It's like when networks do themes: It gay marriage week in the Supreme Court

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,635
27,395
898
Seattle
#1
Supreme Court gay marriage cases could set stage for dramatic societal changes

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News

The Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in two cases that have the potential to transform American society and the status of gays and lesbians in it.

In oral arguments on Tuesday morning the 9 justices will consider whether California’s voter approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 8, unfairly discriminates against gay people. On Wednesday, they’ll consider whether the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act barring the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even in states that allow them, constitutes federal overreach.

Both cases could change the everyday lives of gay people and transform the larger, decades old gay rights movement, which has pursued both a court-based and political strategy to gain more legal protections for gay people. But the California Prop 8 case in particular, called Perry v. Hollingsworth, is considered by both pro and anti-gay marriage camps to be the most important, and potentially sweeping, of the two.

In Perry, there's a possibility that the court could declare that gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage just as heterosexual couples do. Such a decision would send a message from the court that both same sex and heterosexual relationships must be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

“There aren’t many Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to be as transformative,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law.

If the court finds a right to marriage for gay people, Chermerinsky said, “it will matter enormously in the lives of millions of gays and lesbians in terms of their ability to marry and it also would be a very profound statement of the court that gays and lesbians are subject to equal protection under the law.”

John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and the chairman for the anti-gay marriage group the National Organization for Marriage, also sees the potential for big, but negative, changes should the court decide to invalidate Prop 8. He says a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage will "forever sever the ties between marriage and children" and discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.

“It's hard to imagine a more compelling interest than the survival of the species," Eastman said of why the government should be able to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. "We would survive in a way, but without the institution of marriage...you commodify children when you take away the intimate family structure.”

Just 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tersely refused to hear a case brought by a gay couple who wanted to get married in Minnesota, writing that that their claim raised no significant legal issue. At the time, legal opinions often treated homosexuality as criminal, sexually deviant behavior rather than involuntary sexual orientation.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the current court's conservative-leaning swing vote, departed from that tone when he wrote the 2002 Lawrence v. Texas opinion striking down state sodomy laws. Gay people have a right to privacy in their own homes to practice whatever consensual sexual behavior they wish, Kennedy wrote, in a decision that substantially expanded gay rights in the U.S.

Advocates hope that decision may mean Kennedy will side with them on marriage this time around.

No one knows how broadly the justices will rule, but the fact that they voted to take both the DOMA and Prop 8 cases at once signals that at least some of the justices may want to settle the question once and for all, by either affirming gay couples’ right to wed or shutting down entirely their constitutional claim to marriage.

California voters passed Prop 8 in 2008, after thousands of same-sex couples had already tied the knot under a state Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, it will be a victory for the traditional marriage movement and will further cement the dozens of state voter-approved gay marriage bans that have passed in the last decade.

Many courtwatchers believe Kennedy and the four liberal justices will band together to take an incremental step that affirms gay marriage only in California or just a handful of states without going so far as to strike down the laws in 41 states that ban same-sex marriage. Such a sweeping move could spark a backlash, and seems unlikely since the justices have several other options open to them.

More modest legal options include striking down Prop 8 on narrow grounds that only affect California or striking down Prop 8 in a way that only affects the eight states, including California, that allow civil unions but not gay marriage. That "eight state" argument is advanced by the Obama administration, which argued in its brief to the Supreme Court that a state has no legitimate interest in offering gay couples all the benefits of marriage in a civil union but withholding the title of marriage.

The justices could also rule that the supporters of Prop 8 don’t have the legal right, or standing, to appeal the lower courts’ decision striking down Prop 8, which would make gay marriage legal in California by default. (The defenders of Prop 8 must prove to the justices that they will suffer a direct injury if the gay marriage ban is struck down in order to have standing to appeal the case to the Supreme Court.)

Loyola Law Professor Doug NeJaime said he thinks a limited ruling from the court is most likely.

“Things are accelerating so quickly that it seems like it’s an opportune moment for the court to just be nudging that movement forward rather than making a really decisive move,” NeJaime said, pointing to public opinion polls that show a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. “Instead they would just be allowing that momentum to continue.”

The strength of the message sent by the court on gay rights also depends on the language of the opinion. Theoretically, the justices could strike down Prop 8 without even mentioning gays and lesbians’ rights as a class or substantially addressing their claims that they are being unfairly excluded from the institution of marriage.

If the justices decide the supporters of Prop 8 don’t have the legal standing to appeal the lower courts’ decision striking down the ban, they could avoid the controversial issue of same-sex marriage altogether in their opinion.

But even that sort of decision would have a big impact, as gay couples in California—the most populous state in the country—would be allowed to wed. The court would have also decided its first gay marriage case in a way that affirmed gay rights, however narrowly, which would encourage gay rights advocates to continue trying to pass gay marriage on the local level.

“In the specific it would allow them to get married,” Chemerinsky said of a decision that struck down Prop. 8. “In the more abstract it would say no longer are they regarded by the law as a deviant. They’re regarded as equal human beings under the law. “
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...1lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QDVGVzdF9BRkM-;_ylv=3

Anyone wanna make any bets? Will the SC do the right thing or will the gays get fucked in the ass again? (pun completely intended)
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#2
Just for the sake of betting - Prop 8 upheld 5 to 4 and DOMA struck down 5 to 4.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#3
Ooooh. There's a pool? I'll take the 6-3 square. I've also got Roberts on my fantasy league this year. Both Prop 8 and DOMA struck down.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#4
Ooooh. There's a pool? I'll take the 6-3 square. I've also got Roberts on my fantasy league this year. Both Prop 8 and DOMA struck down.
Yeah, Roberts could fuck up my picks for sure but it wouldn't that still mean that both are struck down 5-4 (In my initial scenario Roberts was included in my 5-4 majority of striking down DOMA)? Who else do you have crossing?
 
Jun 14, 2004
645
10
313
#5
My bet:
DOMA struck down 6-3 with Roberts & Kennedy joining the good guys.
Prop 8 struck down 5-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote.

Scalia goes ape shit.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#6
Yeah, Roberts could fuck up my picks for sure but it wouldn't that still mean that both are struck down 5-4 (In my initial scenario Roberts was included in my 5-4 majority of striking down DOMA)? Who else do you have crossing?
Kennedy. Along with Kagan, Soto, Ginny and Breyer.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#7
Alito might join too. 7-2? I'd have to see the exact issues at hand. It might even be 9-0, depending on how the case is worded.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#9
Alito might join too. 7-2? I'd have to see the exact issues at hand. It might even be 9-0, depending on how the case is worded.
Yeah, although I still think Roberts upholding individual mandate was a bunch of bullfuck.
 

Neon

ネオン
Donator
Mar 23, 2008
51,803
18,538
513
Kingdom of Charis
#11
Making it a tax was an easy way to get it repealed. Not his fault congress didn't do it.
But even he acknowledged that they were basically doing that with some loophole. I think sometimes the important thing is the end result, not what name it is called on paper. That to me was an overly academic and not enough realistic decision.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,011
2,981
258
Sunnydale
#12
When progressives are in the majority, or they think they are, they cry for democracy and mob rule. When they are in the minority, they run back to the republic and cry for rights of the minority. I'm sure the court will side with the gays, 99% chance.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,162
12,930
373
Atlanta, GA
#14
The anti-same sex marriage crowd has no compelling legal arguments in their favor. However, there's not a guarantee that SCOTUS strikes down Prop. 8 or DOMA.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,419
22,050
398
Northern California
#15
DOMA is almost definitely gone because it's federal, Prop 8 should be knocked out but may not under states' rights, and if it stands that will set a precedent that will make it very difficult for universal gay marriage in the US.

It's fucking ridiculous to me that this had to go to the Supreme Court. The government should have absolutely no influence on marriage beyond mitigating marital contract disputes.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,162
12,930
373
Atlanta, GA
#16
DOMA is almost definitely gone because it's federal, Prop 8 should be knocked out but may not under states' rights,
If DOMA is struck down as unconstituinal, Prop. 8 is no longer a state's rights and will be struck down along with it (or should be, at least).
and if it stands that will set a precedent that will make it very difficult for universal gay marriage in the US.
If it stands, it will set the precedent that constitutional rights can be violated by state laws. Constitutional rights would effectively cease to exist if that decision were to be subsequently upheld.
It's fucking ridiculous to me that this had to go to the Supreme Court. The government should have absolutely no influence on marriage beyond mitigating marital contract disputes.
Exactly.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#17
DOMA is almost definitely gone because it's federal, Prop 8 should be knocked out but may not under states' rights, and if it stands that will set a precedent that will make it very difficult for universal gay marriage in the US.

It's fucking ridiculous to me that this had to go to the Supreme Court. The government should have absolutely no influence on marriage beyond mitigating marital contract disputes.
Sandy Kane made it to the Second Circuit. It's not unusual that this would make SCOTUS.
 
Jun 14, 2004
645
10
313
#18
The government should have absolutely no influence on marriage beyond mitigating marital contract disputes.
but then dont DOMA and prop 8 infringe on the right contract in the first place?
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,838
5,670
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#20
I'm betting they try to stay out of the issue entirely, and just declare the Prop 8 supporters have no legal standing to appeal the case. That way, the California gays (band name!) still get to marry, and they effectively make gay marriage a state-level issue.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#21
I'm betting they try to stay out of the issue entirely, and just declare the Prop 8 supporters have no legal standing to appeal the case. That way, the California gays (band name!) still get to marry, and they effectively make gay marriage a state-level issue.
They'd have to overturn DOMA for that to happen. Knowing this court, it'll be a compromise. DOMA stricken down and Prop 8 upheld.
 

Lord Zero

Viciously Silly
Aug 25, 2008
54,162
12,930
373
Atlanta, GA
#22
DOMA stricken down and Prop 8 upheld.
Again, if that's the line they take, then they'd be setting the precedent that the Bill of Rights stops at the state line. From there, they could use that precedent to uphold state gun control measures. The social conservatives may end up handing the gun grabbers the tools to bring about their own decisive legal defeat.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#23
Again, if that's the line they take, then they'd be setting the precedent that the Bill of Rights stops at the state line. From there, they could use that precedent to uphold state gun control measures.
They have already. Still say they void DOMA and Prop 8.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#24
Again, if that's the line they take, then they'd be setting the precedent that the Bill of Rights stops at the state line. From there, they could use that precedent to uphold state gun control measures. The social conservatives may end up handing the gun grabbers the tools to bring about their own decisive legal defeat.
That doesn't even make sense.