Ban on same sex marriage in Texas ruled unconstitutional! (attorney, rating, party)

[brattpowered]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Why are you so obsessed with race?

It goes hand in hand with homophobia.

[BugsyPal]

Judge Scalia and the minority of the SCOTUS called things correctly when they said the Kennedy/majority opinion would open up "gay marriage across America", that is what Justice Kennedy and Ginsburg wanted but didn't wish to strike down state bans directly. So instead the majority opinion gives vast legal cover for lower court federal and state judges to strike down such bans. Even the Bully in Chief governor of NJ Chris Christie knew when to throw in the towel.

In any event sooner or later Utah, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Florida (when it comes), Kentucky, and or the rest of the twenty some odd states that have federal bans against gay marriage are going back to the SCOTUS.

The DOMA ruling was expansive and somewhat messy so a return case will give the court a chance to clean things up. This is normal and has happened with many other rulings especially those on social issues (race, civil rights, abortion).

Issues still to be fleshed out are those regarding state's rights, is marriage a constitutional right (that is should anyone be allowed to marry anyone else without restrictions), and one thorny question that has come up before the Court before; can the SCOTUS tell states what to do other than what is expressly laid out in the Constitution.

On the last matter please don't hate or laugh, as there have been several cases relating to that subject and it is not entirely settled. There is also a famous case of a POTUS defying an order from the SCOTUS. IIRC that president stated ".... justice made the ruling let him enforce it..." or words to that effect.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by pch1013

I'm quite sure that Texas public opinion on same-sex marriage played no role whatsoever in this judge's decision.

It's bigger than Texas. It's bigger than Arizona. It is our national psyche and it is now accepting, even demanding, of equality under law for SSM. The speed with which this transformation took place is simply astounding.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

I don't really agree with you on this. Judges are not "accurately reading the Constitution" in their ruling. It would be more correct to say they are accurately reading public opinion. The principle which today seems so obvious, would not have even been considered decades ago. When the 14th was enacted and for the next 100 plus years no one in his right mind would have argued that it applies to homosexual marriage. It is the shift in public opinion that shifts the courts and bends the Constitution along the arc of progress. That is as it should be in a dynamic democratic society.

As I said earlier in my post, judges read the constitution and all the Supreme Court cases that deal with the issue, so they are interpreting the Constitution in light of the most recent case decided by the Supreme Court that deals with the same part of the Constitution. I guess that does eventually reflect public opinion, but I would think the courts would lag way behind changes in public opinion.

I don't think your thinking and mine are much different in this regard.

[Unsettomati]

This case will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A typical schedule for briefing, oral arguments and the issuance of the decision would result in a ruling probably sometime in July or August.

The Fifth Circuit currently has 14 active judges:
6 George W. Bush appointees
4 Reagan appointees
2 Clinton appointees
2 Obama appointees

Given that list, it should come as no surprise that it is well known for being a conservative circuit. But as far as resolving this issue, since this case (along with a slew of other cases - Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, and probably Nevada and Michigan as well, at a minimum) is ultimately going to the United States Supreme Court within the year, how the Fifth rules is more academic than relevant.

[EdwardA]

Time for the religious right to start flexing some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Time to end this foolishness.

[EdwardA]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

This case will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. A typical schedule for briefing, oral arguments and the issuance of the decision would result in a ruling probably sometime in July or August.

The Fifth Circuit currently has 14 active judges:
6 George W. Bush appointees
4 Reagan appointees
2 Clinton appointees
2 Obama appointees

Given that list, it should come as no surprise that it is well known for being a conservative circuit. But as far as resolving this issue, since this case (along with a slew of other cases - Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, and probably Nevada and Michigan as well, at a minimum) is ultimately going to the United States Supreme Court within the year, how the Fifth rules is more academic than relevant.

I hope it falls along party lines.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Time for the religious right to start flexing some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Time to end this foolishness.

SSM equality is a done deal. The day to do that passed many years ago. You can't go back. Heck, even the religious right has given up on stopping SSM and is now concentrating on not being forced to bake a cake for one.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

Time for the religious right to start flexing some muscle. The GOP must put forth a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Time to end this foolishness.

I sincerely hope they do. There is no national support for such an amendment, and it only underscores the vicious homophobia and bigotry so alive and well in the GOP today.

Also, does it matter that much what the appeals panel does? This issue is going back to SCOTUS no matter what.

[case44]

Not a done deal yet. Not even close. There will still be a fight.