If and when CA's homosexual marriage battle goes to the supreme court. How would a decision in favor of the homosexuals affect the states that changed or are changing their state constitutions to ban same sex marriage? Would those states have to allow same sex marriages?
The short answer is no, barring an extremely unlikely decision by the Supreme Court to address the larger question of whether or not banning same-sex marriage is constitutional. The case has been tailored in such a narrow way that it only applies to California - the only state to have granted SSM and subsequently taken it away. The only universal application would be, if the Supreme Court hears and agrees with the 9th Circuit (which is itself rather unlikely since it would be easier to simply recognise the limited scope and refuse to hear it), that any state which has already established it can no longer rescind it (New Hampshire for example)...
The most truthful answer is that no one will know until the justices make their ruling. That said, the Supreme Court may decide not to hear this case. In the unlikely event that they do, they're probably going to focus on the underpinnings of the 9th Circuit's decision - its heavy reliance on Romer v. Evans, with an eye toward either upholding that decision or overturning it. If the Supreme Court sustains the 9th's ruling, then only California would be affected. If the Supreme Court overturns the 9th's ruling, there will be no change anywhere. The 9th Circuit was very careful in its ruling not to delve into the broader questions that would raise the issues you've inquired about. The Supreme Court would probably like to avoid these controversies as well. I don't think there's much "danger" that other states will lose the amendments they passed as a direct result of the Court examining the Prop 8 case. If the 9th's ruling is allowed to stand, it does have implications for the marriage equality states (Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, New York) and possibly the states that have civil unions, domestic partnerships, or more limited recognition of same-sex unions (Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Delaware, Rhode Island, Oregon, Nevada, Washington [soon to become a marriage equality state] Maine and Wisconsin). 16 states in all. The clear message from the 9th Circuit was that once you provide legal recognition, you can't target one group for exclusion without a rational basis. More than that, the law taking away that recognition has to take actions substantially related to achieving the goals stated as the basis for that removal. The 9th didn't just make it all up. They used a precedent from a prior case that struck down a state amendment which targeted gay people for exclusion from legal protections. The big wrinkle here is going to be whether or not the Supreme Court buys into the idea that Prop 8 targeted a class of people for a similar exclusion from protections. Or, if they'll instead buy into the idea that Prop 8 "restores" and "protects" traditional marriage with gay people's unions merely as collateral damage in achieving some greater good. The heated, decidedly anti-gay rhetoric that surrounded Prop 8's passage may just doom it in the end. Kind of hard to make the case that you're just "protecting traditional marriage" while using anti-gay stereotypes and sometimes blatant fearmongering to obtain its approval.
Or simply distinguishing Perry from Romer. The GLARING difference being that pro 8 doesnt classify people according to sexual orientation.
Such as? Bearing in mind they voted against the title of "marriage" not the rights that come with it.
Explain to me how gay couples using the term "marriage" adversely effects the families raising the children they have created. Bearing in mind once again that all the rights are identical.
Nope. It does. But "marriage" (civil) and "marriage" (religious) are two completely different things.
So you justify withholding the term 'marriage' to same sex couples purely on the basis that they don't produce children with one another. Even though between that and CA's domestic partnership law the rights are exactly the same. Seems silly to me.
Because you think the government encouraging heterosexual couples to raise their children together is silly.
Nope, silly that not being able to create biological offspring with your partner should exclude you from using the word "marriage" to describe your union which has all the rights of it anyway. Does maintaining a separate title for opposite-sex couples encourage more of them to "stay together for the kids"?
