Supreme Court & Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
What is your estimate of how the Supreme Court is likely to rule on Same Sex marriage?

What would be your reasons for this estimate?
 
I remain hopeful that that the supreme court upholds Prop 8 and DOMA, but consider the awful decisions the court has made in the past and you realise why they can not be relied upon


  1. *]Plessy v Ferguson allowed states to segregate by race

    *]Ruled 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, which permitted slavery and supreme court ruled Dred v Scott case that Black people could never be citizens

    *]Korematsu v United States allowed US military to exclude groups of people from military areas which resulted in Japanese Americans being forced from their homes and put in internment camps

    *]Buck v Bell allowed forcible sterilisation by states of the mentally ill

    *]Roe v Wade legalised abortion has led to the killing of 55 million plus

    *]On a lesser level, Justice Roberts rewrote the Affordable Care Act as a tax

    theweek.com/article/index/237543/whats-next-for-gay-marriage
    Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal
    Click to expand...
 
When it comes to economic issues, Kennedy tends to side with the conservatives. When it comes to social issues, not so much.

I’ll try to stay cuatiously optimistic. But it’s really hard to guess what might happen. If I had to guess, I would guess that they’ll try to word their decision in such a way as to minimize the far-reaching consequences.
 
I’m pessimistic…Virgin Mary predicted this early in the 17th century for the 20th century.

Our Lady of Good Success in 1611:
Regarding Virgin Mary to Venerable Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres for 20th Century:

“As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and profaned in the fullest sense of the word…etc…”
 
Charlemagne_II said:
What is your estimate of how the Supreme Court is likely to rule on Same Sex marriage?

What would be your reasons for this estimate?
Click to expand...
Warning, IANAL.

I suspect that the ruling on Proposition 8 will be a narrow one, only affecting California. The situation there is unique in that there are legally married same sex couples, while other same sex couples cannot now marry. The Supreme Court will probably restore same sex marriage for California only, without setting a general precedent for other states.

I suspect that if Prop 8 is upheld, then the question is going back to the voters again and again until changing demographics allow same sex marriage. The Supreme Court judges are not stupid, and will probably want to avoid a circus like that happening every few years. They have the legal tools available to make a narrow ruling that does not apply to other states.

DOMA III pretty much has to go. Given the different rulings from different circuits, some upholding it and others disallowing it, there is currently just the sort of legal confusion that the Supreme Court is in place to resolve. Given that some states already have same sex marriage and that marriage is not part of the Federal government’s remit, then the Feds will have to recognise whatever each of the individual states decides.

The wider spread of same sex marriage will probably have to wait until a plurality of states allow it. As with Loving v Virginia, the miscegenation laws were only struck down by the Supreme Court after most states had already got rid of them. IIRC there were less than twenty states with such laws on the books by 1967. Same sex marriage does not yet have the level of support among the states for the Supreme Court to impose it on the last few holdouts.

$0.02

rossum
 
rossum
**
DOMA III pretty much has to go. Given the different rulings from different circuits, some upholding it and others disallowing it, there is currently just the sort of legal confusion that the Supreme Court is in place to resolve. Given that some states already have same sex marriage and that marriage is not part of the Federal government’s remit, then the Feds will have to recognise whatever each of the individual states decides.**

I agree that the Federal Government has no business establishing marital laws and therefore DOMA should go. I also believe that the Federal government has no business interfering with state laws that govern marriage. Therefore, the Supreme court, being part of the Federal government, has no business interfering with state laws. If a state chooses to ban same-sex marriage, it is not in the province of the Federal Courts to overturn such a ban.

Let the states that want to be perverse, be perverse. They are also free at some future time to recognize that they are perverse, and try to undo the damage their collective insanity has done.
 
Since the Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 2003, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did the same thing with bans on (civil) same-sex marriage.
 
Biblepoe

**Since the Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 2003, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did the same thing with bans on (civil) same-sex marriage. **

Not to confuse the issue of this thread, but if they do rule in favor of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, how would their decision be any different if a case was brought before them demanding the constitutional right for brothers to marry their sisters, daughters to marry their fathers, or mothers to marry their sons?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Biblepoe

**Since the Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 2003, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did the same thing with bans on (civil) same-sex marriage. **

Not to confuse the issue of this thread, but if they do rule in favor of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, how would their decision be any different if a case was brought before them demanding the constitutional right for brothers to marry their sisters, daughters to marry their fathers, or mothers to marry their sons?
Click to expand...
It is illegal to have sex with your own parent/sibling/child. First that hurdle would be have to overcome. Since there are good non-religious genetic reasons for that law, then I think that overturn would be very unlikely.

The argument on marriage is partially based on sex, not sexuality; “she can marry the man of her choice, why can’t I just because I’m male?”

In the nineteenth century civil marriage laws were very different to now, for example all the wife’s property automatically belonged to her husband. The two sex roles were very clearly separated in law. Since then the difference between the two sex roles in marriage has been reduced, so that by now, civil marriage is a contract between two equal partners. That makes it less easy to justify, in legal terms, maintaining a bar on same sex marriages.

rossum
 
Biblepoe said:
Since the Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 2003, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did the same thing with bans on (civil) same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
scotusblog.com/2012/12/commentary-on-marriage-grants-opportunity-for-the-court-to-right-some-wrongs
"The decisions the Court will be reviewing have embraced something like a “substantive equal protection” doctrine.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to wave the lower courts off this program of social engineering through a results-oriented jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The Court has appropriately cabined the more expansive applications of substantive due process so that courts may not create “rights” unknown to text, history and tradition. The concerns prompting this curb are also present in an attempt to impose a result with no mooring in Constitutional provisions, practice, or precedent through the Equal Protection Clause. Such a program ends an ongoing debate with complex and sensitive implications for family policy, religious freedom, federalism, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The justification for a novel application of equal protection has been that normal procedures for lawmaking are hopelessly inadequate for protecting certain identifiable groups. This is manifestly not the case in the marriage context. There is no reason, far from it, to believe the people of the states cannot, directly or through their representatives, appropriately respond to claims that marriage ought to be redefined. The claim that advocates of redefining marriage are politically powerless does not ring true."
Click to expand...
 
rossum

It is illegal to have sex with your own parent/sibling/child. First that hurdle would be have to overcome.

It would be overcome in the same way that anti-sodomy laws were overcome. Why not?

Since there are good non-religious genetic reasons for that law, then I think that overturn would be very unlikely.

There are equally good medical reasons for denying sodomites their so-called rights. Moreover, since the genetic risks for incestuous marriage are well known, as are the medical reasons against anal sex between sodomites, the playing field is made more or less even.

There has to be a certain consistency in your logic, which I have yet to find.

If sodomite relations are to be licensed by the state, why not also incestuous relations?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
There are equally good medical reasons for denying sodomites their so-called rights.
Click to expand...
I am sure that a large number of lesbians will be very glad to know that you can see no medical reason for them not to marry each other.

rossum
 
rossum

I am sure that a large number of lesbians will be very glad to know that you can see no medical reason for them not to marry each other.

It’s a mental health issue. I don’t think they can be too glad to know that.
 
While every supreme court is different I think they may look at the same reasons the other nations supreme courts ruled and then compare those arguments the ones that are being made here. Which if that is the case, is not encouraging.
 
rossum

You don’t need “medical qualifications” to know that sodomy is disgusting, any more than you need a law degree to know that killing the unborn is also disgusting.

The nation’s psychologists once knew something they have since come to deny … that homosexuality is a mental disease. Hopefully, someday the nation’s brightest lawyers will figure out that they should never have given everyone a license to kill the unborn.

But you still haven’t answered the point I made earlier. Why should we have a license to commit sodomy, but no license to commit incest?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
You don’t need “medical qualifications” to know that sodomy is disgusting, any more than you need a law degree to know that killing the unborn is also disgusting.
Click to expand...
You didn’t claim “disgusting”, you claimed “It’s a mental health issue.” That does involve medical qualifications.
The nation’s psychologists once knew something they have since come to deny … that homosexuality is a mental disease.
Click to expand...
So, we are agreed that both our nations’ psychologists are currently agreed that homosexuality is not a mental disease.
Why should we have a license to commit sodomy, but no license to commit incest?
Click to expand...
Because sodomy is legal while incest is not. It is illegal to marry either your brother or your sister.

rossum
 
rossum

You didn’t claim “disgusting”, you claimed “It’s a mental health issue.” That does involve medical qualifications.

Yes, in the sense that pedophilia is also a mental health issue, and is also disgusting.

So, we are agreed that both our nations’ psychologists are currently agreed that homosexuality is not a mental disease.

Yes, we are. But that doesn’t mean they are right. It only means they should know better. 😃

Because sodomy is legal while incest is not. It is illegal to marry either your brother or your sister.

If incest were made legal, wouldn’t we also have to certify it for brothers and sisters who want to marry?
 
I’ll go with Rossum’s verdict in post 5.
Charlemagne_II said:
If sodomite relations are to be licensed by the state, why not also incestuous relations?
Click to expand...
Charlemagne_II said:
Yes, in the sense that pedophilia is also a mental health issue, and is also disgusting.
Click to expand...
I thought this might have been an interesting and thoughtful thread. I thought at least in this one we won’t have anyone using it to bring up paedophilia or incest. Then I saw who started the post. I’ll call back later, Charlie, to see how long it takes you to get bestiality into the discussion.

Oops…there, I’ve done it myself already.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Biblepoe

**Since the Supreme Court has declared sodomy laws to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause in 2003, I wouldn’t be too surprised if they did the same thing with bans on (civil) same-sex marriage. **

Not to confuse the issue of this thread, but if they do rule in favor of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, how would their decision be any different if a case was brought before them demanding the constitutional right for brothers to marry their sisters, daughters to marry their fathers, or mothers to marry their sons?
Click to expand...
Whether or not one form of discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause depends on whether or not there is a state interest in the discrimination.

For incest, one can make the case that there are severe psychological problems at stake such that the state discriminating against those relationships by not allowing those civil marriages do NOT constitute a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, just like that state can discriminate against a pedophile in his 30s who wants to marry a 10 year-old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top