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.
I agree that if they rule that states don't have to recognize legal SSM from other states that they would have to carve out an exception to their own precedent. If any SCOTUS could produce the reasoning that would justify the exception, it's this one.
On balance, I think it is more likely that they will uphold their own precedent than not. But snowball is right, it is a different question than the one they answered in Windsor.
Which kind of brings up the question, how responsive is the court to deep-seated shifts in public attitudes. Loving occurred when the American public as a whole became disgusted with racial prejudice, after centuries of countenancing it...
Actually when Loving was decided the general public support of interracial marriage was lower than it is for SSM now. In 67 only about 20% of the population approved of interracial marriage, support for SSM is around 60% currently.
Actually when Loving was decided the general public support of interracial marriage was lower than it is for SSM now. In 67 only about 20% of the population approved of interracial marriage, support for SSM is around 60% currently.
But this SCOTUS is a great deal more conservative than the one that ruled on Loving.
Now in this case conservatism can cut more than one way. It is conservative to follow precedent. It is conservative to uphold SSM bans. And it is conservative to not allow an individual state to invalidate marriages contracted when SSM was temporarily legal, as would surely be attempted in some places.
As I have said, I think they should hold that the 14th applies to SSM, and they are more likely than not to do so. I also think that should they rule against it, it won't be more than a blip in this particular history. It will just be up to some future court to throw it out.
I don't know if anyone pointed out that this poll is not written correctly. SCOTUS is ruling on same gender marriage becoming legal in all 50 states. It is already legal in 37 states plus DC AND at the Federal level (that is 72% of the country, FYI). None of that is being voted on. The vote will deal with the remaining 13 states that have state laws banning it. A no vote will keep things the way they are and a yes vote will make it legal in the 13 states where it is currently not.
They are not changing any definitions. I skimmed that last page and someone accurately pointed out that dictionaries have already changed. Anyway, I'm not voting b/c it is not worded correctly.
Honestly, I don't know. Precedence says they will vote yes. We'll see. I'm not particularly worried.
If they rule that same sex marriage bans are Constitutional then a state only has to pass another one or petition the Courts to reverse the ruling striking the one they have in place down. So if the Supreme Court rules they are Constitutionally allowed then the number of states allowing it will likely shrink by around half.
Yeah, you are apparently one of the few lefties to examine what the previous ruling was actually a ruling on. As you have probably noticed, the leftist echo chamber has been repeating the baseless notion that the DOMA was overturned by this ruling, when in fact it was a narrow ruling as you explained in your first paragraph.
Of course nothing is certain when it comes to a ruling by a court, but it appears likely that if the ruling comes down as you are now suggesting, which I also believe is the most likely scenario, there are many on the left that are going to be truly surprised.
However, the reason is not because they are Catholics, it is because it is not the place of the courts to be making a decision of this magnitude. Rather, it is the place of the states using the will of the people, as exercised by their duly elected representatives.
If this ruling comes down, what it will NOT do is make homosexual "marriage" illegal. Instead, it will leave it to the states, which will each vote according to the preferences of that jurisdiction. Most likely some will pass laws saying that they support it, but even more will pass laws restricting it.
Not trying to get into a *issing contest. I am just saying.
It's possible, but it also would not be the first time a justice has a contradictory ruling either.
I previously said YES in this poll, but I'm really more inclined to think NO
now, after reading Justice Kennedy's reasons for being the swing vote in
2013 (5-4) to rule DOMA unconsitutional. That was about the states marriages
to be recognized or not recognized federally. This ruling coming up is an entirely
different matter, legally speaking, because it would take away state rights.
It is intellectually consistent to oppose DOMA but also oppose taking away
states' rights.
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas: NO.
All 5 are Catholics. Pope Francis is coming.
I think there's some secret Vatican pressure.
Maybe not so secret. The wheels on the bus go round and round.
I have a feeling Kennedy won't let gay marriage be what he's remembered for.
As I pointed out before Judges aren't always consistent in their rulings. Often they contradict previous rulings. This is also being argued on 14th amendment merits, whereas DOMA was not.
In just a little over one week the US Supreme Court will be hearing legal arguments concerning whether or not gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to get married. The court will announce their ruling in June.
Currently, same sex marriage is legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia. The first state to legalize it was Massachusetts, in 2004. Most - indeed nearly 95% - of the lower court rulings have gone in favor of gay marriage.
What do you think?
The four libs on the court will just insert their own personal opinions on what they think the definition and purpose of marriage is, and force it onto the entire country.
I think our SCOTUS is just about lost to the people, we have too many justices full of hubris, as if their purpose and function is to steer the country on a course that meets their own personal ideology, their political agenda, and conforms to their personal opinions on how the rest of us should live our lives.
Too many of the justices also care too much what the high society cliques and news media in the Beltway think of them.
But this SCOTUS is a great deal more conservative than the one that ruled on Loving.
Now in this case conservatism can cut more than one way. It is conservative to follow precedent. It is conservative to uphold SSM bans. And it is conservative to not allow an individual state to invalidate marriages contracted when SSM was temporarily legal, as would surely be attempted in some places.
As I have said, I think they should hold that the 14th applies to SSM, and they are more likely than not to do so. I also think that should they rule against it, it won't be more than a blip in this particular history. It will just be up to some future court to throw it out.
The 14th did not define marriage, it just said our laws and the rights and privileges that people enjoy should be color blind. Men and women get married, have children and the color of their skin has nothing to do.
However, if it were impossible for any black man or any white woman to conceive a child together, if differences in skin color made it impossible to create a child together, then maybe Loving would have been ruled on differently.
The 14th did not define marriage, it just said our laws and the rights and privileges that people enjoy should be color blind. Men and women get married, have children and the color of their skin has nothing to do.
However, if it were impossible for any black man or any white woman to conceive a child together, if differences in skin color made it impossible to create a child together, then maybe Loving would have been ruled on differently.
He never said it did, just that it can apply to this case.
It is more than obvious that most posting in this thread are missing the point as to what the real issue is before the court.
The issue is not gay marriage, but the law, as it pertains to equality under the fourteenth amendment.
The issue is, do states have the right to define marriage as one man, one woman, and exclude all others from marriage.
The amendment clearly states that the laws must be doled out equally for all.
So, gay marriage isn't the issue at all.
Equal laws are the issue.
The court will have to uphold the intention of the fourteenth amendment, and in doing so, those, other than man and woman will be treated equally as the amendment intended.
Those states that voted to ban gay marriage were in fact going against the constitution.
All of those votes were unconstitutional per the fourteenth amendment.
States can't make one set of laws for one group, and a separate set of laws for another group.
The laws must be equal.
So, that is what is before the court, and because the amendment states equality under the law, the court can rule no other way but what is stated in the fourteenth.
I don't think marriage is stated anywhere in the constitution, and the court is aware of this fact.
Once again, the court is not ruling on marriage be it same sex, or opposite sex.
They are ruling on the merits of the fourteenth amendment.
The 14th did not define marriage, it just said our laws and the rights and privileges that people enjoy should be color blind. Men and women get married, have children and the color of their skin has nothing to do.
What the court said in Loving is that getting married is the right of every citizen, regardless of race. Had nothing to do with reproduction. Reproduction is not required in marriage, and marriage is not required for reproduction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
However, if it were impossible for any black man or any white woman to conceive a child together, if differences in skin color made it impossible to create a child together, then maybe Loving would have been ruled on differently.
Well, then they'd belong to different species! And you're quite right, if two modern humanoid species unable to reproduce with each other were sharing the earth, then a *lot* of things would look quite different! (SF authors have a long history of writing about more than one sentient species sharing the same culture/planet...)
But we are talking about current reality here...
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.
