Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Appeals From 5 States

Via wiki:

Proposition 8 consisted of two sections. Its full text was:

Section I. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

If the SCOTUS rules marriage as a state's rights issue, then Prop 8 as a State Constitutional change will override the Federal 9th Circuit ruling. The only entity that will have a say in it is the California Legislature and it's citizens, not judges at the Federal level.

 

SCOTUS did not rule one way or the other on the merits on the Prop 8 case. They said the plaintiffs lacked the Standing to have brought the appeal in the first place, instructed the Appeals Court to dismiss the appeal based on that reason, and was otherwise silent. Legally, it's as though the appeal never existed in the first place, and the original trial Court's decision is binding, unless and until a party with Standing files another appeal. I do not know if there is a time limit on Appeal's I would expect there is, otherwise if CA elects a rabid Evangelical in 20 years, he might be able to get 20 years of precedent overturned. (That assumes that SCOTUS isn't going to do anything in the next 20 years, which is foolish, and thus is only a hypothetical example.)

 

Who cares whether the SCOTUS ruled on it earlier or not? If SCOTUS makes marriage a State's Rights issue, then rulings by Federal Circuit judges on State law and constitutional changes will necessarily be voided. The federal rulings will then have no standing.

 

Equality? You don't believe in equality. You only believe in equality insofar as it's beneficial to your agenda.

And you can be satisfied... too bad you're wrong.

 

Are you daft? The 9th Circuit made NO RULING. They, at the direction of the Supreme Court, dismissed the Appeal based on lack of standing. The District Court's ruling stands, unappealed, (possibly) unappealable, and Stands. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Court, there was no Appeal, it went into effect, end of story. SCOTUS said nothing on the merits, either way. They basically said, in street language, "You don't have the right to be in this Court about this case so go away." Nothing more, and nothing less.

If you want to infer something from that, you no nothing of legal procedure whatsoever. Legally, the Prop 8 Cases brief visit in front of the Supreme Court means NOTHING. Except that the lower Court's ruling stands as though it were never appealed in the first place. Which, legally, it wasn't.

 

Marriage hasn't been a states rights issue since Loving. Or Turner. There's so much Supreme Court intervention in marriage this argument really has absolutely no credibility. This is a question the United States must answer... states simply cannot be trusted to secure basic equality and fairness on this. States will continue to define the vast majority of marriage - but if you arbitrarily withhold it to certain groups of people for no good reason, that's where the system of checks and balances must kick in in order to prevent tyranny of the majority in a state.

 

I'm not sure how, or why, SCOTUS would rule that marriage is solely a state's rights issue. To do so would fly in the face of a number of marriage specific rulings that the Court has recently handed down in the past 50 or so years. The central issue in the same-sex marriage cases has not been whether the state has the right to regulate marriage (it does), but rather if the regulations enacted run afoul of the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. At least 3 Circuit Court of Appeals in 5 cases have held that same-sex marriage bans violate the US Constitution. And so far the SCOTUS has declined to step into the issue one way or another.

 

Any power not invested in the Federal Government by the Constitution is a right left to the states. If SCOTUS wants to define marriage they can request Congress do so. However, if they make a ruling that marriage is a state rights issue, which won't change the Constitution, then the Federal Government will have no say in what each state supports.

You can argue about was is right or wrong elsewhere. I made a simple point that if SCOTUS took the action to make marriage a States Right issue, then the Federal Government would have no say in marriage.

 

Very well said.

No one is disputing that states don't have the right to define what's IN marriage within their respective states. But if it not applied equally to its citizens, it's certainly a matter for the Supreme Court. Hopefully when there is a disagreement amongst the circuit courts, they will take it and finish the job.

 

If what you were saying were true, both Loving V Virginia and Turner V Safely would be incorrect.

The US Supreme Court has addressed and ruled on marriage some 20 times over the years. It has the authority to examine if state laws are compliant with equal protection and due process. Marriage is not exempt from that scrutiny.

 

Which is why it is being opined that they are looking for a States Rights case to make a ruling upon.

 

I sincerely doubt that. Kennedy has authored almost every single gay rights and same-sex marriage decision in the history of the court. It's rather naive to think he wouldn't be tempted to complete what many will regard as his his life's work on civil rights. Plus, expanding same-sex marriage and giving thousands that right by denying cert, just so their marriages can be annulled when the conservative wing has had the chance to put together a strong states-right argument, really is inconceivable... there's absolutely no way they would do that.

This is a step-by-step approach that will inevitably lead to a sweeping ruling, albeit a less shocking one, because it will already be legal in most states because of the circuit rulings.

 

What they have done, is given an even firmer signal to conservative federal district courts and states, that they don't have a lot more time to pepare their local governments and constituants emotionally and bureaucratically for this change. two years or maybe at the high end five years, but not long. This court seeks to be a patient court, but it is sending a distinct signal that certain legal arguments that proponents of same sex bans are likely to make, are of very little interest to them. They see the general direction these appellate decisions are heading and they just don't care to entertain those opposing opinions. The majority of states in this union will have same sex marriage licenses issued in less than one year. The federal courts will not readily tolerate scenarios where Mississippi, Arkansas, etc effectively anull the bonefide marriage contracts that the majority of states are issuing for long. While the justices are reluctant to move too fast and too harshly and cause a huge backlash, they are watching a building legal concensus develop, and each signal this court sends is positive towards that concensus.

 

No it wouldn't. Loving was a case of denying Constitutional rights based on race with marriage as the proponent for denying that Constitutional right. Safley overturned a warden and penal system's denial of marriage to inmates citing that their 5th and 14th Amendment due process would be abridged.

Neither defined marriage.

 

I never got the issue many nations have Same Sex Marriage now including Britain who is hardly a liberal state in many ways and the country did not implode. It will only take a few more lower district courts to declare bans unconstitutional and the how of cards falls, don't people get it the 14th Amendment is clear you cannot have one right for this group and deny equal access to a right to this other group. Interracial Marriage was shot down since they said you can't allow two people of the same race to marry and not a black/white couple its the same thing.

So there are two options eliminate state recognized marriage or allow it to anyone who is of legal age regardless of pairing that is what the literal reading of the Equal Protection Clause says.

I hope the bans and laws against Gay Marriage gets blown out of the water as soon as possible.

 

Not sure why you think striking down laws denying marriage based on a couple's gender/sexuality "defines" marriage... All the courts are saying is that it's not an acceptable reason to deny the hundreds of rights marriage grants. That's not defining it, it's striking down a law that defines it, adopted in fairly recent times, that denies it for an invalid reason.

 

Gay marriage has been legal in New York State for a few years now.

the world didn't collapse.

 

Personally I could care less about this issue. Homosexuials should be able to have just about all the same legal rights as any other couple. This should not be pushed through in the courts though. The people then their state representatives should pass laws to this effect NOT courts deciding. One way or the other though it will be the law in all of the land.

 

Except it's not about the "rights marriage grants". Many states have enacted civil unions that give those same rights to same sex couples, and still have same-sex marriage bans. The courts have overturned those, so it's not about equality, it's about how marriage is defined.

 

Except 'civil unions' haven't,http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf and if they had succeeded, we'd be drinking out the the 'coloreds' water fountain and straights would tell us not to complain if its the same water source. Separate but equal - just isn't. I insist that my partner and I stand in the same line, for the same form and the exact same legal contract.

 

It really breaks my heart to see all these gays get married, against my God's wishes. God will punish America for America's wicked betrayal of His principles.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh yea, gay sex is gross too. Icky icky yuck yuck

 

These quotes from this book I read that is 2000-4000 years old prove my point. Gay marriage is a dangerous abomination, meant to destroy the family and bring down America.

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (Read More...)

Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Romans 1:24-27 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (Read More...)

Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Read More...)

Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matthew 6:9-13 - After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Read More...)

Isaiah 40:31 - But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew [their] strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; [and] they shall walk, and not faint.

1 Samuel 18:1-30 - And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. (Read More...)

James 4:12 - There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

1 Corinthians 6:9 - Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Romans 1:26-27 - For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (Read More...)

Matthew 19:4-6 - And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, (Read More...)

Malachi 2:15 - And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.

Genesis 19:1-13 - And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; (Read More...)

Genesis 2:18 - And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

1 Corinthians 6:11 - And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

2 Samuel 1:1-27 - Now it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, and David had abode two days in Ziklag; (Read More...)

1 Samuel 19:1-24 - And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should kill David. (Read More...)

Romans 1:1-32 - Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Read More...)

Genesis 3:1-24 - Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Read More...)

 

The problem with that is, that the courts have no authority to create a "separate but equal" institution. The only institution granting the hundreds of rights we're talking about in the states where bans have been struck down, is marriage. The courts therefore only have the power to remove the discrimination in marriage against same-sex couples.

 

What does water fountains have to do with anything? Are there heterosexual and homosexual water fountains now?

The paper is describing some things that aren't true, and my point was the courts are overriding states that have civil unions, not whether other states or the federal government recognize them. It's these same states that are brought to court, not other states or the Federal government.

 

I think straight sex is mostly icky icky yuck yuck, but I have always managed to attend their marriages with grace and good humor. that is chiefly because the wedding isn't an orgy and the ceremony celebrates a life long love and union. if you tell me signs and symptoms of your God's wrath I'll watch for them, and email you in time for you to fly to Oman.