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

As Clarence Thomas Pens A Defeat, The Supreme Court May Have Already Showed Us How They Will Vote On Gay Marriage

 

As noted in PP's article....


the SCOTUS, in NOT allowing Roy Moore to block marriage licenes in Alabama....


may have tipped their hand on what they'll do in June.

 

I doubt it will up a strict up or down decision, but even if it is for gay marriage, then it is just getting started like Roe v. Wade. What will come next would be conservatives pushing to qualify or eliminate marital benefits, like attaching the requirement that one have a child or two children or something to receive them.

 

That wouldn't pass Constitutional scrutiny - marriage has been declared a fundamental right multiple times - even when the possibility of having children doesn't exist (Turner V Safely). And if SCOTUS declare SSM a Constitutionally-protected right under the 14th Amendment, it would definitely fail judicial scrutiny almost instantly.

The subsequent legal fight will be over the right of public officiants and businesses to refuse same-sex couples. It's already begun in states where the bans have been struck down by federal court rulings. Gay couples marrying will be here to stay, if the decision goes SSM advocates way, as now seems extremely likely.

 

That'd be impossible to pull off.....since they'd have to exclude a lot of heterosexual couples who were infertile.....then there are homosexual couples with adopted children, then try to define it to "only heterosexual couples with adopted children or biological children".....then you'd have lesbian couples with biological children and they'd have to re-define it again....

it'd be a political disaster....just to pander to a bunch of homophobes who are in the minority of American opinion.

 

They have never not stepped into a political disaster to pander before, so I doubt you will see them not pander in the future. Mark my words--you are wrong on this and I am right. In 5 years, you will see.

 

Guess again. The Constitution has no relevance to the assignment of benefits. the SS death benefit will go from surviving spouse to surviving child, all the government grants geared at married people will go to be geared at married parents, etc.

 

Yes well we all know that there is nothing about benefits or marriage for that matter in the constitution. However, equal protection under the law IS in the constitution. Due process is in the constitution. When the government treats one group in a certain way, it must treat the other group, that is essentially the same , in the same way . And this child requirement will never fly, and if they think that it would thwart gay marriage they had better think again. Gay folks do have children.

 

They have already said that they will decide if same sex marriage is a right under the 14th amendment. They have sent multiple signals- the most recent being the refusal to grant a stay to Alabama -that they will in fact rule for marriage equality. People need to get over it and move on. There does not have to be a winner and a loser. No one but gays are effected by same sex marriage. Everyone else will still have their precious freedoms, unless they think that freedom means telling other what they can and can not have.

 

But they couldn't pull it off.....to base benefits on children would not work.

If they excluded gay couples who have adopted children...they'd have to excluse straight couples with adopted children....or it'd violate the 14th Amendment. But if they do that, that's a political disaster.

And again, what of lesbian couples, where the children are biological (if from a sperm donor)? They can't say "Okay, couples with children...but it can't be a sperm donor"....again, you hit heterosexual couples who used IVF.

There's no "exclusion" they can come up with that won't hit straight couples too....and thus see them lose TONS of support, even among some conservative voters.

 

I think that you might need to pin down exactly what benefits were talking about because none of this is making any sense right now. Some benefits are already ties to children like the earned income tax credit which is available to anyone who has a child-married or single, gay or straight. What exactly are we talking about here?

 

Here we go again. They keep telling these lies as though the court and the rest of us were stupid. What is stupid is that they think that they can get away with this. If they actually believe that this equine excrement supports an argument against same sex marriage, it is even more ridiculous. I smell desperation as we get closer to a Supreme Court Decision the outcome of which is becoming increasingly obvious..

 

It's obvious that homophobic social conservative/Religious Right groups are in a panic.

They saw how the USSC refused to support Roy Moore down in Alabama and that was a BIG hint as to how they'll decide on the gay marriage bans in June.....and so they're firing up all the anti-gay bigotry "studies" they can to try to sway public opinion....

problem is, public opinino already goes against them and isn't going to change back.

 

Interesting article on the upcoming SCOTUS decision:

This week’s actions at the Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in Alabama along with Justice Ginsburg’s comments this week about the country being ready for gay marriage may have made the ultimate outcome of the marriage equality issue in the Supreme Court more obvious, but there are still uncertainties. The uncertainty just isn’t about the outcome — but other factors.

Here’s that list of uncertainties: http://www.salon.com/2015/02/13/sco...ery_3_surprises_awaiting_its_upcoming_ruling/

Most interesting is the analysis of Roberts and Kennedy

 

Sounds like fear and desperation. I can't wait to hear what he and certain others have to say on the morning after the ruling stating that same sex marriage is a right!!

 

No marr5iage is a right and all they are doing is expressing their opinions as a fact.

If the Constitution is Amended to reflect that, then, and ONLY then will I consider marriage a right.

Until then the government needs to stay out. Marriage is of no concern to the government.

The proper decision should be to render the issue to state's rights and not shove this idiocy down people's throats.

 

States are government. I agree government should be out of it. That includes state local and federal.

But the states think it's their right to impose this upon the people.

 

The constitution is not an enumeration of rights. Everything is a right unless specifically prohibited, and that prohibition is constitutional.

Prohibiting same sex couples from the righting marriage violates the 5th and 14th amendments.

 

Yes, but basic human rights are not a political issue.

 

It's funny if you accuse the homophobes of wanting to treat gays as "second class citizens" they deny it.....but then freely call for gays to not be allowed to marry or even adopt....

in other words "partial rights"...as blacks had under Apartheid South Africa.

 

Please, all major groups in America think that That's what's causing the infighting in America on a huge continental scale.

To which I emphatically say read between the three fingers.

AND REMEMBER, America is land of the FREE, home of the brave, with LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

To which I must now go and brush my teeth for ten hours straight....

 

What is a basic human right?

 

It doesn't matter. It is a pointless exercise in academia. You could just as well ask, what is a civil right? What is a fundamental right? You could ask where do rights come from? Man? God? The Constitution? All pointless. The only question that maters is the question before the Supreme Court of the United States. That question is: What is the justification for government denying the right to marriage to gays while granting it to straight people? It's a sticky one isn't it?

Oh, another pointless question often asked is: Is marriage itself a right. The fact is that it is treated as a right in the case of heterosexuals. Not always with homosexuals. They do no enjoy equal protection under the law. Yes it is that simple

 

Those that are constitutionally protected regardless of public opinion or legislation to the contrary.

 

Its time to listen up, folks http://youtu.be/PiMvpUtE5y4?t=1s