Supreme Court to decide whether same-sex marriage is a right

[Tilted]

After passing on earlier requests for it to decide the main same-sex marriage issue, the Supreme Court announced today that it would finally hear that issue. Here is the list of orders from today's conference.

The Court consolidated 4 cases relating to the issue and granted cert in those cases, limiting their consideration of the issue to the following questions:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

Granting cert for 4 cases and limiting the consideration to those questions tells me that the Court is ready to decide the main constitutional issue rather than settle these cases on narrower grounds or technical issues. I would expect a decision in these cases to come on the last day of this Supreme Court term, so late June or thereabouts.

 

[Larry Gude]

"In other news, heterosexual couples are appealing to the nations highest court to decide if sex-less marriages are constitutional and are joined by other couples who seek a ruling if there is such a thing as too 'much sex in marriage' and the constitutionality of same and yet another group, in a friend of the plaintiff brief are asking if 'same sex, over and over' in marriage, regardless of gender is constitutional. The group United We Ironically Stand Against Evil Government is seeking to have the court ban all sex, regardless of gender based on it being, in their view 'just gross no matter who is doing it'. The group "Individually We Stand Against Government Intrusion In the Bedroom Unless there are Guns in the Home" are also seeking standing...developing...in sports today a bunch of men cooperatively played with their balls together and got paid for it. No protests are currently scheduled but, it is early..."

 

[BigBlue]

"In other news, heterosexual couples are appealing to the nations highest court to decide if sex-less marriages are constitutional and are joined by other couples who seek a ruling if there is such a thing as too 'much sex in marriage' and the constitutionality of same and yet another group, in a friend of the plaintiff brief are asking if 'same sex, over and over' in marriage, regardless of gender is constitutional. The group United We Ironically Stand Against Evil Government is seeking to have the court ban all sex, regardless of gender based on it being, in their view 'just gross no matter who is doing it'. The group "Individually We Stand Against Government Intrusion In the Bedroom Unless there are Guns in the Home" are also seeking standing...developing...in sports today a bunch of men cooperatively played with their balls together and got paid for it. No protests are currently scheduled but, it is early..."

...you right wing liberals are a real pain in the arse .

 

[Larry Gude]

...you right wing liberals are a real pain in the arse .

This is yet another opportunity for the GOP that will go to waste. This is THE moment to say:

"Here's the deal. We can support national, state by state recognition of gay marriage, that one performed in say, San Francisco is valid in Kansas and everywhere else in exchange for, say, a conceal carry license issue in Utah being legal everywhere, just the same. Fair?"

This is yet another area the GOP fails at over and over and over; making deals. All we do is OPPOSE. We never get anything we want in return for a fight we're gonna lose anyway. This ia the perfect opportunity to compromise, to sound and act reasonably and to, best of all, use the logic and reasoning of the left to get something WE want.

 

[BigBlue]

This is yet another opportunity for the GOP that will go to waste. This is THE moment to say:

"Here's the deal.





This is the perfect opportunity to compromise, to sound and act reasonably and to, best of all, use the logic and reasoning of the left to get something WE want.

Larry , look at how you started and how you finish ,this is the GOP for God's sake ,think man !!!

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry , look at how you started and how you finish ,this is the GOP for God's sake ,think man !!!

They say I am a dreamer, but, I'm not the only one...

 

[This_person]

"Here's the deal. We can support national, state by state recognition of gay marriage, that one performed in say, San Francisco is valid in Kansas and everywhere else in exchange for, say, a conceal carry license issue in Utah being legal everywhere, just the same. Fair?"

Doesn't Article Four, Section One already do that? Not in practice, but what it means?

 

[vraiblonde]

Doesn't Article Four, Section One already do that? Not in practice, but what it means?

Then there's that pesky little Section 2...

It's just shocking to me that the Supremes are going to rule as to whether or not states have the power to restrict marriage between consenting adults. I get it that there are people who are opposed to same-sex marriage, and that is perfectly fine. But that's what the Constitution is supposed to prevent: a group being able to restrict another group's rights. And with regard to marriage! Something so personal, that doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.

It's crazy.

 

[SG_Player1974]

I am thinking that the gub'ment doesn't give much thought to whether Adam and Steve want to get married.....

I am betting that the reasons are rooted in Tax law more than Marriage law.

 

[Lurk]

But that's what the Constitution is supposed to prevent: a group being able to restrict another group's rights.

So, if I read you clearly, you don't believe the Federal Government has the authority to restrict imposition of Sharia law on any given community.

 

[Toxick]

CORRECTION:


Marrying whoever the #### you want is, was, and always shall be an unalienable right bestowed by one's creator.





What the Supreme Court is actually going to decide is whether the government is allowed to deny people access to this right and/or official recognition of such marriages.





....Like they decided to deny us the right to live without being forced at gunpoint to buy health insurance.

 

[SG_Player1974]

CORRECTION:
Marrying whoever the #### you want is, was, and always shall be an unalienable right bestowed by one's creator.

Ugg...

Bring on the religious fanatics!

 

[Toxick]

I was paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, actually.




Fascinating document. You should give it a read some time.

 

[SG_Player1974]

I was paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence, actually.




Fascinating document. You should give it a read some time.

Yeah... Kinda like the Constitution. Lord knows we follow that to a "T" as well right? Just ask anyone that wants to own a gun

 

[Toxick]

Every member of the House, Senate and President of the last 3/4 century after their first reading of the Constitution of the United States of America:

 

[Tilted]

Then there's that pesky little Section 2...

It's just shocking to me that the Supremes are going to rule as to whether or not states have the power to restrict marriage between consenting adults. I get it that there are people who are opposed to same-sex marriage, and that is perfectly fine. But that's what the Constitution is supposed to prevent: a group being able to restrict another group's rights. And with regard to marriage! Something so personal, that doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.

It's crazy.

Sure, but there are plenty of people that don't think the Constitution protects same-sex couples' supposed right to marry, so the Supreme Court has to (or needs to at least) settle the matter. I'll admit I think this question is closer than a lot of other questions that end up before the Supreme Court, especially if we're considering original intent and understanding. But my point is, no matter how easy these kinds of Constitutional questions are or seem to be to some of us, there will likely be some that disagree us.

Here's the good news though... I'm fairly confident that this decision is going to go the way you would like it to. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict how this plays out. I think the last day of this Supreme Court term is setting up to be a doozy.

I think, on that day, perhaps after some other opinions have been handed down, the Supreme Court will hand down its decision in this case (i.e. these same-sex marriage cases). Justice Kennedy will write for the Court finding that states violate the Constitution when they prohibit same-sex marriage (i.e. don't license it). (Some) liberals and libertarians will be filled with joy, the Supreme Court is awesome, it got one right. (Some) conservatives will be apoplectic, the Supreme Court is a farce, a bunch of judicial activists, the world's going to hell.

Then, after that decision is read, the Court will hand down its decision in the ObamaCare case. Chief Justice Roberts, or maybe Justice Scalia, will write for the Court finding that the subsidies for coverage bought through the federal exchange are invalid, throwing a major monkey wrench into ObamaCare. (Some) conservatives and libertarians will be filled with joy, the Supreme Court is awesome, it saved the day. (Some) liberals will be apoplectic, the Supreme Court is a farce, a bunch of judicial activists, evil has triumphed and the little guy can't get a break.

Everyone will at once love and hate the Supreme Court, except for the libertarians - they'll be celebrating a fantastic day in the history of America.

You heard it hear first, that's my prediction.

 

[Larry Gude]

Everyone will at once love and hate the Supreme Court, except for the libertarians - they'll be celebrating a fantastic day in the history of America.

You heard it hear first, that's my prediction.

What is fascinating as to part of this is that the right, in general, thinks marriage should be left to the states, thus, no business of the feds. Further, some fundamentalist Christians on the right think marriage is none of governments business, at all, state or otherwise. Then, there are the religious conservatives who believe in limited federal government EXCEPT when it comes to marriage whereby straight marriage is to be defended by the constitution and that is should ban gay marriage. Plus, from a fairly typical right wing view of the Constitution, properly understood, at least at first glance, would absolutely defend gay marriage on the basis of free association.

What an enormous mess! The older I get the more clear it becomes WHY we are so ####ed up. There is virtually no widespread intellectual consistency when it comes to the role of government in this nation.

 

[Larry Gude]

Then, after that decision is read, the Court will hand down its decision in the ObamaCare case. Chief Justice Roberts, or maybe Justice Scalia, will write for the Court finding that the subsidies for coverage bought through the federal exchange are invalid, .

Really???? Why, do you think, would they not stay consistent with the previous ruling that this mess is up to the legislature to fix but, otherwise still constitutional?

 

[Tilted]

Really???? Why, do you think, would they not stay consistent with the previous ruling that this mess is up to the legislature to fix but, otherwise still constitutional?

A number of reasons, most of which I'm sure you don't really want me to get lost in - assuming you have a life and don't want to spend the rest of your week reading my random, meandering thoughts.

That said, to your point I think finding that the IRS rule isn't allowed would be more in tune with what you're saying than finding that it is allowed would be - it would be saying, if the legislature meant what the IRS wants us to accept that it did, then the legislature screwed up, because that ain't what they said; so if that's what they want they can fix it, but for now we're gonna go with what they did rather than what we might think they should have done.

Beyond that, I've just been trying my best to look at previous decisions that individual Justices have made, and their reasoning, and trying to sort out where their previous thought lines would leave them on this question. I think there are at least 5 votes to strike down the IRS rule. I'm not overly confident in that, but I'm getting more confident - maybe 65, 70 percent-ish now.

For the Chief Justice in particular, I think striking it down would be consistent with his judicial temperament in general and his - okay, let's just keep this simple - thought process tendency. I think his ruling the other way in the earlier ObamaCare case was completely consistent with how he's ruled on and thought about things in the past. In this case, with the issue being very different, I think striking down the rule would be consistent for him. I can honestly say I'd be disappointed if he went the other way in this case (though I'd be willing to hear his reasoning and perhaps reconsider that disappointment) because I might suspect that it was based on some kind of expediency rather than how he actually saw the applicable law. In the previous case, though I'd have liked him to rule differently, I couldn't really be disappointed in his decision because it didn't come off as expediency seeking - it rang true to his judicial temperament, it was consistent (unlike some of the other Justices).

I've been considering other Justices individually as well. And I've been reading some tea leaves, for whatever that's worth. My gut tells me a majority of the Court is going to be inclined to see this one as far simpler than some would like to make it out to be. I could even see, though I wouldn't hold out hope for it, a 6th vote to strike down the IRS rule. Perhaps oral argument, or something else, will change my mind. I'll let you know if it does.

 

[Tilted]

What is fascinating as to part of this is that the right, in general, thinks marriage should be left to the states, thus, no business of the feds. Further, some fundamentalist Christians on the right think marriage is none of governments business, at all, state or otherwise. Then, there are the religious conservatives who believe in limited federal government EXCEPT when it comes to marriage whereby straight marriage is to be defended by the constitution and that is should ban gay marriage. Plus, from a fairly typical right wing view of the Constitution, properly understood, at least at first glance, would absolutely defend gay marriage on the basis of free association.

What an enormous mess! The older I get the more clear it becomes WHY we are so ####ed up. There is virtually no widespread intellectual consistency when it comes to the role of government in this nation.

Well, on this one I have to say - while my policy preference is clear, I'm just not convinced either way as to what the correct constitutional ruling is. I haven't given it enough careful thought to sufficiently resolve the issue in my find. On equal protection grounds, I think I lean toward same-sex marriage being constitutionally protected; but I'm not home on that one yet. On substantive right grounds, I think I lean toward it not being constitutionally protected though; but I'm not home there either. Equal protection is such an amorphous notion, it would be so easy to confound what I'd like it to mean in a given context with what it most likely did mean to those who wrote and ratified it. So I'm still pondering that one, I want to be sure (as sure as I can be, anyway) that I'm not letting preference override objective consideration - my heart override my mind, feeling good about my position override my fealty to the truth. Hopefully I can get home one way or another before the decision is handed down (you know, so I can root for it one way or the other ), but I may not.

Anyway, the more responsive point I wanted to make is this: The consideration of whether something should be left to the states rather than the feds to decide can, depending on the context, be quite different than the consideration of whether the states are prohibited by the Constitution from doing something they might want to do on the given issue. I guess I'd say, leaving something to state legislatures / governors rather than the federal legislature / president is a much different issue than leaving it to the state legislatures / governors / courts rather than the federal courts. On abortion, e.g., we can say it's a decision that should be up to the states rather than the federal legislature / president to decide. But that doesn't mean that a federal court doesn't have to, or shouldn't, decide whether what the states want to do violates the Constitution or not. It is always (ultimately) the federal courts' job to decide that, i.e. whether something in dispute is constitutional or not, even when the states have primary authority to establish policy in a given area of societal concern.