Eventually they are going to HAVE to make a final decision on state gay marriage bans.....likely in the Michigan case coming to them. Now those "antipathetic to gay rights" are desperately hoping for a reversal of the numerous (more than a dozen now) decisions to overturn the bans....Kennedy (at least, if not even Roberts or Alito) saying "To Hell with all those lower court rulings...many by Republican judges....we're going to re-instate all the marriage bans and nullify 1000s of marriages." But given the polling, given the court decisions, given how the GOP wants the issue to "go away".....and given how guys like Kennedy, Roberts, et al (not Thomas and Scalia who are die-hard ideolouges) will begin thinking about their "place in history"....and know that a future Court WILL rule against gay marriage bans, even if it takes another 20-25 years.... I don't think they want to go down in history like the Justices who decided "Plessy v. Ferguson". And the time for a decision has come.
`It will come down to two issues Is it or is it not a State rights isse Is it or is it not constitutional
I honestly think they are waiting for the state's to do it themselves. So far many of them have. Only to rule at the end of the matter that it's a state right. But it will be over by than.
Actually, yes they can. They do have quite a bit of other issues they have to weigh on too, you know. And there is every chance they will not rule in favor of you, and leave it up to states rights. That would actually be the proper response. They really shouldn't give in to popular opinion and harassment by a pack of rabid thugs.
republicans have the majority in the SC, they will put it off as long as they can because they know the law is on the side of equality
It will only come down to one issue - whether or not it is constitutional. State powers don't extend to ignoring the Constitution.
QUOTE=Perriquine;1064470349]It will only come down to one issue - whether or not it is constitutional. State powers don't extend to ignoring the Constitution.[/QUOTE]I happen to agree, and I think that is how it will end, "BUT" if the go th other way, States rights will prevail.[
I think that's it. Even if it was a 5-4 decision against bans (with only Kennedy from the Right joining the others).....the GOP would be thrown into turmoil. (And eventually they will). If it was "worse" for those who oppose gay marriage.....6-3, even 7-2, with only Scalia and Thomas dessenting.....the Republican Party would face a riot from its Social Conservatives. They'd DEMAND that the 2016 Presidential Nominee PROMISE...PUBLICLY...that if elected, he would appoint Justices who would overturn the ruliing... thus further isolating the GOP from the mainstream of America, due to the need to pander to homophobes on the Religious Right. If Roberts, Kennedy, Alito are thinking politically...they need to make a decision FAST...get it over with, before the 2016 Presidential Primary season gets going late next year. If they try to "wait it out" ...until after the November 2016 election....it'll just mean "letting stand" lower court rulings, the number of states still having bans will be in single digits....and by the time the USSC gets to a case....they'll REALLY have no choice and look irrelevant and weak. Something else Roberts doesn't want to see. - - - Updated - - - They KNOW they've lost....a former member of NOM (National Organization for Marriage) admitted several weeks ago, the folks inside the anti-gay marriage movement LEADERSHIP... know it's a fait accompli...and it'll be legal nation-wide within a few years. It's about suckering the Social Cons for their dimes and nickels now.
Okay.... 1. I support gay marriage rights.....as do a majority of Americans now. 2. The eventual decision from the USSC will be to overturn the state marriage bans. 3. Obviously Roberts, Kennedy, probably Alito too...know the ramifications of that on the GOP and the body politic in general and have been hoping to delay that decision as long as possible. 4. This delaying action cannot last.
I can and will split hairs, here. If those opposing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages prevail in their case, it will be because the Court agrees with them and interprets the Constitution as allowing this specific exercise of state powers. My point being, there is no "states' rights" issue that is somehow separate from the issue of constitutionality. It is a matter of interpreting the Constitution to understand the scope of a state's power, and what the limitations of that power may be. To me, it's not whether "states' rights" prevail, but whether an argument concerning the scope of their power is persuasive enough to garner an interpretation of law that finds a specific exercise of power to be constitutional. "States' rights" aren't a thing, unto themselves. State powers are a matter of constitutional interpretation.
is it "gay marriage rights" ? I thought the flyer said to use the term "same-sex" If you use the term "gay" then you must be able to prove that you are gay
Okay, same-sex then. And if two straight men or two straight women want to marry, but not have sex...that's their right. Just like a man and a woman might marry but not have sex. It's unusual, but not impossible. BTW, do you have an opinion on how the US Supreme Court will eventually rule on same-sex marriage bans?
How do you think they will rule? A good indication is the fact that 3/5 "conservative" justices are denying the state-requested stays on rulings favouring marriage equality... Anyone who thinks the Supreme Court isn't poised to allow SSM in all 50 states... is tripping lol.
The court will not hear any case until next term in 2015. The docket is full for this term. Ginsberg said that the court would wait till the 6th court of appeals ruled. Now that the 6th has ruled, the justices need time to analyze the ruling and formulate their own.
Now that there's a Circuit Split, I see no practical way for them to NOT take a case in their next term. Circuit Split's pretty much demand fast action.
Back to "America cannot continue half free and half slave states." And despite the hopes of those "antipathetic to gay rights"....I don't see Kennedy, or even Roberts, wanting to go down in the history books with the "Dred Scott" Justices and re-instate all the State marriage bans that have been overturned by the lower courts.
Article 4, Section 2 (The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.) of our federal Constitution was ratified by the several States, as a rational choice of federal law should it become a rational choice in any venue.
To uphold the marriage bans, the USSC would have to do three highly unlikely things- 1. Overturn the "full faith and credit" idea....that somehow a married gay couple from Vermont moves to Texas and Texas can be allowed to not treat them as legally married. (If they don't, then all a Texas couple has to do is fly to Vermont for the weekend, get married and ...boom. They have a legal marriage in Texas so what's the difference to Texas?) 2. Overturn the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Back to Loving v. VA, if the States can treat a gay couple less fairly than a straight couple....it would violate the 14th Amendment. 3. Overturn now a dozen-plus lower court rulings, many from Republican-nominated judges. While upholding the one or two that upheld the bans.
