Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Appeals From 5 States

LEGAL in all states that have passed laws to allow it at this point. BANS are overturned by 'omission' from the Supreme Court. I'll put up an article as soon as I can find it 'written'!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_5938854.html

I'm betting there will be many more states that will pass bills for this. Many having awaited the first review by the SUPREME COURTs. (You don't think
a bunch of politicians weren't waiting before they DARED stick THEIR heads out?)

 

Here ya go...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...supreme-court-refuses-to-rule-on-gay-marriage


Basically, they refused to rule one way or the other. So on the down-side, there is no final ruling and things are still up in the air.

On the up-side in SEVEN new states bans will be overturned by lower courts.

 

One more step toward civil freedom.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/06/supreme-court-denies-gay-marriage-appeals/

Extremely unexpected! I guess they are waiting for a disagreement in the Appeals Courts.

 

I don't think it is that unexpected since this is a State law issue. I doubt they will take it up anytime soon after this. Next up is Obamacare, again.

 

Gay marriage has been at the Supreme Court two times so far, and they still haven't made the long awaited "This is an undeniable constitutional right for all Americans" ruling.

 

The tree is falling. Just a matter of it's "limb by limb" or one fell swoop from the USSC.

The homophobes know they're going to lose...it's just a matter of when. The GOP sees the future too.....Boehner is out raising big campaign money for an openly gay Republican candidate.

The days of pandering to the anti-gay bigots is over in the GOP (maybe some Red-Red District in Oklahoma or Utah...but not nationally). The polls are showing clear majorities favor gay marriage rights. And the lower court/appeals court rulings are going for marriage equality.

Once the GOP tells Roberts and Alito and Kennedy that "the coast is clear"....they'll make the final ruling. And the homophobes won't like it.

 

The problem is they didn't address the issue. So gay marriage is still illegal in a few states.

 

That is the part the left is missing.

It only takes 4 judges to vote yes to hear a case and if you dismiss Kennedy (who is a flip flopper) you have 4 pretty hardcore conservative judges left. If they did not take this then that must mean that they didn't like the way it was brought to the Court and may be waiting for a challenge that they could have an easier time ruling on, such as on a States Right issue.

The left leaning judges, of which there are 4 also, could have voted to hear this case but the fact they didn't tells me that they know they do not have Kennedy on their side to get a majority so they chose not to take it.

If you look at Roberts, he is addicted to high profile cases and I have no doubt he wants this case but knowing that he has the votes against gay marriage will mean that he needs the proper context in which to issue a ruling. There are still more challenges working their way up to the Court so those considering this a victory should be very, very cautious.

This actually is good news for those of us against gay-marriage. The fact that they simply ignored this (with no statements even) speaks volumes as to what is going on behind the scenes.

 

Here ya go:

 

This isn't just a left/right thing. There are a great many fiscal conservatives who have absolutely no objection to SSM.

I really do hope this doesn't become a purely partisan issues. My hope is that the judges will/should judge on the evidence and merits of the actual cases brought and whether any rational justification can be found to deny contracts to provably similarly or identically situated parties.

I'm thinking this current move paves the way for SSM in potentially 30 states. They're going to need a pretty compelling reason to overturn that freedom. So far lower court rulings that support that position have been "sparse" to put it mildly.

Don't stop believing, hold on to that feeling!

 

.....

Wisconsin's Governor Walker is not going to like this, as he works diligently for the Koch Brothers, and now they may punish him for not doing better to get gay marriage banned in Wisconsin. They already have banned everything else pertaining to sex, and so wanted a check-mate on this particular subject of gay marriage.

But it is great that now 30 states have given American citizens, specifically gays and lesbians the right to marry which is a good start in a Democracy which thrives on equality under the law. I am hoping that they will bring that certain something called inspiration to the marriage world now that they have been vindicated in their sexual preference and may show heterosexuals how marriage should be done.

Or will they simply revert to the human nature aspect of 'the 7 year itch' or just plain boredom that marriage ultimately produces for heterosexuals?

 

Moderate Republicans generally have no problem with gay marriage. It's the tea party social conservatives that are for "smaller government"'which is ironic because using the government to ban something is something that big government does.

 

You folks do realize this is a good thing for those of us who disagree with homosexual marriage right?

If the supreme court wanted to rule in favor of homosexual marriage, they would simply rule on it and this conversation would be over and we'd be having conversations about constitutional amendments instead.

But they didn't did they? Even though they had the opportunity to do so... they didn't. They have multiple examples of appeals courts stating they agree with the homosexual opinions. If the supreme court WANTED to make it legal, the supreme court could take this up and rule safely with the homosexuals and have a sizable majority in the lower courts to avoid disagreements and noisy objections. UNLESS they did NOT want to make it legal. Then they would have to rule in opposition to all of those courts with little support from appeals courts on the other side. But what did they say they're waiting for? They're waiting for the OTHER side (antihomosexual marriage) to get some support in the appeals court first. Now the only justifiable reason I see for why they would do that is if they were planning on ruling against homosexual marriage and they were waiting to get some support from the appeals courts to make the uproar a little more quiet.

This is a good thing for those of us who do not agree with homosexual marriage.

 

That goes against the principle of what the Supreme Court was created for. They are not supposed to be impartial, just the opposite in fact and that is why they are "picked" from the President and not voted in during a general election.

The idea behind their creation is that they would alter their political make-up from left to right depending on the president and would be like a pendulum constantly swinging back and forth but always passing over the middle. This changing political philosophy of the Court prevents one party control and the tyranny of the majority.

Bob Woodward (one of the best investigative journalists of our time) wrote a book about the Supreme Court and found that in almost every single case they heard, their minds were already made up before they heard the first argument. They are supposed to vote according to their ideology (their interpretation of the Constitution), not according to what any laws say or do not say.

You cannot be partisan when dispensing your views on the Constitution. You have to go with your beliefs.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly my thoughts.

- - - Updated - - -

The Tea Party, as a general community, has no opinion on gay marriage outside of some possible tax exemption status. What individual Tea Party people may feel is entirely their own beliefs and not necessarily shared by the rest of the TP community.

We are not a national organization. I have no idea what Billy Bob in Kansas thinks about gay marriage but I know that he is a fiscal conservative if he self-identifies as a Tea Party person.

 

Gay Marriage - at this point - should be state by state. Eventually, if the vast majority of states have legalized gay marriage, the Supreme Court can tie up the loose ends.

 

.................wow................really?...........??????

 

And even if the supreme court rules in favor of homosexual marriage... the fight in the courts would not be over. It would be delayed until we got some more conservative blood in the supreme court (hopefully Ginsburg can outlast Obama and when a republican gets in office he'll put in another staunch conservative). Then we would have this fight all over again.

That's the beautiful thing about judicial activism... all it takes to reverse it is more judicial activism from the other side.

- - - Updated - - -

Unquestionably. If they wanted to rule in favor of it... they would have done so.

Give me one good reason why they wouldn't.

- - - Updated - - -

Very few of the states have "legalized" gay marriage. The federal courts have.

So do you want the states to decide or the courts?

 

First Monday in October

Well, SCOTUS sits for its first arguments today and it should be interesting to see the docket and the questions.

This site has some good information on what cases are coming up and what else might happen. Read it @ http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/...an-eye-on-during-the-supreme-courts-new-term/

 

They have done the legal equivalent of kicking the can down the road. SCOTUS cannot play elephant in the room on this issue forever. It will come back to haunt them if, and more likely when, a gay couple, legally married in one state moves to a state where single sex marriage is not recognized then demands equal treatment under the law.

Sooner or later, SCOTUS will have to get it's hands dirty.

 

Keep dreaming your dream. You got one thing right-they just want to avoid controversy for now. But if you think this is a good thing your for side- well, I don't know what to tell you.

It just became legal in 5 more states today. That's not a plus for your side by any measure. And since the majority is for legal same sex marriage, that's an even bigger minus for you.

 

I do believe it should be a state issue. I agree there is something troubling about the courts just creating law. I'm ok with gay marriage, but in recent times I've felt the people of the state need to be the ones in charge of this issue because it's a highly divisive issue.

 

This is correct. 31 States have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman. That is over half the nation regardless of what the left likes to tout. If left up to the states there would be very few places that gay marriage is allowed, the majority does not want it, only the activist judges do.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the Court is waiting for this issue to come to them as a states rights issue. The conservative justices, especially Kennedy, are very, very, very strong states rights supporters.

 

In case you forgot, the supreme court has 4 staunch conservatives and 1 flippy floppy conservative who doesn't take too kindly to presidential ultimatums. A conservative in Kennedy who has a STRONG affiliation towards state rights over federal rights.

And the original question in the supreme court case, which was 5-4 BTW(all we need is conservative Kennedy to get back to his beliefs), was actually about a federal law in DOMA. The court asserted that the FEDERAL government doesn't have the right to treat those unions unequal from a regular marriage. In other words, if the people of California say that they want to allow same-sex marriage, then the federal government has to recognize that marriage. And they based the justification (especially Kennedy) on a due process issue with the Federal Government. (In other words, he was actually ruling in favor of State's rights over Fed gov rights)

But that's far different than what is being argued here. You folks are wanting the Supreme Court to rule that the STATES (and the people within them) do not have the right to discriminate against same-sex marriage. And I really hate to hurt your feelings here (actually I don't), but Kennedy will NOT vote for Federal rights over States rights.

So lets take this issue to the supreme court. I'm happy to do so.

And people vote much differently in the booth than they do when all they have to do is give a kind word in public.

I'll be HAPPY to let this end on a vote by the people. Will you?

Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

Oh really? The majority does not want it? You're talking about old amendments, and people have changed their positions since those were put in place. And as someone else pointed out to you earlier, this is no longer a left vs right issue- as you like to tout. Plenty of conservatives oars for same sex marriage. So you can;t use that left vs right talking point anymore.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

- - - Updated - - -

No- rights are not subject to popular vote, They are guaranteed by the constitution.

And you could not hurt my feelings if you tried. You're losing and you're going to keep losing. I could not care less what you think.