BREAKING: Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage Case

[Procrustes Stretched]

They either cave like Roe v Wade or declare it's a state matter to decide. If they say relationships are protected or homosexuals are race or that they are practising a form of religion then that opens the flood gate for every other atypical legalized union(s).

English please!!

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?

 

[hjmick]

That this topic is still an issue in this country in this day and age, well, it's kind of embarrassing.



Though it is not nearly as embarrassing as those who seem to think it is the end all be all of political discussion...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That this topic is still an issue in this country in this day and age, well, it's kind of embarrassing.



Though it is not nearly as embarrassing as those who seem to think it is the end all be all of political discussion...

It is historic.
but the discussion of Paris Hilton is the end all...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Clearly the Court intends to settle the issue comprehensively.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Let's hope they rule that marriage is only between a man and woman. It's the way marriage was meant to be.

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?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Clearly the Court intends to settle the issue comprehensively.

Kennedy wants to. He fancies himself a legend.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'The question of animus will be prominent – perhaps pivotal – in this final phase of marriage litigation. So far, the arguments made by plaintiffs have been remarkably sterile, emphasizing formal equal protection and due process arguments and failing to say much about how the mini-DOMAs actually came into being. But such a picture is incomplete. To fully consider the constitutionality of the remaining anti-marriage laws, we must lift up these proverbial rocks to see what was festering underneath them.

An inquiry about animus does not require that we “indict” citizens who voted for a law, or that we probe their psyches or individual motives. It simply takes seriously the principle that every law is proposed and approved for some purpose (sometimes more than one), and it is a judicial task to identify and assess the purpose(s). When evidence of gratuitous or irrational intent to harm a group outweighs a law’s purported legitimate justifications, the law betrays an improper purpose and violates equal protection. As the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed in Hunter v. Underwood, the same law can be valid or not under the Equal Protection Clause depending on whether it was “motivated by a desire to discriminate.”

The Court has demonstrated time again – in Underwood, as well as cases like Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, and Romer v. Evans – that in a purpose inquiry, history, circumstances, and objective evidence (both direct and inferential) about the enactors’ intent all matter. A majority of states enacted constitutional mini-DOMAs in a brief fourteen-year window, and so we can consider them as a collective phenomenon. Understanding their purpose requires that we examine the reasons legislators and proponents said they were necessary, the circumstances under which they were enacted, and the lack of coherence between what was said then and how states defend them now.'

Symposium Let s be clear the marriage bans are about animus SCOTUSblog

 

[Seawytch]

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?

They can pussy out on question 1 if they strike down the rest of DOMA a and make 2. a reality.

just sayin'

I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out

The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

They can pussy out on question 1 if they strike down the rest of DOMA a and make 2. a reality.

just sayin'

I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out

The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

'The question of animus will be prominent – perhaps pivotal – in this final phase of marriage litigation. So far, the arguments made by plaintiffs have been remarkably sterile, emphasizing formal equal protection and due process arguments and failing to say much about how the mini-DOMAs actually came into being. But such a picture is incomplete. To fully consider the constitutionality of the remaining anti-marriage laws, we must lift up these proverbial rocks to see what was festering underneath them.

An inquiry about animus does not require that we “indict” citizens who voted for a law, or that we probe their psyches or individual motives. It simply takes seriously the principle that every law is proposed and approved for some purpose (sometimes more than one), and it is a judicial task to identify and assess the purpose(s). When evidence of gratuitous or irrational intent to harm a group outweighs a law’s purported legitimate justifications, the law betrays an improper purpose and violates equal protection. As the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed in Hunter v. Underwood, the same law can be valid or not under the Equal Protection Clause depending on whether it was “motivated by a desire to discriminate.”

The Court has demonstrated time again – in Underwood, as well as cases like Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, and Romer v. Evans – that in a purpose inquiry, history, circumstances, and objective evidence (both direct and inferential) about the enactors’ intent all matter. A majority of states enacted constitutional mini-DOMAs in a brief fourteen-year window, and so we can consider them as a collective phenomenon. Understanding their purpose requires that we examine the reasons legislators and proponents said they were necessary, the circumstances under which they were enacted, and the lack of coherence between what was said then and how states defend them now.'

Symposium Let s be clear the marriage bans are about animus SCOTUSblog

The California same sex case highlighted just this point. When proponents of Prop 8 were asked to defend their position... whooee!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I can't imagine they'll overturn rulings in all of these states at this point.
Should have had this in front of the SCOTUS five years ago.

 

[Judicial review]

I could see the justices showing their balls here. If you consider the ages of the supreme court justices I could see them getting bold and overruling the states that allowed gay marriage. These justices grew up knowing marriage is between man and woman and with no real science behind gays supporting why they are the way they are other than an abnormal choice it just makes in easier to confirm it.

We are about to see how liberal these justices are or how old they are. The decision to uphold Obamacare as a tax makes be second guess them as liberal, but their true colors will show in this case. Perhaps another reason to vote against gay marriage to show constitutional balance.

 

[Judicial review]

If they vote against; expects tons of psychologists schedules to fill up very quickly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS will either (1) go for broke and sanction marriage equality nationally, or (2) leave it the way its right now, for legislatures and courts to work out.

There will be no possibility of turning it all over to what it once was.

 

[Steinlight]

Got the alert on my phone from NY Times. It's going down!

Summary of the life of the OP.

 

[Politico]

That this topic is still an issue in this country in this day and age, well, it's kind of embarrassing.



Though it is not nearly as embarrassing as those who seem to think it is the end all be all of political discussion...

It is historic.
but the discussion of Paris Hilton is the end all...

Paris is so 2010. It is all about Kardashians now.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

They can pussy out on question 1 if they strike down the rest of DOMA a and make 2. a reality.

just sayin'

I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out

The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!

I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

They can pussy out on question 1 if they strike down the rest of DOMA a and make 2. a reality.

just sayin'

I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out

The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.

Possible but unlikely IMO.

Roberts already has the black mark of Citizens United on his record and won't want another. So I don't see him supporting the partisan justices who will be ignoring "original intent" and equal protection in order to uphold bans on gay marriages. The decision is going to be either 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of gay marriage with only Scalia and Thomas violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution. They might be joined by Alito but that is the only swing vote I see on this issue.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

They can pussy out on question 1 if they strike down the rest of DOMA a and make 2. a reality.

just sayin'

I don't think Justices deciding constitutional issues in ways you would disagree with is pussying out

The SCOTUS a has consistently pussied out on ruling on marriage equality. I'm saying they can again...if they get rid of DOMA.

legal arguments? why fall into ideological arguments and insults that only further divisiveness?

What are you talking about? The SCOTUS has been pussying out on gay marriage. You cannot deny that fact. They have intentionally NOT been ruling on this issue and sending it back to the lower courts. They have been big fat PUSSIES!

I say fine...if they don't want to rule on marriage equality for the whole country, don't. All they would have to do to shut up all the gays is to strike down the rest of DOMA. If Alabama doesn't want to marry gays, fine don't...BUT a civil marriage performed in CA should be recognized in AL.

The SCOTUS had no option but to take this up because the Federal courts were not ruling consistently. In essence they are between a rock and a hard place of their own making by "pussying out" on their DOMA ruling. But this is where the math comes into play. Only Thomas and Scalia are homophobic bigots who can be counted on to rule against gay marriage. Roberts has to choose between his politics and the track record of "his" supreme court. He has already sullied it with the egregious Citizens United decision and probably can't wait for another case to correct it. I just don't see him repeating that mistake by banning gay marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

By waiting for the states on this issue, the courts have the benefit of ten years of evidence that gay marriage is not, in fact, the end of the world and society is accepting it.

It will be hard for the state to prove any damages from gay marriage

The court realizes it's place in history and how they will be looked upon if they abolish gay marriage. I expect a 7-2 verdict for gay marriage with Scalia and Thomas remaining in the stone age