Will those states, such as Arkansas and Florida, be forced to allow gay couples to marry? If not, then what good is the Supreme Court ruling. I'm 17 and can't figure this out and I don't want to ask anyone. Thanks!
If Gay Marriage Passes the Supreme Court, What Happens to the States That Have Previously Banned It?
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/02/2013|
I suspect SCOTUS will decide narrowly and Marriage Equality will be recognized by the Federal Government based on state law and won't touch where states outlaw it. That will require another case up to SCOTUS on full faith and credit clause. So in effect, you will most likely be able to get married in a state that allows marriage, go back to a state that does not, receive federal benefit, submit joint income tax return but the state will not recognize your marriage and file single state income tax returns until the next legal case and another 5 years or so.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/28/2013|
Big discussion on NPR today. They can go at it from three different ways. One way is just to get California back on track and eliminage Prop 8 - especially since they had already allowed marriage. Another would point to California and several other states (don't recall the reason they gave for this), and a third way is to give a broad ruling that would eliminate all bans on same-sex marriage in all the states.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/28/2013|
eliminage = eliminate
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/28/2013|
I'm still confused. So in March if the Supreme Court says gay marriage is a right then it has no effect in my state of Arkansas where gay marriage is banned??? I thought that a federal law trumped state laws, no?
So if the Supreme Court rules favorably, someone in my state would have to file another suit which would then be granted based on the Supreme Court ruling?
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/28/2013|
Do they not teach required civics and government classes anymore in school?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/28/2013|
What I think will happen is the Prop 8 will be struck down in California and marriage will resume there. DOMA will be struck down and couples married in States where it is permitted will be entitled to federal benefits. But States will continue to decide whether gay marriage is permitted or not. The dominos WILL fall, but we've got more waiting time here.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/28/2013|
r4, read r2 five times. Then count to three. Then read r2 five more times.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/28/2013|
Of course, it will all depend on how they craft the majority opinion. If they find that DOMA is unconstitutional, because “heightened scrutiny” applies when the government discriminates against lesbians and gay men, then the marriage bans in states that have passed them will be gone in a matter of months. It will take only a few court cases challenging those laws for them to be found unconstitutional.
So, I disagree with R6 that the states will be permitted to decide whether same-sex marriage is constitutional in their states. If the Supreme Court finds a federal constitutional right, then the states will be unable to override that.
The Supreme Court is not going to allow states to grant people fundamental rights federally and in some states but not in others. That is a completely unnecessary mess.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/28/2013|
R8, if heightened scrutiny is applied in the DOMA case, most likely the four liberal justices have at least one other vote in the bag to throw out all of the state bans when they decide the Prop 8 case. I think both cases will either have very narrow decisions or very wide decisions, depending on the level of support from Kennedy and maybe Roberts.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/28/2013|
SCOTUS will not act broadly. Prop8 will fall and one section, I think 5 of DOMA will fall. that means the feds can't discriminate but states can. then someone will sue based on full faith and credit clause of the Constitution and all of DOMA and the remaing antigay state marriage laws will fall. but like prop 8, it will take at least 3 more years for that to happen.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/28/2013|
r10 it's getting old.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/28/2013|
R11, if they do not act broadly, they are exposing a serious inefficiency in their processes and decisions. Once they overrule DOMA and Prop 8 which pretty much seems very likely, they only need to add one paragraph to their decision to throw out all of the similar state marriage bans. They merely need to cite the full faith and credit clause and apply it, which they can do if they wish. I suspect the four liberal justices would like to issue a broad decision because I doubt they want to hear the same case as Prop 8 in a couple of years. It is a matter of whether they can get Kennedy and/or Roberts to agree with them. Very few people predicted Roberts voting in favor to uphold the ACA last year. I think we're facing a similar situation this year with possible broad decisions in Prop 8 and DOMA.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/28/2013|
One of the things pushing this in the right direction is the fact that DADT is gone. Thus there are now same-sex marrieds serving in the Armed Forces. The SECDEF recently opened up a lot of benefits for the spouses that now are equal to opposite-sex marrieds. That means the Federal government is giving approval to same-sex marriage.
There are several same-sex military couples who are part of the case against DOMA. Will the Court want to slap the faces of s/s marrieds in the military who are willing to go to the front lines of freedom and tell them DOMA still stands? I don't think the majority of the Court wants to be on the wrong side of history.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/28/2013|
I think you fail to understand the supreme court is ruling on Prop 8 and doma violating constitutional rights. It does not per se grant federal level rights to gay marriage. It simply strikes down prop 8 and coma if separately ruled so. It would pave the way for a federal amendment to recognize same sex marriage on a federal level there by removing states laws banning it.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/28/2013|
I STILL cannot believe that the 112th Congress was able to end DADT! Those silly TeaBillys in the GOP must be unscrewing their heads still over that! Ha! Next, Marriage Equality! They won't know what hit them, but I do predict in the future, they will ALL act is if they were for it all along!
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/28/2013|
Yes, I understand it does not per se grant federal level rights to gay marriage. I'm pointing out that the Federal government, through the Department of Defense, is already granting marriage benefits to same-sex couples. It's just one of the many things pushing the Supremes toward a broad scope in their decision.
When it comes to Prop 8, the fact that California already granted marriage equality to its citizens and then took it away is going to be a major part of their decision on that.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/28/2013|
R15, a federal amendment will not pass for at least another 10-20 years due to ingrained resistance from Republicans, primarily southern ones, which will not fade any time soon. The US Supreme Court is the only possible route for repealing all of the statewide bans in the near future.
R16, the 111th Congress (from 2009-2011) passed DADT in December 2010 while Democrats still maintained their House majority and before the Tea Party increased their numbers in the Senate.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/28/2013|
r18 what planet do you live on - dadt was policy in 1993.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/28/2013|
R18 obviously meant to wrote repealed instead of passed.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/28/2013|
R20, yes, I meant they (the 111th and not the 112th) repealed DADT. Sorry about that. Thanks for the assist, R20.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/01/2013|
thank you all so much for ur help...i understand now.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/01/2013|
Full faith and credit does NOT apply in this case.
Marriage is simply a license. States do not have to recognize each other's licenses. They may do so, but do not have to.
Even with interracial marriage the Supreme Court did not use the full faith and credit clause.
The Supreme Court historically does not care about making a mess. The wouldn't let the federal government deny the right to vote to 18 years olds but they allowed states to do that.
This is why we needed an amendment to allow full suffrage to all 18 years olds at the state and federal level.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/01/2013|
So basically, none of you bitches know the answer.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/01/2013|
How can you answer a question that hasn't been asked yet?
There are at least three possible outcomes. All were resolved. There are more possibilities as well.
Just wait and see, why are you in such a rush to get married? Are you preggers?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/01/2013|
One by one the chips of oppression will fall. I'm guessing the longest hold outs will be states like Oklahoma, Kentucky, Mississippi and Utah holding strong to their bigoted laws for the next 20-30 years while the rest of the country has moved on.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/01/2013|
But ... but ... what scapegoat can we dangle in front of the stupid masses after that so they will do our bidding? Should we go back using communists?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/01/2013|
^Ever heard of lesbians, idjit?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||03/01/2013|
But let's be honest, Gay Marriage is just a silly (or necessary?) detour to full acceptance of members of the Gay community, right? I mean who in his or her right mind wants to get into this strict and tight committment concept where you have to remain faithful to one person for the rest of your miserable life which is full of temptation at every frigging corner? I get a nervous itch all over my body just thinking about it.
All this will do is give insecure gay men and women the opportunity to make a point (see mom and dad? I am now married just like you! Suck it! / Will you love and accept me again?) and then get divorced when the marriage hits a rough patch (just like any other straight marriage does these days).
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/01/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 31||03/01/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/01/2013|
I know it seems far-fetched, but if the Liberal Four are willing to find for a decision trashing the state DOMA's (via scrutiny) as part of the Windsor opinion, I think Roberts MIGHT go along at this point, so that issue never comes back, and he doesn't look like a bigot as his "legacy". Worst case scenario I'd say is that Section 3 falls, so that pension and SS checks start flowing, probably in all states as long as the couple has some sort of license issued (elsewhere), daring the BLAG idiots, or some other fundie group to play Grinch to take back those benefits in the other states. Besides, I can't see the Soc Sec Admin "tracking" gay couples' residences, cutting off Sally's survivor check of Ann's earnings because she later moves from Connecticut to Florida!
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/01/2013|
Even if the overturn of DOMA doesn't grant equal access to marriage automatically, it will provide same-sex couples wanting to marry in states that ban or don't recognize same-sex marriages a powerful legal precedent if they choose to sue their home state to get married.
Queens like R30 need to stop thinking in terms of their own situations and start thinking of the generations of future gay men and women who will want to get married and start a family with the full recognition of the government and the benefits thereof.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/01/2013|
Exactly r34. Although r30 could be a lesbian.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/01/2013|
Fuck you, single and bitter, r30.
It's called legal equality, and gay men and women have every right to want to marry for all the same reasons any one else does. And they have the same right to end their relationships fairly through the process of divorce.
Your statements could have just as easily been leveled--and probably were--at interracial couples in the 60s. Reread it that way and you'll see what an evil and dehumanizing cunt you are.
"But let's be honest, Interracial Marriage is just a silly (or necessary?) detour to full acceptance of members of racially mixed couples, right? I mean who in his or her right mind wants to get into this strict and tight committment concept where you have to remain faithful to one person for the rest of your miserable life which is full of temptation at every frigging corner? I get a nervous itch all over my body just thinking about it.
All this will do is give insecure interracial couples the opportunity to make a point (see mom and dad? I am now married just like you! Suck it! / Will you love and accept me again?) and then get divorced when the marriage hits a rough patch (just like any other racially pure marriage does these days)."
|by Anonymous||reply 36||03/01/2013|
I believe that the Court will rule narrowly and decide based on standing. I fear that Kennedy/Roberts are not willing to make a bold decision at this time.
My prediction is that the House Republicans challenge to the Appeals Court ruling will be thrown out because they have no standing to object. The House Republicans are not harmed by overturning Prop 8, and so the Appeals Court decision to restore marriage to CA will stand.
I also feel that the Administrations's argument that civil partnerships are Separate but Unequal could carry forth which would extend gay marriage to several more states. But gay marriage would remain a states-rights issue for several more years until another case comes forward to pursue the Full Faith/Credit argument.
Things will change. Marriage Equality is inevitable. I think that Obama needs one more SC appointee (and Scalia to die).
|by Anonymous||reply 37||03/01/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/01/2013|
In this Right To Work America, I wish we had put our efforts into ENDA.
Ending DOMA would have followed quickly.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||03/01/2013|
R13/R9 - I may be mistaken, but only one section of DOMA(3??) is being challenged. I don't see SCOTUS (the conservative hatebaggers) going beyond what was challenged. It will take a second case of a gay couple marrying in Maryland and moving to Georgia and suing to get their marriage recognized (commerce clause I believe). This is where the rest of DOMA will fall. But that does not mean the state constitutions banning marriage disappears. It will be then trench warfare state by state to cease enforcement until state governments change from Red to Blue. Fuck, Mississippi just ratified the 13th Amendment
R16 - there are two cases merged by SCOTUS, DOMA and Prop 8.
R23 - I don't agree. Show me case law or citations. Marriage bestows benefits than move with the married couple (commerce) and states are obligated to recognize. This is the same principle that a car registered in Vermont can still drive through Ohio without being registered in the state or that a str8 couple is still married in Maryland and Arizona during a two week vacation.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/02/2013|