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.
*The judge has so far declined to stay this ruling. However, the Sixth Circuit or the Supreme Court is almost certain to do so eventually.
*This brings to six the number of marriage equality cases before the various Circuit Courts of Appeals:
Michigan (Sixth Circuit)
Texas (Fifth Circuit)
Virginia (Fourth Circuit)
Utah & Oklahoma (Tenth Circuit)
Nevada (Ninth Circuit)
*In the first five cases listed, the District Court struck down the same-sex marriage ban in question. In the latter case of Nevada, the District Court upheld the ban. Of note is that fact that that last decision was the only one issue before last summer's Windsor ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Federal courts are now unanimous in five rulings that under Windsor, bans on same-sex marriage are violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
*There is no doubt that this issue is headed for the United States Supreme Court. It is very likely that by July 4 of next year (that being the traditional date by which the Supreme Court has issued all of its rulings for a term) all same-sex marriage bans nationwide will have been struck down.
It is very likely that by July 4 of next year (that being the traditional date by which the Supreme Court has issued all of its rulings for a term) all same-sex marriage bans nationwide will have been struck down.
What exactly do you think the U.S. Supreme Court's vote margin in such a case will be? 5-4? 6-3?
I could see A. Kennedy supporting legalizing gay marriage nationwide in addition to the four "liberal" U.S. SC Justices, with a chance that J. Roberts will also see the tide of history sufficiently well to also vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
More unconstitutional legislating from the bench by unelected people in black robes.
Wake up America and end this tyranny.
You are aware that the roll of the courts is to interpret the law, right? Please explain, in detail, how this judgement is "unconstitutional legislating".
Another good call. The losers will whine about the will of the people not being followed, and that judges should be elected, yadda yadda yadda.
The "will of the people" is TRASH. There was a time when the will of the people was Jim Crow laws, not letting women or blacks vote, etc. The real name for the will of the people is "Tyranny of the Majority' which has long been over-ruled in case after case.
Federal judges should NOT be voted in, as again, the will of the people is trash and subject to the same idiocy that gave us these stupid laws.
Upholding the Constitution is NOT a popularity contest for voters to decide, nor do states get to violate the constitutional principle of equal treatment.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
The "will of the people" is TRASH. There was a time when the will of the people was Jim Crow laws, not letting women or blacks vote, etc. The real name for the will of the people is "Tyranny of the Majority' which has long been over-ruled in case after case.
I strongly agree with you when it comes to this.
Also, I would probably agree with you that judges shouldn't be elected. However, judges shouldn't have lifetime terms either.
What exactly do you think the U.S. Supreme Court's vote margin in such a case will be? 5-4? 6-3?
I could see A. Kennedy supporting legalizing gay marriage nationwide in addition to the four "liberal" U.S. SC Justices, with a chance that J. Roberts will also see the tide of history sufficiently well to also vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage nationwide.
That's my guess.
Justice Kennedy is the author of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, the three great gay rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. This issue is his legacy. And these developing decisions largely revolve around his Windsor opinion and, to a lesser extent, his opinion in Lawrence.
The feeble bleatings of those too ignorant of the issue to do anything but whine about activist judges notwithstanding, the fact is that judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents are behind these five District Court rulings. As such, it is very clear that these decisions are essentially mandated by Windsor. Unless Justice Kennedy does a complete 180, or somehow botched his Windsor decision by sending a message he did not intend to send - and neither of these possibilities seem at all likely - and assuming that the Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Kagan bloc is on board (which seems a fairly safe assumption) then there are at least five votes on the high court to uphold this and similar decisions.
I could see Roberts using stare decisis as an excuse to flip from Windsor and join in such a majority opinion. Thomas? No chance. Scalia? He'll write a sneering, rage-filled dissent. Alito? Probably not, though he's young enough that perhaps he doesn't want this stain in his legacy, either.
Justice Kennedy is the author of Romer, Lawrence and Windsor, the three great gay rights decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. This issue is his legacy. And these developing decisions largely revolve around his Windsor opinion and, to a lesser extent, his opinion in Lawrence.
The feeble bleatings of those too ignorant of the issue to do anything but whine about activist judges notwithstanding, the fact is that judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents are behind these five District Court rulings. As such, it is very clear that these decisions are essentially mandated by Windsor. Unless Justice Kennedy does a complete 180, or somehow botched his Windsor decision by sending a message he did not intend to send - and neither of these possibilities seem at all likely - and assuming that the Breyer/Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Kagan bloc is on board (which seems a fairly safe assumption) then there are at least five votes on the high court to uphold this and similar decisions.
I could see Roberts using stare decisis as an excuse to flip from Windsor and join in such a majority opinion. Thomas? No chance. Scalia? He'll write a sneering, rage-filled dissent. Alito? Probably not, though he's young enough that perhaps he doesn't want this stain in his legacy, either.
Yeah, this prediction appears to be spot on.
As a side note, I find it interesting (and very pleasant from the perspective of morality) that gay sex/sodomy was illegal in some U.S. states all of the way up to 2003, whereas just a little more than a decade later, we might literally be on the verge of seeing gay marriage be legalized throughout the entire U.S.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the court's decision in regards to this, isn't the job/role of the courts to interpret the U.S. Constitution (regardless of whether or not you think that they interpreted the U.S. Constitution correctly)?
If the justice had interpreted the constitution correctly, the opinion would have been the opposite of what was written.
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.
