• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS to rule on marriage equality

Junebug said:
I am encouraged by the fact that the SCOTUS has taken up both questions and even allocated 60 minutes for argument on the second. I agree that if the answer to the first is "yes" the answer to the second likely must also be "yes," so the fact they are taking the second seriously gives me some hope (albeit, I recognize, still faint) that the answer to the first could be "no."

I'm also encouraged by my re-reading (for work) of some of Kennedy's federalism opinions. Toobin put it well--Kennedy is not a moderate; he's a justice of extremes. His federalism runs deep. I do think there is a chance (again, albeit slight) that Kennedy's federalism trumps his embrace of the homosexual legal agenda. His discussion in Windsor of the role federalism has played in the definition of marriage in this country could very well be a set up for that.

I doubt it though.
Click to expand...

The easiest thing to do would be to just call homosexuals a quasi-suspect class, say that this does not meet intermediate scrutiny. Although, to be honest, I think this is one of those very rare situations I would argue that it does not meet rational basis.

Just out of curiosity, why do you care if they get married? That's what I have a really hard time understanding, and why I don't think this meets rational basis. What is the legit govt interest here? I sincerely do not care who or what you bang or get married to. At all. Why do you care?
 
Because he doesn't like how his penis twitches when he thinks about gay sex.
 
13- procreation & maintenance of population would be the argument to reach RB, no?
 
BDL said:
13- procreation & maintenance of population would be the argument to reach RB, no?
Click to expand...

If that were a legit interest than why (or why not) let people who are sterile marry? While this is an interesting argument, its pretty clear to me that we would at least be talking intermediate scrutiny, and I think that's a pretty easy win for the good guys.
 
Never would have thought gays would be getting married in Alabama before Michigan or Ohio...
 
Scalia and Thomas not too happy about SCOTUS's denial of Alabama's request for a stay.
 
They believe in State's rights but as we have seen the State's don't have rights anymore when it comes to these kinds of issues.

Be glad when this is all over and we can worry about significant problems in this country
 
Well you could have made the same type of post about Jim Crow laws too (related to the first part of your post Go).
 
Btw, Tuffalo continues to neg rep me when I give my opinion on the frickin Politics board. What do you guys do about this kind of situation? I don't really care, but what a weirdo
 
Anyways the idea that marriage equality isn't a significant issue because it doesn't affect straight white southern males like Go is dumb. It's crucially important for many families' basic dignity, for adopted children, for vulnerable teenagers who don't feel accepted etc etc and you're an idiot.
 
Go said:
They believe in State's rights but as we have seen the State's don't have rights anymore when it comes to these kinds of issues.

Be glad when this is all over and we can worry about significant problems in this country
Click to expand...

Like voting to repeal Obamacare again.
 
From ScotusBlog

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of the stay, in a three-page opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas argued that, “[w]hen courts declare state laws unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing them,” the Court’s “ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review.” Noting that the Court had “granted a stay in similar circumstances a little over a year ago,” Thomas suggested that Alabama’s request “should have been treated no differently.” Moreover, Thomas observed, the Court’s failure to grant a stay “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the same-sex marriage question. “This,” he complained, “is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.”
Click to expand...

Seems pretty reasonable. In any event, SCOTUS needs to do the damned thing already and resolve this shit on the merits so we can all go about our lives.

There's actually a pending Texas Supreme Court case right now involving a gay couple, married in Massachusetts, who want to get a divorce in Texas. The Texas courts are pretty confused about what to do with it, since it's not clear they have jurisdiction to grant a divorce of a marriage that the state constitution says doesn't exist. This case should have been decided last SCOTEX term, but I'm pretty sure they're just waiting on a SCOTUS decision.

TL;DR: DEW IT ALREADY, SCOTUS.
 
I don't see how SCOTUS can come down against gay marriage if they won't even stay the lower ruling in Alabama. Why not just issue a quick statement to bind all states to the rulings? Oh, and screw Thomas and Scalia.
 
bym051d said:
I don't see how SCOTUS can come down against gay marriage if they won't even stay the lower ruling in Alabama. Why not just issue a quick statement to bind all states to the rulings? Oh, and screw Thomas and Scalia.
Click to expand...

It's exceedingly unlikely that they'd come down against gay marriage, which is why Thomas thinks denying a stay is improperly signalling their stance on the merits. If Thomas is right that they typically grant stays in these cases, then I think his point is pretty sensible. The problem is the other Justices are probably just rolling their eyes, because they all know how the merits are going to go. Thomas is just sniping at them for a procedural issue that the rest of them probably know is going to be mooted by the merits.
 
The light's on at the end of the tunnel, but some 'Pubs are still fighting marriage equality 'til the bitter end. Roy Moore, the ten commandment's judge, somehow is back as Chief justice in Alabama and he's instructing Judges not to perform same-sex marriages. Scott Walker and Mike Pence gave up the chase in their states after losing in the courts, but Alabama keeps on fighting. One of Scott Walker's kids was the witness in a relative's same-sex marriage recently. Clearly some conservatives get it, but the predictable stragglers are going to lose the war and the peace.

Will the GOP House introduce a constitutional amendment ban the day after the final Supreme Court decision? There's zero chance of getting an amendment passed and/or ratified, so at some point they're going to have to let it go. Alabama finally finished 37th in something, but they still fuck it up after the fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top