Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage (Kennedy: insurance, house)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

We spend too much time focusing on things we disagree with and not enough time building on our commonalities.

There's a lot more money to be made fomenting disagreement in this country.

Unfortunately, it has the consequence of fooling so many people that whack-jobs get elected at an accelerating pace, such that they can (attempt to) claim voter approval of utter nonsense and insanity (US House of Reps, anybody?). Even the Supreme Court has lurched suspiciously towards partisanship, which should be of great concern to the electorate...if they're paying attention. Allowing states to deny citizens their civil rights ain't out of the question, unfortunately.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

There's a lot more money to be made fomenting disagreement in this country.

Unfortunately, it has the consequence of fooling so many people that whack-jobs get elected at an accelerating pace, such that they can (attempt to) claim voter approval of utter nonsense and insanity (US House of Reps, anybody?). Even the Supreme Court has lurched suspiciously towards partisanship, which should be of great concern to the electorate...if they're paying attention. Allowing states to deny citizens their civil rights ain't out of the question, unfortunately.

And the slow decline of Rome 2.0 continues.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by johnmarson

This could be really interesting.

At the minimum I expect them to strike down the federal law prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages, but they could overturn all state and federal laws.

In the past the Supreme Court has taken up such cases only after a number of states have moved to make policy in the direction the court is likely to move. Women's suffrage on a national level wasn't taken up until states were already allowing women to vote.

The funny thing is that in the California case the court would have to strike down a state law and in the New York case it would have to uphold a state law and strike down the federal one.

Do you think they will rule prop 8 unconstitutional, or uphold it?

I imagine they would overturn clause 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, since it limits state's rights, possibly violating the 10th Amendment.

If they uphold prop 8 how long would it be until it is up for a vote again?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

Do you think they will rule prop 8 unconstitutional, or uphold it?

I imagine they would overturn clause 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional, since it limits state's rights, possibly violating the 10th Amendment.

If they uphold prop 8 how long would it be until it is up for a vote again?

They could also not rule on it at all. Pro 8 is one of two cases regarding same sex marriage at the supreme court.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

They could also not rule on it at all. Pro 8 is one of two cases regarding same sex marriage at the supreme court.

Yeah, the other case is regarding clause 3 of DOMA.

If prop 8 is upheld by the Supreme Court, I imagine it would be up for a vote again in 2014 or 2016, I imagine both sides would spend at least $30M again. I suppose this will increase ad buy costs in the state, much like I think the gubernatorial race in 2010 probably increased ad buy costs.

[Seeker5in1]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

And the slow decline of Rome 2.0 continues.

Doesn't seem so slow to me!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by cardinal2007

Yeah, the other case is regarding clause 3 of DOMA.

If prop 8 is upheld by the Supreme Court, I imagine it would be up for a vote again in 2014 or 2016, I imagine both sides would spend at least $30M again. I suppose this will increase ad buy costs in the state, much like I think the gubernatorial race in 2010 probably increased ad buy costs.

You're right about that. Over the last two decades what went from unthinkable is now inevitable.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Seeker5in1

Doesn't seem so slow to me!

I hope you know what I meant by that.

[lillypie]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I don't disagree with equal rights and protections under the law. In 2013 there's no reason I can think of to deny someone access to their partner that might be dying in a hospital because they are not blood relations. That is heartless.

We spend too much time focusing on things we disagree with and not enough time building on our commonalities.

I don't think most people, even most prop 8 supporters, would disagree with me on the issue of rights and protections.

Exactly. There's certain protections/benefits that marriage provides i.e. regarding taxes/insurance rates/hospital visitation/military/death benefits...etc. which is why I think marriage is so important in the legal sense.

I will add just on a personal level, a close friend just had a marriage ceremony with her longtime partner in CA. Having lived outside of CA for yrs. I actually had to look up whether marriage was legal for gay couples & I was disappointed to see it wasn't. They have been together since college, bought a house together, are looking into adopting. I've heard several arguments against gay marriage but I just don't get how people believe her relationship is any less loving or valid than my marriage.

I also heard a news report recently that if Prop. 8 was voted on today in CA it would not pass. I agree just based on the opinions of family/friends who live in the state but I'm curious what others think.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by lillypie

I've heard several arguments against gay marriage but I just don't get how people believe her relationship is any less loving or valid than my marriage.

Like the old 'marriage is only for those who procreate' babble? This one can be debated without even getting into any LGBT issues. Ever a fun subject to broach with the old relatives at the holiday dinner table