SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

A winnable case for gay marriage opponents includes the question of state v federal rights. That didn't come up until the decision in Ohio.

Before that they would have been forced to issue an indefinite stay until they received that other case. The Supreme Court can't rule on a question unless it's presented to them. So they waited until they were presented with a case that was structured as state v federal rights.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not what DOMA says.

 

Seperate but equal is also unconstitutional.

 

The states have no more power today. Sections 8,9 and 10 of Article I mean nothing today. Have no fear, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM. It is a foregone conclusion.

 

Try to be patient. Your flailing your pom poms will not influence the SCOTUS decision.

The case before the Court hinges on the its interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection and due process of law.

 

marriage is not a religious event in the eyes of the law

and you have no right to tell a church they can not marry a same gender couple if they want too

.

 

The ruling in Loving v Virginia made it illegal for any state to discriminate any longer against couples of differing races in its marriage laws. Prior to that ruling it had been legal in some states, illegal in others.

.

 

But that is what happened. DOMA was a national law, Iowa was passed by the state legislature and other states have voter initiatives. All over turned by court rulings taking the power of deciding whom or what marriage is away from the states and the people.

Right, wrong or indifferent, the SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM. Let's be honest, the Constitution says what those 9 folks in black robes says it says.

 

Wrong. If your argument was true then Kennedy would have never referenced the CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY of some states allowing incrstuous marriage and one allowing children as young as 13 to marry. While others do not.

He pointed out that it WAS constitutional to do so.

You're going to lose.

- - - Updated - - -

Show that to me in the decision.

 

legal marriage is not a religious contract, in fact you do not even need to be religious to legally be married, but your right, had they not started the war over that, we would not even be discussing the right to marry... ironic

.

 

Look at what you're saying. You're saying the SCOTUS ruled in FAVOR or state rights against federal rights in defining marriage. And now you're saying the SCOTUS (including Kennedy who made his position of state rights VERY clear) to now do an about face and vote in favor of federal rights over state rights.

It's not going to happen.

 

Yet so many states have exercised the power of unilaterally abandoning gender discrimination in their marriage contract laws.

 

I leave you to your mindless pom pom flailing.

Since I have not speculated as to the SCOTUS ruling, I'm not sure what you like to believe that I'll "lose."

 

i do not think that law would stand up as constitutional if fought..... I think church's have a constitutional right to discriminate against those they dislike (as long as they are not working for the gov using tax payer dollars), they can give up the tax dollars and then be free from those restrictions as well...

.

 

Lol great rebuttal. Ignore the point made that Kennedy (the swing vote) brought up incest and underage marriage as being examples of how states can define marriage differently and it's perfectly constitutional.

And loller as if nobody knows which side ur pulling for

 

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

 

What ever I said and at times I suppose I can be confusing. The bottom line is the SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM.

 

What I am ignoring is your presuming to cast a vote for Justice Kennedy in accordance with your agenda. I pay him to make such calls.

 

They were EXPLICITLY referring to the law that made it illegal. Lol. It's right there in your quote. Putting what u like in red and ignoring the rest isn't going to do you any favors.

- - - Updated - - -

It's funny he already told you what his call is but you ignore it

Don't worry you won't be able to ignore it much longer.

 

You are not telling the truth. Justice Kennedy has not yet made a call in this case, but I will acknowledge the Justices' ruling, not yours on their behalf. They know more that you.

 

So what changes have taken place in his thinking since Lawrence v Texas?

 

No, you just have a tough time reading. The 14th Amendment does NOT tell States how to define any privilege or right, all it tells them is that any privilege or right is extended to all. Which most certainly has been done. What LBGT is asking for, is a redefinition of marriage so that they can be recognized as "married". That's not how it works. If the Court were to agree to this, the State itself is invalidated as people can ask for privileges all they want, and grant themselves these same privileges.

The concept of a privilege, the concept of private association would be null and void. Privileges and rights are inherently different. Rights are social contracts, privileges is an exercise not yet governed and is only governed when said privilege violates a right. Pro-SSM isn't going to get an unilateral ruling on SSM. It's just not.

The District Court flipped its head for you, but the SCOTUS is a far more historic and important Court, even if it has been corrupted. The Court will not overturn precedence. It cannot, by law. The Court doesn't decide domestic and social affairs. That's why they didn't want to rule on it, and now the activists have forced their hand to tell them the very bad news.

Right, and Marriage has been applied as a Right. The definition of Marriage however has not been defined to include ALL groups and that's not even the argument. The argument is to include one group. So, "equal rights" doesn't even apply. More like "Rights for this specific group".

Let's put it this way: This application of the 14th Amendment, should APPLY to every organization or fraternity with a following. The Golf Course? Or private diner clubs? Aren't those excessive prices, by definition discriminatory? Discriminatory by Income, right? What does it matter whether a guy is poor or rich, both can golf!

This ruling on SSM wouldn't just affect marriage, but whether there's such a thing as privilege in the US or unilateral rights to be claimed by anyone. Thankfully, hints are spelling out that the Court won't do a Dred Scott in 2015. A ruling we'll all dread.

That's not quite discrimination based on gender. It WOULD be, if Lesbian couples would be able to marry. But they also face the same restrictions. So they're not being discriminated based on gender, but on the basis of religious faith. And the Constitution specifically spells out the separation of Church and State. So the State cannot mandate something(homosexual marriage) that would affront religious faith.

That's another point that hadn't been used much in many or any of these cases, and I hope it's brought up before the SCOTUS.

Already pointed out the lawful restrictions to the 14th. The 14th guarantees rights, it doesn't guarantee you get to change a right to include another group into it. Any changes to law, State or Federal is strictly to their respective legislative branches, UNLESS it violates the Constitution.

And the VERY fact that the SCOTUS was reluctant until now to take it up, shows you how much they think it violates the Constitution. Not much.

If they "change" the definition, it will have to be logically changed to enable ALL marriages. It's not a slippery slope, but an inevitable conclusion. Unless of course, the State can justify said restrictions. But even if a restriction 'makes sense', the very fact of a restriction is in contradiction to the freedom of other couples. That contradiction doesn't make it quite a "free" country, does it?

TheImmortal pointed out what a BIG difference racial discrimination, and religious discrimination is. And considering that there are those who WOULD perform gay marriages, it's not like its a fraternity of churches in the first place. Indeed, even with the restrictions in place, gay marriage is entirely possible for ANY Homosexual Couple.

All the Courts would have to rule, and this is the only natural ruling the Court can render: The Federal Benefits of Marriage would have to be recognized across State Lines, even if your state doesn't recognize Gay Marriage. That's it. That's all the Court could and probably will render.

Respectfully disagree and my statement on the previous post on that stands. Traditional Marriage, holds tradition. That tradition would be violated if a Church were all of a sudden to be orthodox. In the future, you'll see Churches that are pro-traditional, and churches that will say that they're orthodox.

It will be their right and choice, but not mandated by the SCOTUS.

 

SSM is legal in 36 states and D.C. last time I checked. But 24 of them was by order of the court usually overturning either a state initiative or action by state legislature. So out of the 36 states, 24 of them were forced by the courts into as you put it, end gender discrimination in marriage contract laws. Without the courts you would have only 12 states who did this on their own instead of being forced.

 

It's a different question than what was being asked in the DOMA decision. I'm not saying Kennedy had never voted against state rights. But Kennedy is not going to contradict himself and vote in favor of state rights in regards to gay marriage in one instance and then vote against state rights in regards to the gay marriage in a different instance.

Just like I wouldnt expect him to come out and contradict himself and vote in favor of state rights over federal if the issue of sodomy ever came up again.

Would you?

 

People act like state recognition of marriage is what secures it as a "right" but that isn't he case. Couples are free to have whatever unconventional relationships they want to have - that is their right. Long ago states chose to recognize and endorse (traditional) marriage because it was good for society to encourage those relationships. If a state does not endorse or encourage gay relationships, doing so does not take away anybody's rights.

 

Realizing that the SCOTUS asks hard questions of both sides when it's hearing a case...is apparently not something you understand.