Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Robert Williams

The Supreme Court Decision on Gay Marriage.

Rate this topic

47 posts in this topic

Here's my take on it. Bookmark it and keep the bookmark right beside the "hints WOMD will soon be found".

 

I think they will rule that if a state sanctions a marriage, the federal government must also sanction it and strike down the part of DOMA that prohibits that. I really don't see any other choice because this is the part of DOMA that makes no sense and violates equal protection, in my opinion since it is the domain of the state to determine what is or is not marriage; not the fed and the federal government in considering two marriages from the same state different based on gender would be what I consider an indisputable problem. The federal "ban" on acknowledging gay marriage will, in my opinion, fall during this judgment and I will be extremely surprised if that is not the case.

 

I think they will otherwise maintain the status quo and let states continue to determine whether or not they want to sanction homosexual marriages and whether or not they want to honor marriages from other states or not. Nothing in the judgement on these two cases will open the way to gay marriage in all 50 states outside of the usual state legislative process. I will be very surprised if the Supreme Court is going to make homosexuals a "suspect class" from this point forward nor force any state to redefine marriage or even accept gay marriages from other states.

 

So there it is. Stick a fork in it. Bookmark it and if I guessed wrong, be sure to bring it back up at least once a month from now on.

 

And if you have the balls, go ahead and make your own predictions. If you don't have the balls, I'll understand. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just sick of hearing about it everywhere, I would think there are more imprortant things for govt to waste its time and our money on. In my view if 2 homosexuals want to be married, who cares!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my take on it. Bookmark it and keep the bookmark right beside the "hints WOMD will soon be found".

 

I think they will rule that if a state sanctions a marriage, the federal government must also sanction it and strike down the part of DOMA that prohibits that. I really don't see any other choice because this is the part of DOMA that makes no sense and violates equal protection, in my opinion since it is the domain of the state to determine what is or is not marriage; not the fed and the federal government in considering two marriages from the same state different based on gender would be what I consider an indisputable problem. The federal "ban" on acknowledging gay marriage will, in my opinion, fall during this judgment and I will be extremely surprised if that is not the case.

 

I think they will otherwise maintain the status quo and let states continue to determine whether or not they want to sanction homosexual marriages and whether or not they want to honor marriages from other states or not. Nothing in the judgement on these two cases will open the way to gay marriage in all 50 states outside of the usual state legislative process. I will be very surprised if the Supreme Court is going to make homosexuals a "suspect class" from this point forward nor force any state to redefine marriage or even accept gay marriages from other states.

 

So there it is. Stick a fork in it. Bookmark it and if I guessed wrong, be sure to bring it back up at least once a month from now on.

 

And if you have the balls, go ahead and make your own predictions. If you don't have the balls, I'll understand. :)

 

Agree. Logically they can't rule any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the transcipt of the oral argument on California's Proposition 8; I haven't read the transcipt of the DOMA case.

 

Hollingswoth et al. have tenuous standing, and some of the justices are inclined to let the issue of same-sex marriage percolate within the several states in keeping with Justice Brandeis' idea that under federalism, the states are laboratories of democracy.

 

Absent any misgiving that I am going out on a limb, and could turn out to be wrong, I confidently predict that whatever the Court's decision on Proposition 8, whether it dismisses the case for lack of standing or rules on the merits, the result will not be a sweeping victory for the proponents of homosexual marriage.

 

 

Justice Ginsburg:

 

 

"Have we ever granted standing to proponents of ballot initiatives?"

 

 

 

Justice Kennedy:

 

 

"The problem — the problem with the case is that you're really asking, ... for us to go into uncharted waters, ..."

 

 

 

Justice Sotamayor:

 

 

“If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” she asked. “We let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years, from 1898 to 1954.”

 

 

 

 

Justice Alito:

 

 

You want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on — of same-sex marriage, the potential — the effects of Proposition 8. But what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the — the concept of — of same-sex marriage.

 

The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.

 

But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.

 

On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?

 

 

 

Counselor David Boies:

 

 

“But I think you can say they were troubled by having taken the case and being confronted with trying to make a decision on that issue now instead of letting it percolate a little bit, as one of the justices said.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read the transcipt of the oral argument on California's Proposition 8; I haven't read the transcipt of the DOMA case.

 

Hollingswoth et al. have tenuous standing, and some of the justices are inclined to let the issue of same-sex marriage percolate witihin the several states in keeping with Justice Brandeis' idea that under federalism, the states are laboratories of democracy.

 

Absent any misgiving that I am going out on a limb, and could turn out to be wrong, I confidently predict that whatever the Court's decision on Proposition 8, whether it dismisses the case for lack of standing or rules on the merits, the result will not be a sweeping victory for the proponents of homosexual marriage.

 

Justice Sotamayor:

 

“If the issue is letting the states experiment and letting the society have more time to figure out its direction, why is taking a case now the answer?” she asked. “We let issues perk, and so we let racial segregation perk for 50 years, from 1898 to 1954.”

 

Justice Alito:

 

You want us to assess the effects of same-sex marriage, the potential effects on — of same-sex marriage, the potential — the effects of Proposition 8. But what is your response to the argument which has already been mentioned about the need to be cautious in light of the newness of the — the concept of — of same-sex marriage.

 

The one thing that the parties in this case seem to agree on is that marriage is very important. It's thought to be a fundamental building block of society and its preservation essential for the preservation of society. Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.

 

But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future.

 

On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?

 

Counselor David Boies:

 

 

“But I think you can say they were troubled by having taken the case and being confronted with trying to make a decision on that issue now instead of letting it percolate a little bit, as one of the justices said.”

 

According to "The Dude", you don't need facts..... you just need common sense. Apparently, the Supreme Court has no common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just sick of hearing about it everywhere, I would think there are more imprortant things for govt to waste its time and our money on. In my view if 2 homosexuals want to be married, who cares!

 

I am with you. I can't believe every time you turn on the news you hear first about gay marriage and second about immigration reform. I just scream at the TV, "Eff this stuff and pass a budget you idiots!" Washington is so far in the weeds right now it makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am with you. I can't believe every time you turn on the news you hear first about gay marriage and second about immigration reform. I just scream at the TV, "Eff this stuff and pass a budget you idiots!" Washington is so far in the weeds right now it makes me sick.

 

Same here. Even people with no true vested interest in the outcome are raving like lunatics about this issue. It's forced me to request from more than one of them to drop their trendy, politically correct outrage and focus on matters that really effect us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the court will pass on Hollingsworth due to lack of standing. Frankly, I'm amazed they heard it in the first place.

 

For Winsor, I think the court will strike down DOMA, but will stop short of requiring states to recognize gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's forced me to request from more than one of them to drop their trendy, politically correct outrage and focus on matters that really effect us all.

 

I bet the same thing was said in these days...

 

1000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prop 8 will be overturned for CA. Ruling will not apply any place else. DOMA will be struck down in its entirety.

 

Still leaves the question if the federal government recognizes same sex marriage is legal if the state says so, will other states recognize a legal contract from another state.

 

Or would you have a reverse DOMA where the state says it is illegal but the federal government still recognizes the legal contract regardless of where the couple live?

 

Here we have the basis for another lawsuit after the repeal of DOMA. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

 

The Full Faith and Credit Clause? Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution—provides that the various states must recognize legislative acts, public records, and judicial decisions of the other states within the United States. It states that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

 

So effectively when DOMA is struck down, states cannot refuse to recognize legal marriage contracts from other states. What about residents of the state who cannot marry? Is it legal to discriminate against your own citizens, ie. two classes of same sex marriage in the same state??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then all states must recognize same sex marriages for states where it is legal.

 

And that's not going to happen. Which is why DOMA will not be struck down in it's entirety and may not even be touched by the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.