US Supreme Court to review same sex marriage

[suzifrommd]

That decision didn't reduce anyone's civil rights.

Do you consider federal protections for employees a civil right?

[Jill F]

Fifty bucks says Scalia and Thomas will dissent.   

[suzifrommd]

Fifty bucks says Scalia and Thomas will dissent.

That would be a good thing.

The disaster would be if they were voting with the majority.

[Colleen M]

That would be a good thing.

The disaster would be if they were voting with the majority.

Nailed it.

I'd have so much more respect for Scalia and Thomas both if they didn't have a mindset that the government exists to interfere only when they want it to interfere. 

[ImagineKate]

Do you consider federal protections for employees a civil right?

Absolutely.

Let me flip it around though. Is a free gym membership from your employer a civil right?

How about my right to carry a gun to work?

Again, we aren't talking about an employer prohibiting something. They just don't want to pay for it. One can always pay for it privately or even on a healthcare exchange policy.

[ImagineKate]

Fifty bucks says Scalia and Thomas will dissent.

I'm not betting anything until I hear the orals.

[suzifrommd]

Let me flip it around though. Is a free gym membership from your employer a civil right?

There is no federal law requires my employer to provide me a free gym membership, is there?

However there is a federal law that requires my employer to take care of my health - all of it - if they claim to offer health insurance.

Or, there used to be. Now there isn't.

[jeni]

Oh boy oh boy. Who brought the popcorn?

[ImagineKate]

There is no federal law requires my employer to provide me a free gym membership, is there?

However there is a federal law that requires my employer to take care of my health - all of it - if they claim to offer health insurance.

There is no such law. The ACA doesn't mandate coverage for everything. Besides, it can't mandate something which isn't constitutional, such as forcing an employer to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the Hobby Lobby decision was very narrow and this was emphasized by the justices.

I only mention gym memberships because it is a feature of some health plans. Falls under "taking care of all of your health."

Or, there used to be. Now there isn't.

Well, there was also a law that said that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not anymore.

There was also a law that said that abortion is illegal. Not anymore!

Kind of how the whole thing works.

Anyway not gonna derail this too much...

[Shana-chan]

Someone tell me the results of their ruling on this matter when they come to a ruling please.

Well, there was also a law that said that marriage is between one man and one woman. Not anymore.

Wait, so, you mean to tell me, we can now be married to more than 1 person? We can finally have our own "legal" harem? Does this also mean we can now even have sex with prostitutes and not get in trouble for it? To me, if you said, no we can't be married to more than 1 person, and or no we can't have sex with prostitutes without getting in trouble then THAT goes against our rights.

[ImagineKate]

Someone tell me the results of their ruling on this matter when they come to a ruling please.
Wait, so, you mean to tell me, we can now be married to more than 1 person? We can finally have our own "legal" harem? Does this also mean we can now even have sex with prostitutes and not get in trouble for it? To me, if you said, no we can't be married to more than 1 person, and or no we can't have sex with prostitutes without getting in trouble then THAT goes against our rights.

Well I personally don't believe polygamy should be illegal and I think it's only a matter of time before the courts strike down laws banning that too.

I do draw the line at consenting adult humans though.

[suzifrommd]

Despite Supreme Court actions, experts warn marriage not a done deal

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/02/11/despite-supreme-court-actions-experts-warn-marriage-not-done-deal/

February 11, 2015 | by Chris Johnson

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week to decline a stay on Alabama same-sex marriages was heralded as a surefire sign justices are ready to issue a decision in favor of nationwide marriage equality, but some legal experts are warning: Not so fast.

Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University, said there's "no such thing as a done deal involving the Supreme Court" and justices could still determine state prohibitions on same-sex marriage are constitutional.

[Shana-chan]

I'm curious what everyone thinks of that link/news article that was just posted below? Do you think same sex marriage being allowed is a done deal, or not? And, why?

[Tysilio]

It's a good article, and a good reminder not to put the chickens in the cart before spilling the milk, or something.

What do I think? It ain't over until the fat lady sings... but she's warming up pretty good.

[Tysilio]

Well, that didn't take long.

According to the New York Times:

[Judge] Callie V. S. Granade of Federal District Court here, wrote that the county judge, Don Davis, of Probate Court in Mobile County, cannot deny a marriage license "on the ground that plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the sanctity of marriage."
<snip>
While the ruling Thursday was focused only on Judge Davis, it was intended to send a signal to judges statewide who are caught between the federal ruling and the order from Chief Justice Moore.

Judge Davis doesn't have much choice at this point, but it will be interesting to see how Chief Justice Moore, and the other probate judges, respond.

ETA: A copy of Judge Granade's actual order can be found here. I had somehow missed that the state Attorney General was also a defendant in the suit. I wonder if that will make it harder for other parts of the state to ignore it, since he's now on the hook for what happens; I'd think this makes him directly responsible for enforcing the law.

[ImagineKate]

I'm guessing he's grandstanding knowing he will lose but that the voters will somehow reward him for it.

[suzifrommd]

I'm guessing he's grandstanding knowing he will lose but that the voters will somehow reward him for it.

I'm reading it a different way. I think extremists are sending a message to the supreme court that their decision will not be taken lying down by those who disagree. They're hoping to sway the conservative justices or at least remind them they have an alternative for signing on to a decision they disagree with.

[Shana-chan]

I'm not really following this conversation. So, is it same sex marriage is in trouble of not getting passed or is it still in the clear based on what said articles say and such?

[jeni]

The popular thinking is that the Supreme Court has made a number of decisions, most recently refusing to temporarily halt same-sex marriages in Alabama, that would be very strange if there were a significant chance that it was not about to permanently rid the country of same-sex marriage bans. I think it's pretty sound logic but the Court is famously hard to predict.

[ImagineKate]

The popular thinking is that the Supreme Court has made a number of decisions, most recently refusing to temporarily halt same-sex marriages in Alabama, that would be very strange if there were a significant chance that it was not about to permanently rid the country of same-sex marriage bans. I think it's pretty sound logic but the Court is famously hard to predict.

My guess based on how the court has done it in the past is to strike down the bans with conditions. For example it would not force officiants to marry a gay (or straight) couple if it goes against their religious beliefs. Often the courts will tiptoe the line like this as they really aren't supposed to be legislating from the bench but give enough guidance so that everyone is supposed to get the message.