at those challenging the lower court ruling, which would then stand. That lower court ruling, though, would pretty much apply only to California and would not provide benefits nationwide.
[quote]On what basis would the federal government be compelled to recognize gay marriages but not other states?
If the marriage was legal in the state where it was initiated, it's entirely possible that the federal government would be required to recognize it even after the couple in question moved to a state where the marriage was no longer recognized. It definitely presents some interesting legal questions.
What happens if the Court decides Perry based on standing is that J. Walker's original decision stands, texhnically affecting only the two counties (Alameda and LA, I think) that refused to issue these plaintiffs marriage licenses. The Perry intervenors unquestionably had standing in the trial court when Schwarzenegger refused to defend Prop 8. But the standard for standing on appeal is different, and it remains unclear whether proponents of a ballot initiative have standing to appeal when the state refuses to do so.
The reason the Court may have taken the case, just to decide on the standing "technicality," is that a similar issue (initiative proponent standing on appeal) was raised previously in an Arizona case, and they may just wish to clarify the Court's position.
we shall see.....
Scalia is already talking smack about this.
R178, can you summarize or supply a link to the smack?
Did a little searching on comments from Scalia. This story is from the LA Times. Incidently, there is a poll about whether the Supreme Court should allow same-sex marriage. The yes vote is at 79% and the no is at 21%.
"it's the word marriage that upsets people"
because they are trying to define marriage by lying about history. Hets have never owned marriage until quite recently. Christians damn sure never invented it and Jesus was against it.
Ridiculous and harrowingly horrifying @ r184...
Scalia can really see NO distinction between same-sex relationships and murder which might provide a reason for legalizing one but not the other?!?! The fact that a lot of people disapprove of both is the reason we keep both illegal?!!?
A lot of people once disapproved of interracial marriage, integrated stores, and women voting, too. We make murder illegal for reasons BEYOND the fact that a lot of people disapprove, sir. There is an identifiable harm.
How this man ever became a "justice" of any kind is beyond me.
And the idea that a text has some sort of "original intent" which can be universally and objectively discerned has left every discipline known to man EXCEPT Scalia when he encounters civil rights issues. Vile human being. He will be justly spat on by history.