The "Final Decision" out of the US Supreme Court...could come this Fall-

Even Jennifer Roback-Morse from the Ruth Institute (a major NOM affiliate) thinks it will be a done deal by next year.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/ma...executives-believe-marriage-equality-imminent

"We're here, in 2014, talking about the redefinition of marriage. I'm going to go on the record here, and forecast, that by this time next year, it'll be over, as a legal matter," Morse continues. "There will be same-sex, genderless marriage in every state in the union."

I'm not sure how Brian Brown feels about her spreading that message while he's still trying to pry coppers from the pockets of the few beleaguered followers he has left?

 

You nailed something there that many of those antipathetic to gay rights won't get.....that they're being suckered for CASH by groups like NOM.

Here's a NOM affiliate ADMITTING that what they're "fighting against"...is a lost cause. Yet NOM is still raking in cash from gullible dupes who think "My $25 donation will stop them qwairs from gettin' married!"

And when NOM fails......sorry...no refunds. They cash out with big "golden parachute" retirement packages, all paid for by the donors.

 

One need only review the wording of the clause to see that you're mistaken:

Nothing in there requiring full faith and credit to be provided to "private acts" or "natural rights". Full faith and credit very much depends upon state sanction and the records created thereby, contrary to your original assertion.

 

Not without striking DOMA's Section 2, which is still in force.

 

Not exactly. The clause gives Congress the power to determine the effect:

Now, I'll be happy to agree that passing a law that gives no effect at all to the record of a same-sex marriage makes a mockery of the clause, but that doesn't mean full faith and credit has been 'suspended' - it's very much intact otherwise.

 

Not sure that I'm clear on what you're asking. I'm going to assume that by "overturning the cases before it" you mean reversing the judgments of the appeals courts that had upheld the lower courts' overturning of the marriage bans; in other words, if the Supreme Court restored those bans on same-sex marriage.

It's intriguing in the matter of Prop 8. I'm assuming the judgment of the district court that overturned Prop 8 would stand, as it was a separate case. Since we're talking about laws of individual states, the Court's judgment would be upholding those individual laws, and we can reasonably assume that this in effect settles the question of any other state bans that remain intact. Since Prop 8 was already overturned and the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits of the appeal, it would not be directly affected.

I'm not sure about a new lawsuit trying to reinstate Prop 8; not unless California gets a new Attorney General or Governor willing to pursue it. But there would be nothing really to stop California or any of the states that recognize same-sex marriages from enacting new bans. In fact, I think that's exactly what we would see - a new round of attempts to re-ban recognition of same-sex marriages in those states, with little recourse for same-sex couples if they were to succeed. Might be a wrinkle here though if they try to make the ban retroactive, in order to de-recognize marriages that previously enjoyed recognition. It would be a legal quagmire, for sure.

 

Perriquine, one thing that might effect that is.....new polling showing a majority now support gay marriage rights (55% Gallup).

 

If polls mattered, then legislators would be acting very differently. As for the Courts, they interpret the law, not polling numbers. 55% support by itself is nowhere near enough to make elected officials change positions, though they might alter the tone of their rhetoric some.