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

Yesterday, John Roberts allowed a stay on the Virginia decision. A seeming "victory" for opponents of gay marriage (almost their only one in a year).....it keeps VA from having to overtun its ban while the Supreme Court waits for more lower court ruliings to come in for a decision next months or before the session ends.

Obviously, Roberts is looking for lots of other cases on which to build support for whatever decision the Court makes so that it can point to the lower court rulings for "back-up".

But it also means that in allowing the stay, that the time for more delays from the USSC ...is over. There will be little way to "nuance" a Windsor decision on the over-ruling of the Virginia ban.

The US Supreme Court WILL have to weigh in on the Constitutionality of gay marriage bans....one way or the other.

 

I think it's being approached the wrong way. The real problem is doma, once over turned there will be no issue. No states will have to deal with bans, no 10th amendment argument, it's win win. But I don't think anybody else sees it that way.

 

I believe the right should stop wasting the taxpayers money on frivolity. We already know they can't muster up enough Faith, to faithfully execute a federal Doctrine and State laws regarding the concept of employment at will.

It really is that simple when we have faith in our Founding Fathers and the most excellent job they did at the Convention.

 

SCOTUS should simply deem those choosing a homosexual lifestyle as a different race/gender/species and they will immediately fall under the Constitution.

All the hoopla can end, just create a new species and be done with it. Of course there is no test to confirm that one is entitled to the classification but who cares, facts are just an inconvenience.

 

We don't need more government programs; just faith in executing the laws we already have:

 

Or the Supreme Court will do what it actually does- deal with the multitude of cases where Federal judges have found over and over that prohibitions on same gender marriages are violations of due process and equal protection.

 

will that include mom/daughter and father/son?

If not, then the bast path is deem living the homosexual lifestyle as a new species.

 

Or the Supreme Court will do what it actually does- deal with the multitude of cases where Federal judges have found over and over that prohibitions on same gender marriages are violations of due process and equal protection.

 

in other words, you want the SCOTUS to redefine the term of "marriage" as it's viewed by the fed govt.

You do not want states to be able to define marriage

As I've said before, as the left drives to normalize homosexual sex it's only a matter of time before good people just give up and accept the moral decay of the country

 

States are free to define marriage any way they want, as long as it doesn't violate the US constitution. Bans on same sex marriage violate the US constitution.

 

I want the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of laws against same gender marriage- and I hope that the Supreme Court(meaning in this case Kennedy and/or Roberts), agrees with the 20 or so Federal judges who have all found such laws a violation of the Constitution.

As I've said before, as the far right drives to marginalize homosexuals, its only a matter of time before they try to outlaw any private sexual relations that they disapprove of.

 

USSC faces two problems if it tries to rule in favor of the state bans....."equal protection" clause and the "full faith and credit" clause. In the first, they'd have to say that homosexuals are not "citizens" entitled to equal protection. In the second, they'd have to say that a legal same-sex marriage licence obtained in Vermont is null and void in Texas, which has a ban.

 

Politically, it's becoming untenable for the Republican Party to keep pandering to homophobes. The polls have shifted...with a recent Gallup showing 55% support for gay marriage. Most Republicans likely want the Court to decide in favor so they can say "Hey...the Court decided. Nothing we can do now" and hope it goes away.

 

No, sec....you will NEVER give up. Years, decades even after same-sex marriage is legal nation-wide.....you will STILL be attacking homosexuality.

Most here including yourself know why.

 

I thought "we were all the same" and it "didn't matter who we had sex with" and "the government should only be concerned with individual rights" and all that Libertarian stuff. Those seemed to be the positions you advocated when you first came to this board.

Now it's all about "morality" and "normalizing homosexual sex" (which I thought didn't matter?) and the "moral decay of the country" and all that Social Conservative stuff.

Kind of perplexing really!

 

I'm all for removing the govt from marriage entirely

IMO, this isn't about homosexual marriage. It's a push to try and "normalize" having sex with same-sex partners.

 

IMO many of those who are against 'gay marriage' also would prefer the government make sex between same sex partners illegal, and following that tell everyone what kind of sex is legal sex(vaginal between married heterosexual couples), and what is not(anything that is not vaginal between married heterosexual couples).

 

But I thought it didn't matter if Larry diddled Laura or Lionel, we were all the same and it was only sex?

 

thank you

it is about sex and making rules specifically for a sexual act. male/female at least is for procreation while male/male certainly isn't

But, if you are going to pervert marriage then get govt out of it and kick it back to churches or whatever you wish

treat us all as single people in the eyes of the govt

- - - Updated - - -

any your opinion is probably wrong

I know of nobody who gives a rats behind that you engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults.

The issue is that it's only sex and special groups should not be created because of it.

 

Well that is fascinating Sec.

How do I engage in sex differently than 96.4% of adults?

 

Not really. There is nothing that requires the Court to take any of these cases. Unless one of the circuit courts rules to uphold the bans, it's possible that the Supreme Court will not see a controversy of law that they need to settle, if all the circuit courts are apparently in agreement in their interpretation of the law.

Now, I think it's possible we will get a circuit that issues a ruling upholding the bans. Even if we don't, the Court may still decide there's some finer point of the law that needs to be settled - but they would only do it if the right case comes to them.

It's also a case of be careful what you wish for. I'm old enough to remember the Bowers decision.

 

There are cases that could deal with this; some of them do involve plaintiffs who married in one state but whose marriages became 'unrecognized' when they relocated to another state.

 

That was the point I was making. Texas retains the right to not issue wedding licenses. And Massachusetts retains the right to provide them.

 

It violates full faith and credit. I would have a lawsuit.

- - - Updated - - -

or not because that is nonsense.

 

Marriage is a natural right and does not need State sanction, only full faith and credit.