By June....one way or the other? Do we all agree?

With the announcement the other day that the US Supreme Court will hear the Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan petitions in April....

and by June, there'll be no more "punting"....they WILL either uphold the state bans or they will overturn the state bans and de facto make same-sex marriage legal nation-wide?

Everybody agree with that basic premise?

 

I think this ruling will be limited, giving further wiggle room for debate. I for one hope the Nation wakes up, and puts an end to this immorality.

 

What "immorality" are you referring to?


BTW, "wiggle room" means they have to come back at it YET AGAIN in 2016. Where as if they end it now, in 2015, they can say "That's it...it's finished....let's move on."

I don't expect another "punt" so that State bans will stand up to Lower Courts saying "The USSC may have overturned Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan....but Utah can still keep theirs."

 

Immorality of gay marriage. I think they wont make a decision until the next President, because if they go against gay marriage they make it a key issue in 2016, if they rule against it they could potential lower turn out by the right. Punting is the only politically intelligent thing to do.

 

The nation is indeed waking up. That's why nearly 60 % ( much higher among young people ) approve of marriage equality. What does your sense of morality have to do with the constitution and the concept of equal protection under the law?

 

Nothing, I was just stating my opinion on the subject.

Yes majority has been brain washed into accepting these preverse behaviors, but we are a country that is not swayed by popularity of ideas. That is why we have checks and balances, so:

The constitution does protect states rights, and personal rights. its up to the courts to make a decision whether the second is being infringed upon unfairly.

 

The constitution provides for states rights to the extent that the exercising of those rights does not violate individual rights as provided for in the bill of rights and the 14th amendment. The individual rights are the rights of all individuals including unpopular minorities. The courts are indeed finding that the rights of gays are being violated.

 

Yes that is what I just said, its percieved states rights vs percieved individual rights.
Does the state have a right to define and oversee marriage?
What rights to they have to define and oversee marriage?
What personal rights are garaunteed by constitution that protects right for marriage?
Does Personal rights of marriage trump religious rights to perform the ceremony?
If 2 males or 2 females can get married, should 1 male be able to marry 5 Females or visa versa? Obviously the state is well within its right (as we have seen) to ban poligamy. If Court allows people to enter into any kind of marriage union, then Polygamist have good case too. My point is its not so simple as state rights vs Personal rights.

 

If they were going to punt, they would have done it by now by remanding the cases back to the 6th circuit for further consideration, possibly by the full court. As it is now, I don't see how they can do anything besides an up or down vote on this. In addition, they have given many indications that they will not stand in the way of marriage equality.

One such indication was the fact that they turned away appeals from 5 other states from the 4th 7th and 10th circuits allowing their rulings in favor of marriage equality to stand. In several other cases they refused to issue emergency stays, in one case by a 7-2 vote

We know that we have 4 solid progressive votes and I have good reason to believe that Justice Kennedy, and possibly Roberts will join them in doing the right thing.

 

1. By whose morality is gay marriage "immoral"?

2. You said the same thing twice. If they rule for overturning the bans....what reaction do you expect?

If they rule against overturning the bans (the bans are re-instated)....what reaction do you expect?

 

Kennedy, if not Roberts too ...maybe even Alito....will consider their "place in history".

If they uphold the bans today (2015), they know from the polling and the trend-lines (even among Republicans) that some future USSC, in 10 years or so, will overturn the bans and they'll look like the "Plessy v. Ferguson" Court.

Plus they'd know the chaos they'd cause....every state that had a ban, but where marriages were performed when the lower court overturned the ban....would have 100s of marriages of their citizens that would now be "null and void"....months or even a year or more after the marriage had been approved.

Plus, plus, politically it's better for the GOP if the bans are overturned and Republicans can tell their anti-gay rights voters "It's a done deal...by the time we replaced Kennedy (Roberts, Alito) ...DECADES will have passed and it will be too 'accepted'....let's just move on."

Which might not placate the bigots....but it lets the GOP as a national party stop looking like it's a Party that supports homophobia.

 

1. I already mentioned that I was talking about my opinion on the subject, not why or why not the supreme court should rule on it a certain way.

If they rule against the States, and pro gay marriage I expect the Evangelicals to be pretty disenfranchised, and might not come out in numbers to elect a Republican. Something the right leaning Supreme court would not like, especially with probable nominations of justices for the next President.

If they Rule for the States, if will enrage the Pro Gay Left and give them ammunition to use against the right, put that together with the 60% statestics you mentioned and you almost give the Presidency to the Democrates. Again something the right leaning Supreme court would not want to do.

So my opinion is that they will punt, and come back to it after next President is sworn in.

 

The rest of this is just all red herring and slippery slope logical fallacy stuff. The issue on the table is equality between same sex couples with what opposite sex couples now enjoy under the law. If anybody wants 5 wives they should petition their state lawmaker to propose legislation and failing that , take it to court and make their case. It's an entirely different matter with different issues and different implications for society.

In each case where a group claims that they are being deprived of a right, the state must establish that there is-at minimum-a rational basis for doing so, and in some cases show a compelling government interest. These are legal terms used by the courts. In the case of gay marriage, the states have generally failed miserably in establishing even a rational basis for discrimination against gays. I'm not so sure that they would have the same difficulty if their polygamy laws were challenged.

When the SCOTUS rules on same sex marriage, they will not be opening the flood gates for anybody to marry anybody. They will be establishing the right of two same sex people to marry. So, do you have an argument against gay marriage that does not involve manufactured concerns and fears? Please try to formulate that argument without reference to morality or religion. It is a civil/legal issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

Do you have any idea what a "punt" would look like? I don't. Not sure if they can avoid a definitive ruling. That is an interesting analysis though. I'm not sure that voters would punish Republican candidates for what SCOTUS does, but its a nice thought. Maybe the RNC is on the phone with Roberts right now.

 

Most of the nation has gay friends, relatives, etc. It's just that in the last two decades, gays have been more willing to come out of hiding. This is why gay marriage is so popular, because most of us aren't (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and don't think we should discriminate against our friends and relatives. I find your mindset "immoral."

 

Why do you think its different for two people to marry and 4 people to marry? Can you explain how the two are different? Are you saying Marriage can only be between 2 individuals? If your saying that, how is it different then saying 2 individuals of different genders? Please explain.

 

They would not punish, but absence would be a form of punishment. I think a Punt would look something like ruling on technicallities and sending it back to lower courts. Rather then taking on the main issue of state rights vs individual rights and whether one infringes on the other. Taking into account religious freedoms of institutions that perform the majority of marriage cerimonies.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, you have your opinion and I have mine.

 

It's different because , well it is different. Two people marrying are different than 4 people marrying. And yes, two people of the same sex marrying is "different" than two people of the opposite sex marrying. HOWEVER most people have the ability to marry ONE other person and gays only want that same ability, the same right that others already have., No one currently has the right to marry more than one person and therefor it may be more difficult for them to make an argument for equal protection under the law, although they are welcome to try.

Having said that, let me be clear. I am not taking a position for or against plural marriage. In fact I have "been there -done that" I'm am just saying -again-that it is a separate issue with separate implication for society and the concept of marriage. I am decidedly weary of those who keep throwing all sorts of other stuff into the mix in order to derail the conversation about marriage equality. I find that it's almost always a diversion to obscure the fact that they do not have an actual argument against gay marriage that makes sense. Do you?

 

It's going to be an interesting spring!

 

I understand what your saying, I am of the mindset that this just opens up pandoras box.

 

We'll, we've had same sex marriage in some places for over ten years and I don't know that there has been any unintended consequences. I will acknowledge that, as a result of marriage equality, others advocating " alternative sexual lifestyles" may be encourage and embolden. Let them go for it. It's is not, however, a reason to deny gay's the right to marry. It would be like saying that we can't give the vote to blacks because women will want it too, and Christ, the next thing you know, a black or a woman will want to hold public office. So, I'm still waiting to hear what your argument is against same sex marriage-free of logical fallacies.

 

Well aside what you mentioned, I would say main issue is that the gay movement has become emboldend. What I mean is this, I am actually not against people doing as they please in their bedrooms,as long as they are of consenting age etc etc. But I am against the in your face attitude of the gay movement, from the outlandish "Pride" Parades, to Gay romantic scenes on national tv, Gay Sex in movies, and shows. I do not want my children to witness this. I would go further and say the Gay movement has pushed the envelope of what is acceptable for both orientation to the limits. Since Gays for one reason or another seem to be in influential positions of Popular culture. That is my position for the most part.

 

What's the big deal, let the states decide. Then all the gays can live in California , Massachusetts , and New Jersey . And they can hav a gay old time leaving the normal people alone, yet living their happy ang gay lifestyle. Would be great for everyone involved.

 

No, it would be great for bigots who think they own what they don't. I have no intention of abandoning my career, home, family, and friends just so people with your attitude problem won't have to share my state, where I was born, raised, and have lived my whole life.

Oh, and don't bother responding, because I won't be reading any more of your posts.

 

Pretty hard to imagine that they'll do anything other than overturning the bans, especially after they dismissed seven cases in October, and have refused all efforts by the affected states to reverse course, bringing legal marriage for same-sex couples to what is now a majority of the states. I suppose they could still remand the case back to the 6th Circuit, but I'm doubting it more and more - seems like they would have already done that if it was going to be the course of action.

As usual, my state will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.