The Supreme Court To Hear Gay Marriage Cases


The Big One has arrived.
Prepare for a SSupreme pro fascism decision. Look for a Republican five - four wall of H8. Fear is how power keeps power. Sorry for leavin' a dookie in da' punch bowl.
It's been said on Fox commentator round-tables that establishment Republicans discreetly hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality and takes it away from being a divisive primary campaign issue.
I've waiting for this since 2008 after the Prop 8 debacle.

I second Sargon Bighorn.

Fourteenth Amendment, baby. Bring it!
@6: Shoot! That's what comes of too much marijuana. I either meant "I've been waiting . . ." or "I've waited . . ." Obviously.

@5. Fine. Good. Whatever it takes, and besides, I'm tired of it as a campaign issue, myself. Maybe while they're at it, the Right can just stop fucking with women's rights over their own bodies and let us choose our own destinies, because I'm mighty tired of having become a single-issue voter
It scares me. The possibility that the legal standing of my marriage is in the hands of people like Scalia and Thomas.
No matter what the court decides, if you got married, you are married. I don't believe anyone can take that away from you.
@9 we were married emotionally and commitment-wise a long time ago, but there are things like immigration and other legal issues that matter a whole lot and can be taken away!
If they rule against us on the marriage question, then the answer to your question will partially hinge on how they rule on the recognition question. Right now, heterosexual marriages are accepted across state lines. There's a little thing called the "full faith and credit clause" that requires it. It would take quite a dance to say that states can pick and choose among the marriages they will choose to recognize.

If they invalidate it in states where marriage equality has come by judicial decision, then another fascinating issue will be what to do about all the people who got married. How could a court unwind a marriage that was legal at the time it was performed? Bottom line, wow.
@5 - you bet yer sweet booty they do - and then they can safely and freely fulminate against it endlessly (see Roe, Griswold) for all eternity, since the court safely takes it out of their hands. They can keep feeding the hatred to the base, for a long time yet.

@4 - I think both Roberts and Kennedy are weak fundie votes. I see Kennedy doing what he already did on Windsor and Roberts joining in to make it a "stronger" majority (I think he'd do the same thing if the 5-4 split were reversed too - all in the interest of making the court 6-3 or more when possible).

To answer Dan's question, my speculation is: same sex marriage will be recognized in the states which don't have bans and by the federal gov't. but not by states that don't have bans and reciprocity won't be forced on the ban states...which means they'll lose out when lots of same-sex partners move away. See: North Carolina Research Triangle. Long run: bans get repealed everywhere, eventually. The GOP gets punished at the ballot box on their wedge issue.
Hell, yeah.
Get your wedding booking in now, it's going to be a busy June, July, August & September nationwide for weddings!

Remember, those months are perfect for a Honeymoon in Seattle!
@9 I'm sorry but what you believe and $4.75 will buy me a latte. It will not extend my insurance benefits to my children, it will not allow my spouse to make decisions for me in a medical emergency and it will not allow us to file taxes as a married couple. Sure we can love each other no matter what the supremes say but your argument basically sucks.
This is going to come down to Justice Kennedy, and he bent over backwards in his opinion invalidating DOMA to make it clear that he was only deciding that decision based upon the individual state's rights to define marriage as they see fit. It pains me to say it, but I think that this is going to be a major setback, with marriage equality in only those states where the legislation has authorized it.
I hope I didn't sound insensitive and Pollyannaish up @6. It must be really scary to know that my marriage's legitimacy lies in Scalia's and Thomas' hands.

I'm optimistic, but I realize that I don't have at stake what many others do. Apologies if I offended anyone.
And I apologize for writing the phrase "deciding that decision." But otherwise I stand by my pessimistic assessment of how this is going to go.

The one silver lining is that the Kennedy will go along with the idea that those marriages that were performed as a result of the Circuit cases requiring marriage equality will be treated as legitimate by the federal government and those states that have established marriage equality by statute.
Notorious RBG, don't fail me now. My marriage depends on it.
I think this would extend marriage to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and other US territories, right?
So, worst-case scenario, gay marriage stays legal if it was by election (WA, ME, CO, MD), or legislative statute (NH, CT, VT, DC, NY, RI, DE, MN, HI, IL), and possibly invalidated if it was legalized through a state or federal court? Could they reverse CA? Or would it depend on the judicial district?
@22 California is safe. The SC already ruled that the people trying to implement the gay marriage ban lacked standing.
This terrifies me, frankly.
@22 The state supreme courts will still be the final authority on whether their state constitutions require marriage equality
@17 - the reason why Kennedy "bent over backwards" in the Windsor opinion to point out it just had to do with the Federal Government is because that's what the case was about. The Supremes don't decide issues that aren't before them, and he was making it clear that that was the only issue before them.

But seriously - if the conservatives had five votes to stop gay marriage, they would have taken any one of the four other circuit decisions in favor of gay marriage. They REJECTED those petitions. They don't have Kennedy. And if the liberals didn't have Kennedy, they would have voted to keep the stays in those circuits in place; they didn't. (Puzzlingly, Alito and Roberts didn't want to keep them in place, either). If there were enough votes to stop gay marriage, we'd know it by now. And, I suspect, if the liberals didn't have the Kennedy vote in hand, they wouldn't have taken up the 6th Circuit's case, on the rationale that it's better to have four states without gay marriage and a bunch of states that do, with no mess as the Lambda Legal attorney set out. (It takes four justices to vote to take a case, not five).

But I don't think the court would have let things get to the place they are without knowing where they're going to go, and without knowing the mess that will result if they don't overturn the 6th Circuit's opinion.
So proud of Jim Obergefell and Al Gerhardstein for sticking with it all the way to the Supremes. Just wish John Arthur had lived to see this moment.
Worst case, it could be a Dred Scott v. Sandford decision in 1857 (when it really came down) instead of the same case being decided in 1880. i.e. before the country and a majority of justices had evolved enough to come to the right decision. So the longer SCOTUS waited to take up the issue, the better I felt - non-haters are always being born, old haters die, and the vast middle ground was/is shifting quickly.

The more likely downside of a too-early SCOTUS review of marriage equality is that it won't be a 9-0 decision nor the ringing endorsement of equality that it would be in another 5 years.
@26 They were waiting for a decision in favor of marriage discrimination because they would rather say yes than no. I expect that it's the 4 hardline conservative justices that voted to accept this petition for transfer
@26 Also, I hope that you're right, but fear that you're wrong
Fnarf is right. If this could have waited until one of the troglodytes on the court were replaced -- by just about anybody -- we'd be so much better off. If this goes sideways it will take a generation to undo the damage.
Eric Holder just announced that the Obama administration will file an amicus brief in favor of legalization throughout the land.…
@25: Those State Supreme Courts are bound by precedent. If the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment doesn't apply, they are bound by that precedent and won't be able to use that to justify it in their decisions. Similar reasoning will apply to clauses similar to the 14th in their State constitution.
@25: And to expand on this a little, the Supreme Court in its opinion invalidating equal protection for gay marriage would give reasons why it doesn't apply, such as the ability to reproduce bullshit, the protection of children bullshit, or the traditional definition of marriage bullshit. Whichever reason or reasons given would then be valid under the law to reject it.
@33 & 34 The phrase "equal protection" can mean one thing for the purpose of applying the U.S. constitution and another for the purpose of applying the constitution of the state of California. The Supreme Court of California gets to decide what the constitution of California means, without any deference to the USSC
I can't help but compare this to suffrage. You had the NWP going straight for center with a constitutional amendment, and that's the one we usually remember (the hunger strikes and imprisonments and protests) but you also had NAWSA going state by state and slowly showing Congress which way history was going. In the end, it was hard to say which strategy had the bigger effect (I should add that the NAWSA chicks were also saying, "Oh we support separate but equal spheres and all that other sexist BS; we want to vote because women are different from men" and WWI in the background so that the "women are naturally peaceful" part of the BS probably had some sway). But in gay marriage it's clear that the state-by-state approach is what's doing the trick.
If I remember, the circuit courts upholding same sex marriage ruled that heightened scrutiny had to be applied to any laws discriminating against one group of people. And the 6th circuit did not apply heightened scrutiny. the Supreme Court may simply remand the 6th circuit, and send it back to them. In general, SCOTUS would likely prefer to make a narrow decision, instead of a sweeping one.

Exactly. Marriage laws apply equally to gay and healty citizens. Any willing adult man can marry any willing adult woman. No discrimination there.

Alas, the court will likely be forced to find legal reasoning to strike the decision i f the 6th circuit. There simply have been too many judges over ruling the electoral will in their states and too many gay so called marriages. I'd love to see all you folks backpedal from your 'courts are enforcng basic rights when the will of the people didn't! ' stance. I'd love to see the mental gymnastics showing how this doesn't apply to the Supreme Court silly! But the court has to work with the legal realities, and at the moment, thanks to activist judges less interesed in law than ideology, that's going to support limited or full backing for gay so called marriage.

@38: What if marriage laws ONLY allowed same-sex marriage? Any willing adult would be able to marry any willing adult of the same gender. No discrimination there.

Glad to see you admit you're on the losing side of this battle. Say, when the SCOTUS rules against your opinions on this one, will you ALSO claim that gay marriage is unconstitutional and that you don't have to follow laws you don't like? Are you going to insist that you're allowed to discriminate against gays because gays don't exist? Or are you finally going to move to some other country where oppressing minorities is in vogue?
Squeal like a pig!

Gee. I seem to recall having written more or less this before. Once New York decided marriage didn't mean anthing, the die were cast. You keep a database of everything I've ever written. Look it up, kiddo.

But no. I will never refer to a gay so called marriage as a real marriage, whatever a court decides. My children know that two men or two women are no more married than my dog could be. And that's really the action civilized decent people can take. Light the candles of respect for and understanding of marriage and family with your kids and nephews and nieces. And let the barbarian trash fool themselves if they wish.

In the end what my wife and I have will always be marriage, and what those who chose homosexual behavior will never, ever have that.

And little buddy? I'm not going anywhere. This country needs centrists like me to hold rational lines, even if only in their conduct of their lives and businesses, now more than ever.

And thank you. You're practicing your mental gymnastics even if the barbarians win! Oppressing minorities! Well! (Does this apply to self selected minorities, like those who chose homosexual behavior? How about if I buy a wheelchair, though I'm fit and healthy, and insist on handicapped access everywhere I go. Same thing, really.) Thanks for the preview.
Exactly. Marriage laws apply equally to all races of citizens. Any willing adult man of any race can marry any willing adult woman of the same. No discrimination there.

But no. I will never refer to miscegenations called marriage as a real marriage, whatever a court decides. My children know that two men or two women of different races are no more married than my dog could be. And that's really the action civilized decent people can take. Light the candles of respect for and understanding of marriage and family with your kids and nephews and nieces. And let the barbarian trash fool themselves if they wish.

In the end what my wife and I have will always be marriage, and what those who chose race mixing behavior will never, ever have that.


Because a non chosen characteistic, like skin color, us exactly the same as chosen homosexual behavi....
Wait a minute! Those aren't even tangentially related. Not so much apples and oranges as apples and tractor gears.
I never understood, except in cases of intentionally misleading people to get them to buy an otherwise unpopular idea, the conflating of the very real civil rights struggles of minorities with the whining cries of the homosexual special rights lobby.
@43 hahahahaha

Because a non chosen characteristic, like homosexuality, is exactly the same as chosen race mixing behavi....

Wait a minute! Those aren't even tangentially related. Not so much apples and oranges as apples and tractor gears.

I never understood, except in cases of intentionally misleading people to get them to buy an otherwise unpopular idea, the conflating of the very real civil rights struggles of homosexuals with the whining cries of the race mixing special rights lobby.
@45: Don't feed the troll.
We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.
--Coretta Scott King

So not only do you think you know more about constitutional law than the SCOTUS, more about evolution than every biologist in the nation, and more about climatology than every geologist, but also more about civil rights than MLK's widow. Look who thinks he knows everything...but just happens to be wrong.
I am from USA, I have been married to my husband for 9 years with 2 kids, just of recent my husband started seeing another lady outside our marriage, he started coming home late and each time i confronted him, he treathened to divorce me and he finally moved out of the house to stay with his mistress abandoning me and my kids, I tried all i could to get him back but all was to no avail until i saw a post in a love forum about a spell caster who helps people get back lost love through love spells, at first i doubted if it was real but decided to give it a try, when i contacted this love spell caster through his email, he helped me cast a re-union spell and my husband called me within 72hours apologising, he is back home again and we are happy together again as one happy family. Contact this Great spell caster for your marriage or relationship problems via his email Goodluck
@40 also, the plural of "die" is "dice." As in, the die was cast or the dice were cast. People who fuck up usage because they're trying to sound smart are the worst.

The worst? Worse than the clowns that tailgate in the right lane rather than going around? Worse than people who drive SUVs even though they could drive a Prius, even though Toyota must have won some prize for most ugly vehicle ever made with that car? Worse than people who buy brand name clothes from overseas sweatshops? Worse, dare I ask, than the person ordering a pointlessly complicated drink while you're trying to get you half caf, half decalf soy latte with just a whisper of cinnamon from that precious little coffee shop on Cap Hill?

Gee. Sorry. I'll never mistake the plural of dice...damn it!
@50 you've hit me where it hurts. The tragedy of the current day is people buying shit made by other people who are living as wage-slaves. The solution is to ban all imports from any country that doesn't have a livable minimum wage. Also, I'm generally an agreeable guy, people seem to like and trust me. But you, you're contemptible
@50 I think you mean the plural of "die"
@50 dumbass
Oh My god that was so funny! ^^^^^

Since he feels no shame, he will learn No Lesson.
@54 &55. I'm glad you liked it. I try not to get angry about SB's nonsense, but sometimes it's just too much. I could build a better man out of damp paper towel.

Awww. It doesn't LIKE me!

But I can, barely, survive your contempt. Honorable decent people who actually know me don't share it. And the contempt of petty little people like you? Not worrying me.

Now go to bed and sleep off the booze, drugs and indiscriminate sex with strangers from last night. You'll feel better...well if you stopped the booze, drugs and promiscuity, but that ain't happening. Still a good rest will help that sour attitude of yours.

Shame is reserved for those who've earned my respect. Don't think you and your pals will ever get there....
SB is so funny, he called himself a centrist!

He's always delusional, but this really takes the cake.
@57 To quote M. Gustave from the grand Budapest hotel "you sick pathetic creep. I hate you."

Humorless little fella, aren't ya?


In your Cap Hill freak show bubble, it may seem that way. But I'm a hell of a lot closer to center in America than you and your fellow lefty loonies, bub.
@62 May the curse of Molly Malone and her nine blind illegitimate children follow you so far across the face of hell that god won't be able to find you with a telescope
@ 62 - "I'm a hell of a lot closer to center in America"

Thanks for specifying "in America". And maybe you are. But that's only because there is no such thing as a "left" in America - what you call "left", the rest of the world calls "center-right". Since you spend such a huge amount of time in Italy, a country with a very active communist movement, you should know the difference, stronzo. That is, if you haven't made that whole story up.

So for you to be an actual centrist, not an imaginary one, you'd have to be way more to the left of Obama. Imagine that! But considering the distorted view of the political spectrum that Americans now have, yes, I'll grant you that, you might very well be a centrist under those terms. Not that they mean anything.

As for me, I have never been to "Cap Hill", as you say. I don't live in the States either. So you should avoid talking about my "Cap Hill freak show bubble", you just look even more stupid then usual. If that's at all possible.

And yes, I am a lefty - a real one, not an American one (see explanation above) - and extremely proud of it. And your use of the word "loonie" to describe us on the left thoroughly fails to offend me. It's rather the opposite: coming from you, it's a compliment.

Davvero, questa testa di cazzo non capisce niente.
@62: "Humorless little fella, aren't ya?"
This from the guy who freaks out and declares the end of civilization over two dudes or two chicks getting married.
And you think you're a centrist? You vehemently oppose gay marriage (about 50-55% of Americans are explicitly for it), you insist that FDR is one of the worst presidents we've had (historians unanimously put him in the top 5), you oppose labor unions (~55% of Americans support them), you oppose raising the minimum wage (~60-70% of Americans disagree), and you deny the authority of the SCOTUS to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional (dude what?). You're a fruitsy nutbar, man. I hate to break it to you, but as liberal as Seattle is, you're the one out of touch with the nation.
I'm sure if you call me "boy" a few more times it'll change how irrelevant your opinions are.
@Subhumanblues. Good God you are such a screaming Drama Queen. Get over your Santorum dripping self already.
You've made a fool of your self in this thread Subhumanblues. In part by not realizing when you fell flat on your face.
SB only believes homosexuality is a choice because he's done time and under threat of bodily harm made it. No other explanation, he made the choice to bottom to save his teeth and found Jesus in the process. Now he only kneels for God instead of general pop.