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.
Not making a prediction but there is a third option not indicated in the poll for this thread.
"The court could hold that it is unconstitutional to deny LGBT couples all the rights and privileges of marriage without requiring states to allow them to marry," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told me.
A ruling like that would likely compel states to pass laws allowing "civil unions" for gays — as Vermont did in 2000, when it granted gay couples the benefits of marriage without calling their union marriage.
Okay, say it is a choice. You or no one else have the right to oppress people from what they want to do with their lives (Also known as mind your damn business). No one's committing a crime by getting married.
they dont deserve marriage for sick deviant behavior.
they dont deserve marriage for sick deviant behavior.
Hmmm, I was married once. I never had to get myself certified as "deserving" marriage, based on anyone's opinion of my previous behavior. Have things changed in the past 40 years?
Not making a prediction but there is a third option not indicated in the poll for this thread.
"The court could hold that it is unconstitutional to deny LGBT couples all the rights and privileges of marriage without requiring states to allow them to marry," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told me.
A ruling like that would likely compel states to pass laws allowing "civil unions" for gays — as Vermont did in 2000, when it granted gay couples the benefits of marriage without calling their union marriage.
The only problem with that idea is the supreme court has only 2 questions before it.
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Neither question says anything about civil unions. They specifically say marriage.
I've thought for some time that the SCOTUS will make a split ruling. I think they'll rule that:
1. States do NOT have to marry same sex couples- it will be left to their own state legislatures, courts, etc. to decide that. However it will be specified that legislation directly banning SSM is unconstitutional... ensuring that this will be slowly worked out through each state court system except perhaps Mississippi which could hold out forever.
2. States however DO have to recognize any and all legal marriages performed by other states.
So the net effect will be that the haters can still hate in their own states. They can do all the political posturing they like as state courts one by one rule in favor of same sex marriage (except for Mississippi... though perhaps they'll allow first cousin marriage?). Meanwhile, gay people will be free to take a drive across the state line and get married as they like. Now don't get me wrong- that will be BULL****- gay people will still be treated as second class citizens in that respect. But that's by design- as it will provide fodder for lawsuits into perpetuity... or until each state allows same sex marriage (except perhaps Mississippi, where the gay couple must also be siblings?).
This way the SCOTUS will attempt to avoid the outcome of Roe v. Wade where the decision is fought over for decades to come. Forcing state courts to settle the matter one by one should make the whole issue less contentious in the long run... or at least I think that'll be the plan.
What do ya'll think?
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.