US Supreme Court to review same sex marriage

[ImagineKate]

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 4:02 p.m. EST January 16, 2015

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to resolve the national debate over same-sex marriage once and for all.

The justices agreed to consider four cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, consolidated and heard together. They will hear 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments in April and issue a ruling before the current term ends in late June.

More at:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/

[suzifrommd]

Makes me feel like a child. Six old men and three old women go into a room and decide who the rest of us are allowed to marry.

[Beth Andrea]

It's time. It will be a 5-4 decision, but it will happen.

[suzifrommd]

It's time. It will be a 5-4 decision, but it will happen.

Glad you're so confident about what's going on between Anthony Kennedy's ears. Hard to take comfort that my marriage rights are being dictated by a straight cisgender guy pushing 80 whose religion's main leader blamed trans people for all the world's ills as recently as two years ago.

OTOH, Beth, I've been nurtured by your optimism before, so I'll put my faith in your hope.

[ImagineKate]

I think it will be in favor. There is clearly precedent here. It's an equal protection issue.

[Beth Andrea]

In my mind, the USSC isn't 9 "wise people" who carefully consider this side, that side, and the other side, and then Decide. Upon. A. Glorious. Destiny.

What they do is weigh the cases against where the ruling classes want the public to be, and then present it in such a way as to reduce the chance of a revolution being sparked. (See "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" for why I think this)

They listen to the conservative/reactionary side to let them think that they have a chance, that the clock will be turned back to the 1960's, 1950's, or even the 1870's...but it has never happened. Yet the conservatives believe with a great faith that they have a chance to enact discriminatory laws without the USSC objecting...

LGBTQ rights have been a global phenom for quite some time now...all countries are getting on board.

[ImagineKate]

It is clear that there is precedent. Loving v Virginia for starters. They would have to do some real legal gymnastics to get around that one.

[Jill F]

The "logic" I fail to understand is this- since I entered into my marriage as a supposed cishet guy, my marriage is still recognized even after I was legally declared a woman.   So if you're gay, you're out of luck in a lot of places, but if you're trans AND gay, you're still good?  WTF?

Also, whom can you marry if you were born with ambiguous genitalia? 

Same sex marriage bans are completely irrational, especially in a country that loves to throw words like "liberty" and "freedom" around.

[ImagineKate]

Also, whom can you marry if you were born with ambiguous genitalia? 

Whatever you were assigned at birth, because we know doctors are never wrong.

[suzifrommd]

It is clear that there is precedent. Loving v Virginia for starters. They would have to do some real legal gymnastics to get around that one.

Not so. In the case of L v. V, racial equality was clearly written into the constitution and into federal law. The right to marry one's own gender is not.

I agree that logic is overwhelmingly on the side of same sex unions. There are no decent arguments against them.

However, I'm concerned the supreme court majority will ask instead the question "Are constitutional protections for same sex marriage clear enough to justify forcing a state to accept them whose majority has clearly voted to outlaw them."

I'm concerned they would find that answer not quite so cut-and-dry.

[jeni]

I am extremely optimistic. Even forgetting inalienable rights, etc, there are endless practical reasons that make individual states outlawing same-sex unions unworkable. Given that most have legalized it, a state that does not allow it either has to refuse to ignore legal out-of-state marriages or there's effectively no impediment for many same-sex couples. In either case, the result is a ridiculous, expensive, and confusing legal situation that contributes nothing tangible aside from maybe putting a warm fuzzy feeling in the icy hearts of the anti-same-sex-marriage twits.

The current SC doesn't generally put much value in granting states the rights to make things stupid in the absence of a major financial benefit to someone. That, plus the absolute absence of convincing arguments in favor of a ban, gives me a pretty high degree of confidence.

[Beth Andrea]

Not so. In the case of L v. V, racial equality was clearly written into the constitution and into federal law. The right to marry one's own gender is not.

I agree that logic is overwhelmingly on the side of same sex unions. There are no decent arguments against them.

However, I'm concerned the supreme court majority will ask instead the question "Are constitutional protections for same sex marriage clear enough to justify forcing a state to accept them whose majority has clearly voted to outlaw them."

I'm concerned they would find that answer not quite so cut-and-dry.

States Rights became subordinate to Federal authority in 1865...in the case of civil rights (Is marriage a civil right? ) they trump States Rights as of 1964.

Definition of "civil rights"

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Various jurisdictions have enacted statutes to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin, and in some instances sexual orientation...

(my emphasis)

I would say marriage is a civil right; "domestic partnership" is a relationship's equivalent to "separate but equal". This view has been struck down.

Given that marriage is a civil right, is it proper to exclude an entire class of people from it? (A "class of people" could be defined as "Anyone who has these characteristics/behaviors...") Other than minors, there are no reasons to exclude anyone.

In addition, if even one State is allowed to not recognize same-sex marriages from another State, that would be no different than the same treatment of dfferent-race marriages...which were overturned while a majority of voters approved of that method of discrimination.

[ImagineKate]

I debated putting this in its own topic, but I felt this belonged here. News staff/mods - feel free to move if necessary.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/alabama-supreme-court-chief-justice-lashes-out-at-seme-sex-m#.mmrRQZkYb

An Alabama Supreme Court judge lashes out at the federal court rulings.

This judge even cited the bible to say that same sex marriage should not be legal. Wait, what? I take it he hasn't heard of the first amendment.

Oh and btw:

WASHINGTON — Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore lashed out Tuesday at federal courts that "have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriage in 21 states of the Union," arguing that he will continue to follow his state's amendment barring such marriages in spite of a federal trial court ruling to the contrary.

Wow. Contempt of court... I hope fire and brimstone hails down on him. This is serious business.

[Jill F]

This judge even cited the bible to say that same sex marriage should not be legal. Wait, what? I take it he hasn't heard of the first amendment.

I wonder if he's down with polygamy.

[ImagineKate]

Or stoning.

[Jill F]

Or stoning.

Or smiting...

[suzifrommd]

Roy Moore is a #$%%*# &%#$ of a *#^$$@. He's threatened to disobey federal courts before, and I imagine he'll continue to do it until national guard troops show up at his country club and threaten to haul his publicity-seeking @$$ to prison for violation of federal law.

Yes, I know, I probably violated the TOS, but it's worth it. The guy really is a lower life form.

[Jill F]

Roy Moore is a #$%%*# &%#$ of a *#^$$@. He's threatened to disobey federal courts before, and I imagine he'll continue to do it until national guard troops show up at his country club and threaten to haul his publicity-seeking @$$ to prison for violation of federal law.

Yes, I know, I probably violated the TOS, but it's worth it. The guy really is a lower life form.

For all I know, you didn't want us to think you said "wonderful example of a human being".     Don't worry, when Federal funds get cut off, they'll sing a very different tune.

[Zumbagirl]

It's time. It will be a 5-4 decision, but it will happen.

I wouldn't be so sure. I bet no one would have guessed that religion trumped civil rights in the hobby lobby case.

[ImagineKate]

I wouldn't be so sure. I bet no one would have guessed that religion trumped civil rights in the hobby lobby case.

Freedom from the Government when it comes to one's religious beliefs is a guaranteed constitutional right. That decision didn't reduce anyone's civil rights. One is still free to obtain any form of birth control they please as long as they can pay for it. An employer is also free not to pay for it. Having an employer pay for anything is not a guaranteed right.

But this case isn't even nearly about the same thing. Marriage is an equal protection issue, which is why DOMA was struck down. I am betting this case's eventual ruling may be a 9-0, 8-1 or 7-2 decision. Stare decisis and all.