Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If a government within the United States passes a law, then that law must comply with the Equal Protection requirement of the US Constitution. Whether that law is called "marriage" - or what "real" marriage means to you (or to me) - is utterly irrelevant.
What if the Supreme Court rules that "marriage" laws are valid but mandate that civil unions must be provided by all states? Wouldn't that meet the requirement for Equal Protection?
Honestly, I don't know that there is any difference, but that would make sense to me. If a gay couple gets a civil union and wants to call it a marriage, they can. In all legal matters, it is. But if state laws want to preserve the word "marriage" then I could see the SCOTUS allowing it as long as states satisfy Equal Protection via civil unions.
Seems along with legalizing this stuff its also making the homosexual terrorists think they can force anyone to abide by their way of doing things....SC is better off nipping this in the bud ASAP because legalizing this would only cause more problems....
What if the Supreme Court rules that "marriage" laws are valid but mandate that civil unions must be provided by all states? Wouldn't that meet the requirement for Equal Protection?
Honestly, I don't know that there is any difference, but that would make sense to me. If a gay couple gets a civil union and wants to call it a marriage, they can. In all legal matters, it is. But if state laws want to preserve the word "marriage" then I could see the SCOTUS allowing it as long as states satisfy Equal Protection via civil unions.
*ALL* legal marriages in the US are already civil unions, and always have been. We know this because it is the government that issues the marriage certificate.
Whether or not a church chooses to sanctify a particular marriage is up to that church - and always has been.
Edited to add - how on earth would you propose to effectively regulate the use of the word "marriage"?
They will WRONGFULLY legalize it...another boot heel in the 10th amendment. I wish I was as optimistic as the 2 that voted they would vote against it but I am a realist.
People either agree or disagree with SCOTUS decisions. From the point of view of the majority of Americans some decisions back in history such as Plessy v. Ferguson is nowadays considered a terrible decision. Still controversial is the Roe v. Wade decision. It's all a matter of opinion.
If the majority of Americans are against a SCOTUS ruling there is always the legislative remedy: a constitutional amendment. I understand Sen Ted Cruz has already filed in the Senate an amendment declaring only opposite sex marriage shall be legally recognized in the US. Amending the Constitution is a very difficult task, however.
The 3 that voted that the SC won't legalize it why did you vote that way? Because you really believe that or because you just hope it doesn't happen because I am with you on that part...I hope it doesn't happen but I also know politicians with a lifetime guarantee to dictate laws for the country will do as they please.
Based on the signals the SCOTUS has been sending of late, I would say 5-4 in favor of gay marriage with Justice Kennedy casting the fifth vote.
It will be 5-4 or 6-3. The only reason Kennedy voted for standing in the Hollingsworth v. Perry case was so he could invalidate the CA constitutional amendment then and there, but Roberts wasn't ready for a gay marriage case on its merit yet so he took the coward's way out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Whichever way they rule, it's about time they stopped dodging this one. The SCOTUS has been like an ostrich with their head in the sand on this one. Now, no matter which way the ruling goes, at least we'll have an end to lesser federal courts going all different directions on gay marriage.
The SCOTUS almost never leads on social issues. They didn't in interracial marriage. One of the few issues they did was Roe v Wade and that has caused decades of wrangling on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
There needs to be a third option in the poll for leaving it to each state to decide.
If they wanted to leave it to the states they would have ruled so in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
*ALL* legal marriages in the US are already civil unions, and always have been. We know this because it is the government that issues the marriage certificate.
Whether or not a church chooses to sanctify a particular marriage is up to that church - and always has been.
Edited to add - how on earth would you propose to effectively regulate the use of the word "marriage"?
How would regulate it? I have no clue. What I'm suggesting is one possible direction that the Supreme Court might go with things. They could choose to rule that States have the right to withhold the word "marriage" from official documentation of same-sex unions.
As to telling a gay couple that they cannot call their ceremony "a wedding" or their union "a marriage," I don't think any sane person thinks that's even remotely possible.
I don't think that the Supreme Court can do any better than that for religions. They can let states withhold the word "marriage" from official legal documents as long as gay couples gain all the same legal rights. It seems like a pointless victory for those wishing to defend the definition of marriage, but it is one direction I can see the Supreme Court ruling.
How would regulate it? I have no clue. What I'm suggesting is one possible direction that the Supreme Court might go with things. They could choose to rule that States have the right to withhold the word "marriage" from official documentation of same-sex unions.
As to telling a gay couple that they cannot call their ceremony "a wedding" or their union "a marriage," I don't think any sane person thinks that's even remotely possible.
I don't think that the Supreme Court can do any better than that for religions. They can let states withhold the word "marriage" from official legal documents as long as gay couples gain all the same legal rights. It seems like a pointless victory for those wishing to defend the definition of marriage, but it is one direction I can see the Supreme Court ruling.
OK, not sure why they would bother with that, since it's a distinction without a difference., but....
And, as we both know, if anyone ever made a run at enforcing the use of the word, it would just make the situation worse, not better.
OK, not sure why they would bother with that, since it's a distinction without a difference., but....
And, as we both know, if anyone ever made a run at enforcing the use of the word, it would just make the situation worse, not better.
There are those that would be willing to settle for that. Just giving states the right to strike the word "marriage" from legal documents might be enough to placate many opponents of gay marriage.
Obviously, it won't be enough for many if not most.
What if the Supreme Court rules that "marriage" laws are valid but mandate that civil unions must be provided by all states? Wouldn't that meet the requirement for Equal Protection?
Honestly, I don't know that there is any difference, but that would make sense to me. If a gay couple gets a civil union and wants to call it a marriage, they can. In all legal matters, it is. But if state laws want to preserve the word "marriage" then I could see the SCOTUS allowing it as long as states satisfy Equal Protection via civil unions.
The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to force States to craft new laws and create new legal institutions.
What they do have is the power - and in fact the duty - to ensure than any actual law conforms with the Equal Protection requirement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
